presented a petition from the Mayor, Jurats and Commonalty, householders, and inhabitants of the town and hundred of Tenterden, Kent praying for the reduction of taxation. A more important petition he observed, had not been presented for some time to the House. He said this in consideration of the place from whence it came—a part of the county of Kent, which had recently been the scene of very unpleasant transactions, and in consideration of the feelings which had dictated it, the almost desperate situation of the inhabitants of that part of the country having called forth the petition. With the leave of the House he would read it, which the hon. Member did as follows:

"That the agricultural interest has for many years past been in so depressed a condition, that farmers have not been enabled to afford to pay their labourers at the usual rate of remuneration for their work, and that thereby many industrious labouring men have become burthens to their parishes, and in many places been reduced to privation and distress. That your petitioners are desirous of calling the attention of your honourable House to the subject, that the distress is daily increasing; and they, therefore, most humbly intreat your honourable House to institute an inquiry into the causes of the present agricultural distress. Your petitioners further take leave respectfully to suggest, that the great burthen on landholders may, in some measure, be removed, by lowering the rate of tithes. Your petitioners further entreat, your earnest endeavours towards effecting a reform in the Members of your honourable House, also a reduction of the taxes. That your petitioners are impressed with a lively sense of the sacrifice which his most gracious Majesty has recently made to the wants and distresses of his people—an example which your petitioners consider well worthy of imitation. That your petitioners beg to assure your honourable House of their loyalty to his Majesty and his most gracious Consort."

This was the prayer of a Corporation that he had known for upwards of forty years to have been distinguished by almost invariable professions and principles of attachment to what were called Ministerial principles. He was convinced, that a very few years ago this petition would not have received one of the numerous signatures which were now attached to it. He remembered that town when it was one of the most flourishing and wealthy in the whole county, and at present it was involved in the deepest distress. He stated the plain fact which, he trusted, would be credited on his assertion. At the head of this petition was the signature of a person whose loyalty had never been exceeded, even by that of any hon. Member of that House; but he, in common with all his neighbours, was so strongly impressed with the necessity of a reform, and of something being done to alleviate the distress, that he had willingly signed the petition. He believed, indeed, that the distress complained of in the petition existed everywhere. The impression in this district on the mind of the landholder was, that having heavy poor-rates to pay, and heavy taxes of one sort or another, he could not pay his workmen as he otherwise would. That was the situation of the people about the place from whence this petition came. He had lived in Kent for some time, and he knew that the distress in that county at present was not exceeded in any part of Europe. Though the labourer might be receiving in some cases 12s. a week for his work, he was in a very different situation from that in which he had known him to be. He recollected him in a state of perfect independence, when an able-bodied man who was willing to work, never wanted employment; and when he was able to live comfortably without asking relief from anybody. How was it now? A man with 12s. a week at the very utmost, and a wife and family to support, must come upon the parish. It was quite clear, unless some reduction in tax- ation took place, some relief was afforded, comfort and tranquillity could never be restored; and agriculture could never return to its former state. He would not ask the right hon. Secretary of State whether he really believed in the existence of the distress, and in its gradual increase; he was perfectly sure that every man of common understanding was aware of that fact. For fifteen years he would venture. to say, the country had been gradually getting into a worse condition, and it was now reduced to such a state, that unless measures of the most prompt and effectual description were resorted to, it would be utterly impossible to foretell the consequences. If a very great retrenchment were not made, and very shortly, the tranquillity of England would be put to hazard. Under these circumstances, he looked forward with the utmost anxiety to the plan of Ministers, for he was quite certain that the prosperity of the country would be compromised for many years if large retrenchment and large reform were not conceded to the people.

said:—I have been requested by the Very Rev. Dean of Chester to make a communication of some importance to the House. In doing so, I think it right to state, that I have no intimate acquaintance with that reverend personage; but from what I know of his character, I have considered it due to him to accede to his request. The rev. gentleman says, in a letter which he has addressed to me, that he should esteem it a very great favour if I would state in the House of Commons this evening, that he earnestly requests hon. Members will suspend their judgments upon the question which is to be brought forward about him on the 18th, until they have heard those statements which he ventures to hope will be found satisfactory to the House. In the mean time, he trusts that those ex parte allegations which have appeared in the newspapers and elsewhere, and to which it must be evident that he cannot reply, will not be allowed to bias the judgments of those who have to pronounce upon the case. For my own part, I have no hesitation in calling upon the House to do this,—namely, to suspend their judgments. This is all I ask of the House, for I am not acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall certainly exercise my judgment upon the merits of it, when the statements to which the reverend gentleman refers shall be brought forward.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Statute 7 George 4th, cap. 29, commonly called the Subletting Act. He pursued this course because he was convinced that, if there were anything objectionable in the Act—and it was admitted on all hands that there was— it would be better to bring in a new Statute at once, than to attempt to patch up the old one. This Statute was the law in Ireland, but it was not the law in England, and he thought he had a right to have a case made out why the law of landlord and tenant should be different in the two countries. This Act had two objects in view, and it might be, for convenience—nay, it ought to be, for convenience,—-divided into two Statutes. The first part of the Act related to existing leases and contracts; the second, to leases and contracts to be hereafter made. The first part of the Act altered the nature of contracts then subsisting, by giving a literal meaning to the words of contracts; whereas a legal meaning, which was a different meaning, attached to those words before. This was an unjust, because an ex post facto law, and the object of it was to strike out of contracts a qualification which was advantageous to the tenants. He knew that some Gentlemen had said that they liked the principle of this Act, though they objected to the details of it. Could any one say, that he liked the principle of this part of the Act—the dishonest principle of an ex post facto law, which violated existing engagements? The second part of the Statute, he admitted, was purely prospective, and that was a legitimate mode of legislating, which the other was not. This part of the Act prohibited the subletting of lands in Ireland, except in three cases. The excepted cases, were, first, lands held on leases for lives renewable for ever; secondly, lands held on a term of ninety-nine years; thirdly, all lands be-longing to the Church. With these three exceptions, the Act operated universally. Why, he should like to know, was the law to interfere between the landlord and the tenant? Why not allow the landlord and the tenant to make what contracts they pleased between themselves? This Act had taken away the freedom of the only trade they had in Ireland,—namely, the trade in land. He might be told, that the Act did not do this in words. He admitted this, but such was, in fact, the operation of the Act. It said, that the landlord should no longer distrain upon the under-tenant, and of course no landlord would consent to lose the remedy of distraining upon the occupied land. The question, after all, came to this—ought the law to interfere between landlord and tenant? He thought not. But it was said that this law was good, because it would enable land-owners to clear their estates. This was the argument of heartless and unfeeling men, who thought it better to support upon an estate a great many beasts, and very few human beings, than a large population. However, let it be understood, that in applying for the repeal of this Act, he did not propose to take away from the landlord the right of clearing his estate. That right would remain with the landlord still, who could exercise it, if he thought proper, in its fullest extent; only it was not, he contended, the part of a considerate and humane Government to make itself the auxiliary of the landlord, to compel him to clear his estate, and thus to take away from the landlord the reproach of inhumanity and hard-heartedness. He was free to confess, that he did not believe this Act to have been an act of the Government. He looked upon it as originating in some political left-handed intrigue of heartless men. From the period of the Union until the present, all the Statutes enacted by the Legislature had had for their object the oppression of the peasantry, and the giving advantages to the landlord. The Statutes which enabled the landlord to distrain growing crops, and which conferred upon him the power of ejecting a tenant at an extremely small expense, were of this description, and had been among the main causes of the evils of the poor in Ireland, and consequently, of the disturbances which had unfortunately taken place in that country. The Statutes first enabled the landlord to ruin his tenant, and then to turn him out cheaply. He might be told, that this Act was made for the purpose of creating large farms, and then there might be repeated to him long dissertations upon the beneficial effects of large farms. If to cause universal mendicity among the pea- santry was to produce a beneficial effect, then, indeed, there would be some truth in these dissertations, and some sense in the pages of evidence which unfeeling men had given in favour of cultivating sheep and cattle instead of human beings. While he was upon this subject, let him mention an act which it gave him the greatest satisfaction to record. So great had been the increase of beggars, that the Mendicity Association of Dublin must have closed its doors if the Duke of Northumberland had not presented it with a donation of 1,000l. He meant a donation not out of the public money, but out of his Grace's private purse. He could state further, that after that sum of 4,000l. was exhausted, the Association had been kept going by the private contributions of a member of his Grace's family—a female, whose name he would not, of course, mention. He knew these facts to be as he had stated them. But to return to this Statute, of which, he repeated, the effect had been, to increase mendicity to an alarming extent, it was a political economy measure, not a Government Act. Its professed object was, to create large farms, and this, the political economist said, was a great good. He would meet these Gentlemen upon the fact—the Act had not created large farms. It prevented labourers being employed, for if the landlord gave the labourer a holding, the labourer might keep it. Unless, therefore, in the neighbourhood of lands excepted from the operation of the Act, no large farms could exist, because the owners would not risk the employment of the number of labourers necessary to cultivate them. To the operation of this Act was to be traced the erroneous notion that there was a superabundance of labour in Ireland. There was no natural superabundance of labour in that country; the superabundance of labour was artificial, and caused by bad laws and bad government. If such a state of things were allowed to continue, he apprehended—however dangerous the admission might appear—a servile war in Ireland of the worst description. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in his Bill.

recommended a medium course on this occasion. The law required amendment, but he was against its total repeal. He approved of its principle but some of its details required revision. He conceived that much of the excitement that prevailed in Ireland would be allayed, if this law were not to operate upon leases made prior to its enactment; and it appeared to him, that it was better that the landlord should suffer from the imperfect wording of the old law, than that the tenant should suffer from the ex post facto operation of a new law. So far he agreed with the hon. and learned member for Waterford; he wished also to add, that all lands and tenements situated in towns, ought to be exempted from the operation of the Act. That part of the Act which related to devises should undoubtedly be repealed, and if these points were attended to, he conceived there would be no further objection to which the law could be justly obnoxious. In principle, this Act was perfectly equitable both as regarded landlord and tenant. In the Act itself, he saw little grounds for the clamour which had been raised against it. It. had been described as an act to facilitate the depopulation of Irish estates, a character it by no means deserved. It warned the tenant that he should receive no benefit from the infringement of his contracts, and it did nothing more than enforce the observance of contracts on both the landlord and tenant. The landlord always had a right to eject his tenant if he thought fit, and the alteration made in the law by this Act was beneficial not injurious to the tenant. It certainly prevented subletting, but that was very beneficial, and he had seen many instances of great advantages resulting from the occupier holding directly of the owner of the soil. The system of infinite and complicated distresses in Ireland, arising out of the subdivision of lands, bad been productive of misery, injustice, and outrage, and yet they were called upon to-night to repeal an Act which was framed to put an end to the recurrence of such monstrous evils. If the Subletting Act afforded to the landlords security against fraud; on the part of the tenants, it afforded to the tenants a defence against injustice and extortion.

observed, that the principle of this Act was the protection of the landlord against the frauds of his tenantry, and in his opinion no one had a right to interfere with a landlord in the distribution of his property. This Act enabled landlords to deal with their land, in a manner most advantageous for all parties. He maintained, that the great misery of the tenants was occasioned by the middle-men, who threw all the blame of their own fault on the landlords. He must beg leave of the House to take that opportunity of defending his noble relative (Lord Beresford) and his agent, from the attacks made upon them out of doors by the learned Member opposite.

rose and said, that he could not well agree to the hon. Gentleman's replying to what he had said out of doors, unless he was to be allowed to satisfy the House of the authority upon which he had made his statement.

said, that he could not yield to the learned Gentleman's proposition, and must beg leave of the House to proceed in his statement. [Here the hon. Member read several observations that had been made upon the agent of Lord Beresford by Mr. O'Connell. The substance of them was, that Lord Beresford and his agent had hunted poor people out of their tenements, and had turned their ' holdings' into pasture lands for four-footed animals, to be shipped to England to support his Lordship in greater luxury whilst he was an absentee] He (Colonel Beresford) had authority to deny every particle of that charge. What Lord Beresford's agent had done had been at his own loss. He had let the lands to tenants without distinction of religious or political opinions. His farms averaged from forty to sixty-acres each. Dr. Doyle had borne testimony to the good conduct of this agent; and he could say, that there was not a tenant about to leave the estate who was not two years' rent in arrear.

thought that, standing in his situation, it might be desirable for him to express his sentiments on this law, and in doing so, he could assure the House that he had no other wish than to assimilate, as much as possible, the laws of property in the two countries. It was well known that he had never spared any toil or trouble in his efforts to extend the beneficial laws of England to Ireland. He might advert to one proof—his extension of the Contempt Act to Ireland. He always had felt; and he now entertained the same favourable feelings towards every measure that could tend to the benefitting of Ireland. The hon. and learned member for Waterford must be convinced, even from the full attendance of Members on this occasion, that the House participated in these feelings; and if that hon. Member could make out that the law in its present state really oppressed Ireland, he would be one of the first to exert himself in modifying or changing it. The law appeared to depend upon its general principle, and upon its particular provisions. The learned member for Waterford had taken this arrangement in discussing the measure. In addressing himself to the principal provisions of the law, he had omitted, though he well knew the fact, that it was not, and never had been, the intention of Government to continue the provisions of the law as they now stood. Ministers were desirous of softening the provisions of the law, and to adapt them to those exigencies which could alone justify the continuance of the law at all. He would acknowledge that Government was responsible for continuing the law and that they ought to repeal it if it pressed upon the Irish people. The law, he thought, was founded upon public utility, and nothing but public utility would make him maintain a law which introduced an anomaly into the system of the two countries. But still he must deny that this had ever been a Government measure. The Bill had been proposed and framed by gentlemen of Ireland, who had as much the interest of their country at heart as the hon. and learned member for Waterford; for, whatever were the high pretensions and merits of that hon. Member, he could not possibly wish to be thought of more integrity or benevolence, or to have a greater love towards his country, than those gentlemen of Ireland who had thought, and still did think, well of this law. He (the Solicitor General) always found himself in opposition to the learned member for Waterford, but yet he had never entered into any discussions with him under the influence of personal feelings; and after what had occurred that evening he hoped to witness no more personalities; they would be totally unjustifiable unless new provocations were given, and if provocations were given, he trusted that the House would strongly express its feelings against either party using them. The principle of the Bill was, to prevent the introducing of tenants new to the landlord, and in opposition to his interests, and to the meaning of the lease he had given. He declared he was utterly incapable of conceiving how any question on the words of this law could have arisen, or how it could have the operation assigned to it by the hon. and learned member for Waterford. In the first part of that hon. Gentleman's speech he had said, that the law caused the evils he complained of; but it was utterly impossible that the law should cause any evils of the sort. The law could not turn any man out of that in which he had been in possession when the law was passed. The hon. and learned Member had asked, if persons were removed from an estate, or turned out of possession, where were they to go to? This was a question of a different nature, but there could be no difficulty in answering it. If the Church property, and property held for ninety-nine years, bore such a large proportion to the land of Ireland as the hon. Member asserted, let the people go there. The hon. and learned Member had stated that the first clause of the Act had been construed to have an ex post facto effect. His opinion was totally different on the subject. It had not an ex post facto effect, as all waivers were spoken of as prospective. This was the intention of the Legislature, and the Act had been introduced for this purpose. If there were any ambiguity upon this point, the Government would remove it. Upon the next clause the learned Gentleman had said that a future release would not enable the tenant to alienate, unless the lease expressly gave the power to do so. If this were the case, it was obvious that the effect of the law was only to put the Irish tenant on his guard, and to make him careful to stipulate for the power to sublet. Next the learned Gentleman had said, that the Legislature had taken it out of the power of the landlord to give his consent. It had done no such thing. But the landlord could not distrain if he gave his consent. It ought to be known to all England and Ireland, that this part of the law was one of the greatest boons ever given to a tenantry. If the tenant paid the rent, neither the immediate nor the superior landlord could distrain, and this removed the evil of the middle men. The hon. and learned member for Waterford, appeared to complain, that the expense by which a landlord could eject a tenant, had been reduced by the Subletting Act from 17l. 2s. 6d. to 1l. 2s. 6d., and that the process of dispossession was in this manner rendered more easy to the landlord. But had not landlords rights to be protected as well as tenants? and did the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to enable the latter to set the former at defiance? If the hon. and learned Gentleman were to run the landlord's expense of ejectment up to a large sum—be it 17l. or 70l. or 7001. or 7,000l.— then the landlord's remedy would be destroyed—in point of fact, the tenant would become the landlord, his protection against dispossession being rendered complete. How inconsistent was the hon. and learned Gentleman, who professed a wish to afford cheap law in England at the door of every man's cottage, but was at the same time adverse to the extension of the same principle in Ireland to the landlord. It was the hon. and learned Member who wished for unequal law, and it was he (the Solicitor General) who was friendly to equal laws. Although he would not consent to abandon the right of the landlord, yet would he not sacrifice the poorest and humblest tenant to the most powerful landlord in the country. Equal law, equally administered to rich and poor, was what he wished to promote. Let the poor know that the law was alike accessible to all— that they had rights as well ascertained as those of the greatest landlords—that there would be a fair distribution of privileges among the different classes of society;— let this be the case and let it be universally known, and he felt certain that much dissatisfaction would be removed.

complained, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, so far from proposing any Amendment of the Subletting Act, had denominated that measure a boon to the Irish peasantry. He (Mr. Grattan) did not contemplate it in that light, and if the question came to a division (which he rather deprecated), he should certainly support the motion of the hon. and learned member for Waterford. Without going the length of condemning the act in toto, he must be allowed to assert that it required amendment. He believed such to be the conviction of all who had impartially watched its operation. Earl Fitz- William's agent in Wicklow, Mr. Challoner (a gentleman, by the way, who had never turned two tenants off his Lordship's estates), told him (Mr. Grattan) that great difficulties had been experienced under the act, and his own experience fully justified the statement The question was, could a landlord let a farm to a middle-man under this act, and oblige him to turn out the under-tenants—or could he let it to the middle-man, with liberty to sub-let, depriving himself of all remedy against the sub-tenants? Here was one of the main difficulties of the case. He believed that a recurrence to high prices would again produce sub-letting, which the bill was framed to prevent. Since 1823, however, in consequence of the fall of prices, it had been the object of landlords to weed out the sub-tenants from their farms, and he thought it was injudicious to pass an act in 1826, the act in question, which accelerated and aggravated the operation. The disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders had been attended with similar consequences. That strengthened the motives which landlords had for diminishing the number of their tenants, and had deprived a vast portion of the population of subsistence. He was for taking away from the middle-man the power of distress, and would let. that power rest in the hands of the head landlord, a course which he considered preferable to that authorized by the present law. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman expressed his anxious desire that the subject should be set at rest, and the defects of the existing system as far as possible remedied by an amended bill.

thought that it was hardly proper on the present occasion to enter into the details of the bill, for if the House should determine with the hon. member for Waterford against the principle of the measure, it would be unnecessary to discuss the details; and if the House should decide differently, the proper time for discussing them would be when a measure similar to that he had introduced last year, should be introduced by his right hon. and gallant colleague, the present Secretary for Ireland. The reason why he had proposed to amend the bill last Session was to be found in the existence of doubts and ambiguity as to the meaning and effect of the existing law. These doubts he had attempted to remove by a measure which he believed his right hon. colleague intended shortly to revive. One object of any law like the present should be, to enable landlords and tenants mutually to make contracts and enforce them, and no object could be more important. Of course, if the act failed in accomplishing this object, it was useless. He thought there was one evil attaching to the act for which none of them were answerable—the act had been passed fifty years too late; and while, by the lapse of time, it had become more wanted, it, unfortunately, was less efficacious.

begged leave to state, that it was his intention to-morrow to move for leave to bring in a bill to explain and amend the statute 7 Geo. 4. c. 29., commonly called the sub-letting act. His measure would resemble, as nearly as possible, the bill introduced by his hon. friend (Lord F. L. Gower) last year. A question had been raised as to whether if a lease did not contain a contract against subletting the tenant should be supposed to have violated his agreement by underletting, a part of his holding. As the law stood, if the tenant under-let, even although there was no clause in his lease against sub-letting, he was held to have violated his contract. This was the case in Ireland, but it was not the law in England. Was it fair that such a distinction should exist? Generally speaking, a tenant was less instructed than his landlord, who had more power and information to enforce his wishes, and should specify them. It would be for the House to remedy the defect in the existing law if it should think proper. It would be extremely desirable that individuals ejected by the present law should be enabled to find employment and subsistence elsewhere, and not be encouraged to flock into towns, where they presented objects of distress and misery. It was possible when the result of the committee on the state of the poor in Ireland came before the House, that means might be discovered of employing the industrious classes, or affording relief by emigration and other measures. The hon. member for Water-ford was in the habit when in Ireland of attributing all the evils that afflicted the country to the sub-letting act. He was glad that the hon. Member did not attempt to press the point in that manner in the House. If he had he could have been immediately refuted. In the report of the committee of which the hon. member for Limerick was chairman, to inquire into the propriety of giving poor-laws to Ire-land, it was distinctly stated by Dr. Doyle and others, that it was not to the sub-letting act that the miseries of the peasantry were to be attributed. He would beg leave to quote a brief passage of the report: "After the peace, the great decline of agricultural produce prevented many of the middle-men from paying their rents, and a general impression was produced in the minds of all persons that a pauper population spread over the country would go on increasing, and the value of the land, at the same time, diminishing, till the produce would become insufficient to maintain the resident population. The evils became so obvious," continues Dr. Doyle, "that the proprietors thought some remedy ought to be applied; and they did accordingly apply remedies, of the principle of which I highly approve." For his own part he was of opinion that the principle of the sub-letting act was a most useful one for Ireland. The difficulty was, what to do with the individuals who might be ousted under the act. For this difficulty he trusted a remedy might be provided. It afforded him great pleasure to be able to say, that Ireland was in a state of improvement—that commerce and steam navigation were gradually operating to ameliorate the condition of the people, who were better clad than formerly—that more wheaten bread was consumed—and that crime had diminished. There was the best evidence to show, that Ireland was in a progressive state—indeed, that she was advancing faster than Scotland, or even England at former periods. With respect to the motion of the hon. member for Waterford, (to which he could not of course assent), he entertained no doubt that many of his objections would be obviated in the committee upon the bill, which he should ask leave to introduce to-morrow.

had heard with pleasure the intention expressed by the right hon. and gallant Secretary to introduce a measure for the amendment of an act which, whatever were its merits, or demerits, had produced a vast deal of dissatisfaction in Ireland. He would not go into the legal question involved in the bill, but as a representative of an Irish county, and being sensible how much the sub-letting act affected the agricultural population of Ireland, he felt, that he should be guilty of a dereliction of his duty if he did not express his opinion on the subject. The whole of the discussion appeared to be simply this—whether the old bill should be amended as proposed by the right hon. Secretary, or whether it should be thrown aside and a new bill substituted, in accordance with the motion of the hon. member for Waterford. As he was for simplicity in legislation, he felt disposed to follow the second plan. It having been assumed or ascertained that great inconvenience was experienced in Ireland from the minute sub-division of land, the sub-letting act was adopted—a bill which could not be carried into effect without the expulsion of a part of the population from their holdings. Sure he was, that the measure was not adopted, as had been injudiciously and falsely said, for the purpose of giving power to one class of citizens over another, not to arm landlords against tenants; the Legislature had in view to check the growth of the superabundant population of the country—superabundant in reference to the resources of the State that were brought into action. The question with every good government was, how best to raise the amount of capital in due proportion with the amount of population; and if a government were wise and powerful, and identified with the interests of the people, it would not be long till it discovered the means of effecting this object: but if a government were imbecile, dishonest, and disposed to palter with the happiness of the nation, it would more easily find means to reduce population to the level of capital than, to raise the latter in proportion to the growth of population. He did not say that such was the object of the sub-letting act. The object of that act was to prevent the minute sub-division of land. Now he was not one of those who praised small or large farms abstractedly considered: the advantage of small or large farms depended upon various considerations. The present law saw in the middle-man principally the cause of all the disasters of Ireland. But the middleman was not always mischievous. Ireland was at one period in a situation to require middle-men. She was in the situation of a conquered country, with absentee proprietors, and gladly availed herself of a class of men to take their places. The middle-man of that day constituted the only link between the two orders of the State—almost the only link between the two countries. But another class of middle-men was generated by the high war-price of corn, and the result was too great a division of land in Ireland, and too high a price for land. When the war ceased, prices fell, and the alteration from a state of war with high prices, to a state of peace with low prices, was accompanied by great inconveniences. A similar effect was produced in Scotland after the Union, according to Fletcher of Saltoun, in England in the reigns of James and Elizabeth, and might be now observed in Westphalia. He did not maintain that the sub-letting act had produced all the evil, but he was of opinion that it had caused a considerable part of it, especially as no reservoir was provided for the people ejected in consequence of it. The evil, however occasioned, still stared the Legislature in the face, and would continue to do so till some effectual means of amelioration were adopted. He strongly recommended the right hon. and gallant Secretary not to bring in the bill of which he had given notice unaccompanied by some of the other great measures of amelioration to which he had alluded. As to emigration, he did not approve of it as a remedial measure. He did not like to send away a portion of our population which, judiciously treated at home, might add to instead of diminishing our resources. He did not like to dismiss them to some distant colony, where they might eventually turn and sting us, as was the case with America, He disapproved of sending away the flower of our population—the muscle and mind of the whole—leaving behind the lees and dregs of the lower orders of the community. If asked for his remedial measures, he answered, he would remove the impediments of commerce—for instance, he would set free the coal trade, he would break down all monopolies, whether of grand juries or corporations, which would give an impulse to industry and enterprise, and that he would enforce by loans and other salutary means.

thought that the Subletting Act tended to prevent the improvement of waste lands in Ireland; because in cases where large portions of bog and other waste land were held by an individual, the immediate tenant was restricted from underletting parts of those wastes to persons who, if they could obtain posses- sion of them in moderate quantities, would undertake to reclaim them. He therefore thought the present Act injurious in its effects, however good were the intentions of its framers. He should be happy to give his assistance to the right hon. Secretary for Ireland in his endeavours to amend the bill, provided the motion of the hon. and learned member for Waterford were lost, though, in the first instance, he should certainly vote for that.

said, he should vote against the motion of the hon. member for Water-ford, not that he approved of the Subletting Act, which, he must say, was very unpopular in Ireland, but because, after the statement of the right hon. Secretary, he thought it his duty to wait for the amended bill.

expressed his satisfaction at what had been said by the Secretary for Ireland, of his intention to introduce a bill to amend this Act, which had already produced so much mischief; but, at the same time as he highly disapproved of the Subletting Act, which was a restriction both on landlords and tenants, he would vote for the motion of the hon. member for Waterford.

moved "That a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the state of the Poorer Classes in Ireland, and the best means of improving their condition; and to report their observations thereon to the House." The hon. Member explained, that his object was, to revive the Committee which sat last Session, adding a few Members and filling up the places of those who were no longer in Parliament.

rose, to move an Amendment to the Motion of his hon. friend. He admitted that the names of the Gentlemen selected were most respectable, but they were, unfortunately, Gentlemen who had strong opinions against the measure of giving relief to Ireland by any system of Poor-laws. Of all the Members of the Committee, there were only ten or eleven favourable to such a measure. This might be inferred from the fact, that in the last Report, which extended to fifty-seven pages, and which, with the Appendix of evidence, occupied four large volumes, there were only sixteen lines which referred to that measure of relief. The Members of the Committee reminded him of the company of actors who undertook to perform the play of the Prince of Denmark, leaving out the part of Hamlet. Here was a committee appointed for the purpose of considering the state of the Irish poor; and they omitted to take any notice of the only measure by which relief could be effectually and permanently given. He could not consent to a repetition of such a course as that. If committees were to be appointed, let them be composed not entirely of men who had formed and expressed strong opinions on one side of any subject under consideration. The Committee should, at least, be so composed that the investigation would have a chance of being conducted with impartiality and without prejudice. He could not consent to his hon. friend bringing in eighteen or nineteen Irish bills (though, by the way, only two of them were new) from which no practical good could result. Committees had gone on inquiring to an immense extent, and had produced no practical advantage. Much had been said of the state of Ireland, and of the distress existing there, and a vast mass of information on the subject was contained in the volumes already laid on the Table, and yet no effectual measure was proposed. He would rather go without any inquiry at all than inquire without any useful result. The system of committees only tended to delay practical measures. In the last ten years there had been ten committees appointed, which had made reports so voluminous that very few Gentlemen could read them; and now the House was told, that before anything could be done, it must inquire more; it must wait until this committee and the other committee had made their Report. Such a mode of doing business was only wasting time in hearing evidence, and drawing reports, and wasting the public money in having them printed. Then, upon the question of Irish Grand Juries, how long were committees of the House engaged? They sat till the weather became too hot for meeting; and then only one bill was brought in, to regulate one subject, which did not embrace a tithe of the business brought under the consideration of the Committee. Three committees on the employment of the poor had sat also in 1824 and 1825, which published very voluminous reports, and what more would the House want? In fact, the subject had been threshed and re-threshed; and a similar committee had sat in 1826 and 1827. For any practical measure the House already possessed quite sufficient evidence. It was only a waste of the public money, and agitating the subject without any necessity. His hon. friend had got fifty witnesses over from Ireland, and the Reverend Doctor Doyle was one of them; but the evidence of that Gentleman would hardly tally with the views of his hon. friend. He also objected to the manner in which part of the evidence was obtained. He did not like opinions to be elicited by long cross-examination; but wished each witness to state his conviction in his own plain way. He said this, because he had seen a letter some time ago in one of the Irish papers, from a Mr. Jameson, who complained of the usage he received from a committee before which he was examined. Such conduct was to be deprecated, because it looked as if hon. Members were not seeking to come at the truth, but to elicit particular opinions in support of particular theories. He repeat-ed, that the House had before it sufficient evidence to warrant it in proceeding with some legislative measure for the relief of the labouring poor of Ireland, without further delay, or further inquiry by committees, which would end in nothing. The Reports of the Committee would probably be as little to the purpose as the last, in which, out of fifty-seven pages, only sixteen lines were devoted to the subject most deeply connected with the inquiry. The Report gave the House information on a matter well known since the days of Elizabeth, which had been before the public for upwards of two centuries, viz. that the system of the Poor-laws was very good if wisely administered. It was, no doubt, very kind of the Committee to tell the House that it was a waste of time for the Committee to have so occupied themselves. The Book on Ireland, written by the hon. member for Newark, contained more valuable information respecting the state of that country than all the reports that had ever been laid on the Table of the House. He was satisfied, if that hon. Member had been in the House, he would have seconded the Amendment which he begged to propose to the Motion of his hon. friend. The hon. Member moved accordingly, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words, "the state and the condition of the poor of Ireland have been laid before this House, from time to time, by reports of various committees and commissions; that during the last twelve years, not less than ten reports from committees, and ten from commis- sions, and, with them, a great mass of evidence, have been laid on the Table of this House; that it is therefore our opinion that sufficient evidence has been obtained and presented to enable this House to legislate on this subject, and that it is expedient that some legislative measure should be forthwith adopted for the employment and relief of the poor of Ireland."

said, that it was not from any feeling of indifference to the situation of Ireland, or to the welfare of its people, that he stated that he was completely tired out with hearing hon. Members from that country continually moving for committees, and complaining of the distress prevalent there. He would suggest, that it would be infinitely better if hon. Members would bring forward specific motions, instead of night after night occupying the House with debates, and then moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire. He agreed with the observations which fell from the hon. member for Wicklow, respecting the inefficacy of all inquiries before committees. He did not intend to oppose the motion of the hon. member for Limerick, for he entertained no objection to appointing a committee, provided he had not to serve upon it; but he was convinced, not only from the reports of a number of committees appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland, but also by reports on various subjects, that it was folly to expect that any good could result from the labours of a Select Committee. He never remembered any good practical measure which had originated in a committee. It ought to be the business of Government to take up a grievance and apply a remedy, for it must necessarily have better opportunities than any committee to get information. Suppose a committee to agree in a report, and recommend the enactment of some measure to Parliament, it could not be carried into effect unless it met with the approbation and support of Government. With regard to the observations which had been made respecting the distress in the two countries, he could only say, that the distress and the evils of both countries arose from the same source, and the same measure of relief might efficaciously be applied to both. He called upon Ministers to reduce our enormous establishments, and to effect savings to such an extent, that the people might be relieved from the load of taxation which now pressed them to the earth. It had been stated, that Ireland was over-peopled; that the inhabitants were, in consequence, in a most wretched condition; and that they came to England, reducing, by the competition of Irish and English labour in the market, our peasantry to the same miserable situation as that in which they were placed. The persons who made this statement forgot that nearly all the produce of Ireland was brought to the English market, and that the people, as a matter of course followed it. He heard, a few evenings ago, an hon. Member declare, that all the commodities produced there were brought to the English market. Another hon. Member, only a night or two ago, complained that the Irish pigs were brought into the English market in such numbers that it materially injured the English farmer in the West of England. It had been stated, that there were four million acres of wasteland in Ireland, capable of being cultivated. If there be a surplus population in that country, distribute that land amongst the people, and we shall then prevent the influx of the Irish labourers into England, which is so much exclaimed against. Again, let them keep and eat their own pigs and cattle, and then we should hear no more complaints from the English farmer on the subject. That appeared to him a very simple remedy for an evil which so much alarmed some hon. Members. All the misery and distress of the people arose from the bad constitution of the Legislature, and from the gross abuses existing in the Government. There had been report upon report, and committee upon committee on the state of Ireland, and what good had resulted from all their labours? He did not wish to call the attention of the House or the Government to the condition of Ireland in particular, but generally to that of the country, in which the distress was really alarming. The evils which existed in Ireland also existed to nearly the same extent in England; and the grounds for inquiry were, therefore, as strong in the one case as in the other. If any one had an intention to move for a committee to inquire into the origin of the distresses of both countries, with a view to get at a remedy, he should not oppose the Motion, although he did not think a Select Committee a very convenient instrument for getting at truth. It was the duty of Ministers to point out remedies for the evils, both of Ireland and England; and if they were not able to do so, they ought to resign their places. At present, one Member got up one night to move for a committee to inquire into one subject; and the next night another Member moved for a committee on some other subject, and no good was ever attained. Sending a measure to a committee was sending it to its grave, and though he had no wish to oppose the hon. Member, he was inclined to object to his Motion.

wished to state, in. a very few words, his reason for supporting a modified system of Poor-laws for Ireland, which, he conceived, would be attended with great benefit to both countries. He was satisfied, that the feeling of the large county which he had the honour to represent was favourable to the introduction of such a system, and he believed that such a feeling was becoming general. He knew that a very strong wish was manifested by English farmers for such a measure. It was a matter of general complaint, that the expense of maintaining the Irish pauper population fell, not upon the Irish aristocracy and landlords, but upon the middle classes of this country, who were so reduced that they were struggling for existence. The English labourer, also, was daily descending lower in the scale, and his condition was materially deteriorated by the great competition in the labour-market. The circumstances of the English labourer had been reduced by the great influx of the Irish peasantry, and the misery which prevailed in Ireland was spreading rapidly here. The condition of the Irish peasantry would have been infinitely better had there been a system of Poor-laws in that country; and some provision for the poor of Ireland was now necessary for the welfare of both countries. A tax for the support of the Irish poor was the only tax which could be imposed on the absentees of that country, compatible with the institutions of a free country, and he should like to see such a tax levied as would reach the great estates of absentee proprietors. Such a tax would operate as a protection to the rate-payers in England, and would greatly improve the condition and character of the Irish peasantry.

did not desire to disparage the labours of the Committee of last Session, on the subject of the Irish poor, but he could not find that any useful measure had resulted from its labours. The Committee was occupied in examinations which appeared to him to have nothing to do with the object of inquiry. With respect to the question of the Poor-laws, he should be loth to trust to the Report of any committee on a matter of such vital importance, and still less to one constituted as the late one was. What could be expected from a committee from which the hon. member for Wicklow and the hon. member for Newark were carefully excluded? If, therefore, the Committee was re-appointed, he should propose that the names of those two hon. members and that of the hon. member for Banbury, be added.

could not neglect the opportunity of paying his tribute of respect to the Chairman of the Committee for the industry, judgment, and impartiality which he had exhibited on all occasions. He needed no other proof of this than the Report on the Table, which was a sufficient evidence of these virtues. With respect to the Poor-laws, the Committee postponed its labours on that point, because it had not sufficient evidence to form a determination, and it resolved to apply to the House for permission to resume the inquiry. As for the charge that the Chairman was prejudiced against the introduction of Poor-laws, he did not believe it, and in the Report which he drew up there were only eleven lines on the subject, which merely recommend that it should be made a future subject of inquiry. He knew that some persons entertained strong prejudices against the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, in consequence of conceiving that it was meant to adopt the English system. That was not the case; no human being would ever think of recommending an anomalous system like the present Poor-laws of this country. Before, however, any step could be taken, it was necessary to get every information on the subject; and there was no better way than by the inquiries of a Committee. He was exceedingly surprised to hear an hon. Member assert, that the Reports on Ireland were little better than waste paper, and that it was a useless expenditure of the public money to print them. He could only say, that he wished the public money might never be spent in a less useful manner. He entered into the Committee with a prejudice in favour of Poor-laws for Ireland; but that prejudice was now much weakened; for, amongst all the numerous witnesses examined by the Committee, there was not one who had a feasible plan for carrying that object into effect. The hon. member for Wicklow was incorrect in asserting that it had been determined, beforehand, not to recommend a system of Poor-laws. Only two plans for the introduction of Poor-rates into Ireland were presented to the Committee—the first was drawn up by Dr. Doyle, and the other by Colonel Page. On inquiry, Dr. Doyle admitted that he was entirely unacquainted with the English system; and Colonel Page admitted that the whole period of his residence in Ireland did not exceed three months. The House, therefore, would not be surprised to hear that neither of those plans met with the approbation of the Committee. If the hon. member for Wicklow had seen the care and attention manifested by the hon. member for Limerick, he would not have charged him with partiality as Chairman of the Committee. No doubt, he put more questions than any other Member, in consequence of the situation which he filled; but in all of them he manifested nothing but a disposition to find out and support truth.

meant to confine himself to replying to some of the observations of his hon. friend the member for Wicklow. On bringing this subject forward last year, he entered into a long statement of the motives which induced him to submit it to the consideration of Parliament; and did not, therefore, make any remarks on the present occasion. The hon. Member complained of his silence, but that was dictated by supposing that there would be no objection to the motion. He was less surprised at the complaints, when he heard the hon. Member charge the Committee with being prejudiced on the subject. The hon. member for Wicklow seemed to think that the only matter for inquiry before the Committee was the Poor-laws, and that he (Mr. Rice) was strongly prejudiced against them. But he would appeal to any Gentleman who heard him—to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was in the House at the time,—whether he did not distinctly state, on bringing the subject, before Parliament last year, that the question of the introduction of the Poor-laws into Ireland was one that required investigation; acknowledging certainly that, from the best attention he could give the subject, it appeared to him that the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland would not be beneficial to that country. But as this was a subject which had been recommended as a remedy for the evils of Ireland, the Committee appointed to find out practical remedies should embrace it as one of the topics of its investigation. The hon. Member insinuated, that he had proposed a committee with a view of preventing the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland; because, when he moved for the appointment of the Committee, he had expressed an opinion unfavourable to those laws. The hon. Gentleman had also insinuated, that the inquiries were directed by the Chairman, and always had a particular leaning; but he should recollect, that although inquiry generally commences with the Chairman, it is not confined to him, and those who are friendly to the principle of the Poor-laws have the opportunity of putting questions as well as those who are not. Did the hon. Member conceive for a moment that it was in the power of any one Member to influence the opinions of a committee of the House? He would read the names of those who constituted the Committee last year, and would ask any man whether he could for one moment think that the members of it would tolerate any one person putting on an appearance of dictation? The first name was Sir John Newport, Sir Robert Peel followed, then came Lord Althorp, Lord Milton, Sir Matthew W. Ridley, Lord Ashley, Mr. Brownlow, who had previously declared himself favourable to the introduction of a system of Poor-laws as the means best calculated to improve and advance the state of the labouring classes in Ireland; and he would take that opportunity of thanking his hon. friend for the attention which he paid to the inquiry before the Committee—Mr. George Dawson, Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald, Mr. Charles Grant, Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lamb, Lord Palmerston, Mr. Villiers, Mr. Slaney, and other equally high and honourable men. After mentioning these names, he trusted that it would never be insinuated again that he endeavoured to pack the Committee. The hon. member for Ennis stated, that there was ground of suspicion in consequence of the exclusion of the two hon. Members from the Committee whose names he mentioned. With respect to the hon. member for Wicklow, the avowal of that hon. Member was quite sufficient to shew that he would be a very improper person to be placed on any such committee. After his declaration, that the appointment of the Committee was a mere delusion, and its last Report no better than waste paper, it would have been insulting" him by asking him to take part in its labours; and after such a declaration, he should never invite him to join any committee which he might originate. With respect to the hon. member for Newark, he agreed with the hon. member for Ennis, that a committee on this subject without the hon. member for Newark, must appear incomplete. In the first instance, his name was included in the list of the Committee; and he should have been very glad if that hon. Member would have consented to lend the assistance of his valuable service in furtherance of its objects; but he declined doing so, and stated that he should be unable to attend. He could not, therefore, be charged, in this instance, with unfairness, as it was at the request of the hon. member for Newark that his name was struck out. So much, therefore, for the charge of having acted unfairly in not putting in the names of those two hon. Members. So earnest was he to get from the hon. member for Newark all the information possible, and especially on the subject of the English Poor-laws, with reference to the propriety of adopting a modified system for Ireland, that he asked him to be examined as a witness, but this also that hon. Member declined, notwithstanding he was urged more than once to consent. The hon. and gallant member for Liverpool was also invited, as he was an advocate for the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, to attend, and lend us the assistance of his evidence, but he also declined doing so. As a proof that the labours of the Committee were not altogether without use, he might refer to the testimony borne by several hon. Members in the course of the discussion; but it was hardly necessary, as a specific reason had been stated for the re-appointment of the Committee— it had not completed its examination on the subject of the Poor-laws. He had heard with surprise, hon. Members charge the Committee with being prejudiced against the introduction of such a system: all that the Report said was,—"The subject which has occupied the greater portion of the time of your Committee, and that on which the most prolonged examination of witnesses has taken place, is the inquiry how far the Poor-laws of England or of Scot- land, the principles of the 43rd of Elizabeth, or any other system of assessment for the purpose of relief, can be introduced into Ireland with beneficial consequences. Your Committee conceive it wholly impossible to over-estimate the importance of a correct judgment on this subject; involving, as it does, if decided affirmatively, an entire change in the domestic economy of eight millions of persons. A false step may here be of such fatal consequences, that it greatly behoves the Legislature to proceed cautiously, to investigate closely, and to weigh accurately before any final decision is made. In the present state of the Session, your Committee, though fully prepared to consider this branch of the subject, are unwiliing to present any specific Report, in the unavoidable absence of many of their members: they, therefore, content themselves with recommending, that the consideration of the subject may be resumed at a future time; and that, in the mean while, the most severe and scrutinizing attention may be applied to the important evidence already before the House."—The Committee, therefore, had not concluded its investigation, and it gave no opinion. If he did not move for the re-appointment of this Committee, he should be guilty of a breach of duty. He wished, however, to remark, that it was not intended that the Committee should meet more than once before Christmas; and, in the first place, he intended to propose that it should investigate the evidence already taken before proceeding to examine any new witnesses.

being proposed, the hon. Member said, that he could not consent to be a member of the Committee, as he did not think any good could result from its appointment. There was already a fund in Ireland in the possession of the Church, from which the poor ought to be relieved.