moved the second reading of the Western Australia Bill.

would suggest to the hon. Baronet whether it was fit in the present state of Australia to continue till 1841, as this bill proposed to do, the powers which certain individuals—the commissioners—already had. He also thought the aborigines ought to be protected, and that a clause should be introduced by which a certain portion of land should be appropriated to native inhabitants. He threw out these suggestions to the hon. Baronet, and he hoped this bill would be so framed in Committee as to meet the cases to which he had adverted.

said, that measures had been taken for protecting the aborigines, which he hoped would prove satisfactory to the hon. Member.

said, when this establishment was commenced, the House received a pledge, that no establishment should be charged on the consolidated fund; instead of which there would be a vote proposed in the course of a few days for 12,000l., whilst there were only 2,000 inhabitants. This was one means of robbing the people of England to keep up an establishment. There was no necessity for a governor and all the other paraphernalia which were found here. It appeared to him, that the Colonial Department got money a great deal too easy. Here was a grant of money as large as could be required for a colony of 60,000, or 70,000 persons. He had no doubt the hon. Gentleman at the head of this Department found the office as it now was, but if he dealt fairly with the people of England, he would make the parties in the colony contribute to their own expense, instead of which the colony consisted of persons supported principally at the public expense.

moved, that the Report on the Recovery of Tenements Bill should be further considered.

wished to know whether it were the intention of the hon. and learned Member to press the bill further during the present Session. The reason he asked that question was, the absence of several country Gentlemen who were anxious to take part in the discussion on the bill.

said, that it certainly was his intention to press the bill forward with all the energy he was possessed of, as it had already been postponed for three different Sessions in consequence of one of the most uncalled-for oppositions, that was ever heard of.

said, that such being the case, he felt bound to move, that the bill should be re-committed that day three months. He was sure, if the House wished to keep well with the country, it would not pass the bill, as it gave all the advantage to the rich and none to the poor. That might do very well in Turkey; but it would not do in a civilized country. According to the wording of the bill before the House, the very nicest points of law would be submitted to the consideration of two justices—men, who of necessity, were almost unacquainted with the laws of property. The very first use which would be made of the bill, would be the oppression of the poor, who were now in the enjoyment of wastes or manors. No doubt a great number of poor persons would be immediately turned out of such enjoyment, as, with the assistance of two justices, that might be done, at an expense of from 3s. to 4s. The object of this bill was, to give the power of turning out at the will of the landlord every humble tenant, and without any ex- pense to the landlord. He certainly did not expect such a measure as this would come from what was called the Liberal side of the House. The rights of the poor would be trampled on by this bill. He believed the bill proceeded altogether on a wrong principle, and he should give it his most decided opposition. He thought the hon. Gentleman ought to give more time for this bill to be circulated amongst the people, in order that their opinions might be ascertained. He could not see what necessity there was, for such desperate haste, to inflict so serious an injury on the lower orders of the people for the benefit of the rich.

thought the evils anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Sugden) had been grossly exaggerated. He would be the last man in the empire, to give the magistrates a power which they ought not to have. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that magistrates ought not to be called on to decide on intricate points of law, where tenants in bail and tenants in fee and settlements were in volved. But they were to be called on to decide on merely trivial matters. The country, so far as he was aware, was almost unanimous in thinking this a fair bill.

congratulated himself on the speech of the right hon. Member for Ripon, for had he spoken at an earlier period, he (Mr. Aglionby) might not have been able to control his remarks on the misrepresentations which the right hon. Member had made of this bill, as well as on the tone, manner, and expressions used towards himself as a public individual. He was willing to throw himself upon the country and be tried by it, whether he was not as little likely to introduce any law savouring of Turkey, as the right hon. Member himself. He admitted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the present was not the same bill that had been three times postponed; but why was it not so? Because the Select Committee to which the bill had been referred, had altered it. The bill in the present shape was not so favourable to the poor as when it was originally introduced, because under it the magistrates were made judicial instead of ministerial. He felt bound to deny the statements of the right hon. Member, that he had acted unjustly towards the poor man, his object was to protect him against the oppression of the rich. As the law at present stood the tenant would have in many cases a notice of forty-three days, but in all he must have thirty-one before he went out. He had applied to the right hon. Gentleman for his assistance upon the committee, which had been refused; he therefore thought it was most unjust and improper for him to indulge in such harsh language with respect to the labours of the committee. The Bill was intended to bring home justice to the poor man. The cottages of the poor landlord were as much entitled to protection as the mansions of the rich. He was anxious to protect the poor, and would consent to any amendment for that purpose in the Committee—but he would not consent to protect the dishonest man at the expense of one probably hot much richer than himself from whom he detained his property. In justice to himself he must say, that since he intended to bring in the bill he had taken the opportunity of sending the bill to every place throughout the country—not to landlords alone but to every mechanics news-room of which he had the slightest knowledge, and the only complaint he had heard against the bill was, that it did not go far enough for the protection of the small landlords. He trusted the House would allow the bill to be committed.

said, he was quite prepared cheerfully to submit to any unpopularity that might be supposed to attach itself to this bill, which he did not hesitate to say was a great improvement. It was, indeed, a bill quite as much calculated for the benefit of the poor as for that of the rich; as respected the former it must tend to encourage the building of convenient tenements for the occupation of the labouring and poorer classes. As the law stood with respect to the rich man, or landlord, it was absurd; the only chance a landlord now had of getting possession of a cottage forcibly withheld from him, after the termination of the demise or letting, was to bring his action of ejectment against a person who, if defeated, had no property sufficient, in 99 cases out of 100, to pay the costs, much less the damages that might be awarded. The bill, in effect, intended to do justice cheaply for the poor man and expeditiously for the landlord, and would mediate between them when they became litigants for the possession of the tenement in question.

hoped the same measure of justice would be extended to the landlords of tenements above 10l., as was by this bill to those of tenements under that sum. He considered it highly dishonest that persons should hold possession of property, in despite of their landlords, after due legal notice had been given to quit, and had no sympathy with tenants of any class who would so act. Upon that ground he considered that a summary process, if necessary, in case of a small tenement was equally so in that of a large. This process might be different in the two cases, but the principle was the same, whether the tenement was one of 10l. value, or of 100l. He certainly could not see any reason why the constituent body were to be doubly privileged, and, if this bill were to pass as now proposed, there could be no doubt that it would confer on them another privilege besides the elective franchise. He for his own part, did not see what the amount of the rent had to do with the principle of the measure. So far as the principle was concerned he undoubtedly approved of the bill, but then instead of fixing the limit at 10l., he, for his own part, would prefer extending the jurisdiction to 20l., or even to a higher amount.

was glad to find that this measure had met with such general approbation from all sides of the House, and he admitted that the present state of the law on this subject was a disgrace to the judicature of the country. Although he concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite he still was disposed to think that it was better to proceed gradually than to risk anything by effecting too great a change in the first instance. He approved of the limit as to the amount of the rent fixed by the first clause, but he had no hesitation in saying that if the measure should be found to work well he would have no objection whatever to extend the jurisdiction at some future period to 20l., or even to a higher amount.

entirely concurred in all that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. The amount of the rent was in truth wholly immaterial, and for his own part he could not understand why the principle of the bill, if it were to be called into operation at all, should not apply to the lofty palaces of the rich as well as to the humble cottages of the poor. By this measure they were clearly establishing one law for the rich and another for the poor, and to such a proceeding he must strongly object. Now with regard to the amount of rent, the only point to be ascertained by the magistrates would be whether or not the relation of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties, and if that fact were once admitted it was clear that the amount of the rent, whether it were high or whether it were low, would be altogether beside the question for decision. Whether, therefore, the rent were 10l. or 1,000l. the principle would be the same; but of course if the fact of the payment of rent were disputed, then a question with respect to the right of property would arise which could not be determined by the magistrates but must be referred to the ordinary tribunals of the superior courts. This bill, he admitted, would effect a partial good; but so averse was he to bit and bit legislation that he would not object to its being referred to a committee up stairs, in the hope that next Session they would be able to pass some comprehensive measure which would settle all disputed points and place the law of landlord and tenant on the clear and intelligible footing on which it ought to stand. Now there was a hardship which he knew professionally, and from personal experience often occurred. It not unfrequently happened, and that, too, by the connivance of the tenant, that the whole property on the premises were swept away under an execution a few day before quarter day. This was done to defraud the landlord of the quarter's rent, and as he could not distinguish between such a case and the fraudulently taking of a chattel, he would wish to see protection afforded to the landlord in such cases. He was, however, glad that the subject had been taken into consideration by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and if the right hon. Baronet would extend the jurisdiction in the present case, not to 20l. but 1,000l. he would support him.

was of opinion that they ought not to exceed the limit fixed in the clause, and he stated this without any wish whatever that the poor should be placed in a different situation from the rich. He was satisfied that the bill would be as much an advantage to the tenant as to the landlord.

said that, according to his own argument, the hon. Member for Southwark ought to vote with him. The hon. Member for Southwark contended that no difference should be made between the rich and the poor, and it was because this bill would establish such a difference that he (Sir E. Sugden) objected to it. The rights of the poor would be committed under this measure to the decision of an inferior tribunal, and as this was an arrangement to which the rich would not submit, he felt it to be his duty to oppose it.

contended, that the whole course of English Legislation for centuries had been to establish cheap tribunals, where the amount in dispute was small; but where the sums were larger, they were submitted to a more expensive and august tribunal. This had been the course of legislation from the days of Alfred down to the present time. So much for ancient law and ancient customs, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Sugden) was at all times the powerful advocate. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say, whether the amount in dispute was 5s or 50s, or 9l. 19s., as by this bill, that the subject in dispute should be determined by the same jurisdiction as if 1,000l. were concerned? In modern times they had had the Trespass Bill, under which Magistrates had the power to adjudicate on cases under 5l. and therefore the principle adopted by the bill was in accordance with both ancient and modern legislation. If this bill worked well, it might be hereafter extended; but it was no argument against the measure to say, that it could not remedy every grievance.

was prepared to support the bill as it stood. At the same time he should like to know whether the House would go with him in raising the amount to 20l. He knew the inhabitants of large towns and of their vicinities were desirous that such should be the case; and if the bill were limited to 10l., it would be almost wholly confined to rural districts.

had not suggested that the sum should be 20l. out of any hostility to the bill, but was prepared to propose, that amendment if he could feel sure, that he should not, by doing so, endanger the He did so on principle, and he should be equally ready to vote for property of 1,000l. being subjected to a summary jurisdiction. He thought he had therefore better at once move an amendment, and would therefore propose the introduction of the words "property rated at a sum not exceeding 20l."

as a Member of the Committee, had been in favour of the reduction from 20l. to 10l., in order to get rid of the supposition, that there was any political object in view. He had, however, no objection to the amount being fixed at 20l. and should therefore vote, if necessary, for the proposition of his right hon. Friend.

wished to know from the Attorney-general whether or not, under the clauses, a magistrate might not be called upon to decide a question of title. He also thought great oppression and injustice might be inflicted under this bill, on those who might be ejected from cottages which had garden ground attached.

said, in answer to the question of the hon. Member, no doubt a case of this sort might arise, A landlord might die, and the tenant might question the son's right as to his legitimacy, but in 999 cases out of every 1,000, the question would be merely one of common tenancy. He certainly was not wedded to fixing the amount at 10l. and would therefore withdraw his opposition to extending the sum to 20l.; at the same time he must deny the observation, that had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that this was a law for the rich and not for the poor. By the existing law a sum under 40s. was recoverable in the county courts, and under 5l. in the courts of conscience, and no one would pretend to say, that therefore, it was intended by this bill, to make one law for the rich and one for the poor. On the same ground, that those inferior jurisdictions had been formed, it was intended, that cases of ejectment from tenements or property held under 20l. should be referred to the decison of the magistrates, because the expense of ejectment under the existing law was so great.

said, that the title of this Bill had so little reference to its clauses, that it would not be competent for any Member to introduce it into Committee. He thought it would, therefore, be better, that the bill should be allowed to drop.

said, that as doubts had arisen as to the purpose of the bill, he would move as an amendment, the insertion of the words "declare and enact" in each clause.

said, that bringing in a bill in the manner in which that bill had been introduced, was a total perversion of the constitutional practice of the House. He felt it was a point on which the House ought to be jealous, and he hoped, that some remedy would be found by the hon. Gentleman opposite.

said, it was certainly the general rule, that a declaratory bill should not also be an enacting one; but he thought, that if any doubt existed on the subject, the mistake could be remedied by an instruction to the Committee.

said, that he did not feel the weight of the right hon. Gentleman's objection, as the mistake to which he alluded was merely technical, and could he easily remedied.

said, he had felt it his duty to make the objection, not with the view of throwing an obstacle in the way of a bill of which he disapproved on other grounds, but because he thought it of importance that the House should adhere to those rules which had so long governed their forms of proceeding. He would now say a few words as to the general principle of the measure, which he considered as one of great injustice. It was a bill which, if passed in its present form, would alter the mode of rating property in parishes. The principle of the law of rating had always been, that it was to press equally on property, but this bill would depart from that principle, for in some cases it would make the rating on the whole profit derived from the produce of the land, while in others it would be made only on a portion of such profits. This was most unjust in principle, and in its application to many individuals, to the clergy, and to the owners of capital invested in railroads, canals, and many other species of property which were totally distinct from the profits of the lessor. In an act which had passed the Legislature for encouraging the commutation of tithes, the clergy were invited to take a rent-charge on land instead, which rent-charge would be subject to the same rating as when the property was tithe in the hands of the incumbent. But the effect of this bill would be to increase the amount of the rate on the rent-charge far beyond what it ever had been on the tithe. This he considered an act of gross injustice. One clergyman who had been rated on the one-fourth of his tithes, would now be rated on two-thirds of the rent-charge, which had been given in lieu of them, though he had been assured, that his rating on the rent-charge would not exceed that on the amount previously received as tithe. The difference between the present and the former rating would be 43l. beyond the former amount. In another case, in Shropshire, a clergyman, whose whole income from his living did not exceed 150l., and from which he had to pay a curate, would, if this bill were to pass, have an increase on his rating of 20l. a-year. The remark of the Gentleman from whom he had this statement was, that should this bill of Mr. Shaw Lefevre pass, he doubted whether that Gentleman's servant would be satisfied with the income which would then remain to this clergyman. He thought it would be highly indiscreet in the House, without inquiry, without information or discussion On the subject, to pass this measure at the present advanced period of the Session, and he begged to conclude by moving, "That further proceedings on the bill be postponed to that day three months."

contended that it would be great injustice to delay the passing of a measure so imperatively called for, and so much affecting the interests of all parties.

supported the amendment, because he thought it was a measure that would put into the pockets of the landholders a large sum of money that belonged properly to the tithe owners.

was convinced that the principle of the bill was a right one, and did not think that the land-owners should first pay for the rent which they received, and afterwards for the profits of their tenants. If the land-owner and tithe-owner were charged on the rent which they received, justice would be done.

explained, that where tithe-owners had been more indulgently rated hitherto, this bill would not produce any result of which they need be afraid.

said, that the House, in legislating on this subject, ought to consider the rent-charge as so much tithe, and then the question would be, supposing the tithe to be let, what sum was it likely to obtain? Upon that sum it was, that the assessment ought to be made, and it would not be fair to place the tithe-owner in a worse situation with regard to assessment than the landlord. As it was impossible to allow the law to remain in its present state, and as the bill, if properly worded, might prove beneficial, he should vote for the Committee.

said, that great injustice would be done were this clause carried into operation. There were many cases in which tithe had been commuted under the recent Act, and unless a clause was inserted in the bill applicable to those cases, a much higher rate would be imposed on the rent-charge than what had been formerly charged upon the tithe. Such a proceeding was highly improper and unjust, and he wished to know from the hon. Gentleman who had framed the bill, whether he would consent to the introduction of a clause protecting the interests of those who had commuted their tithes by an equitable adjustment into a rent-charge?

said, that it was absolutely necessary that a measure of this kind should pass before the Tithe Commutation Act came into compulsory operation, but if the right hon. Gentleman would frame a clause protecting the individual cases to which he had alluded, he (the Attorney General) would support it.

said, that it was not the duty of his right hon. Friend, but the duty of those who framed the bill to propose a clause to prevent the injustice of which his right hon. Friend had complained. He thought that they were proceeding to legislate on this subject with great precipitation, and he contended, that time ought to be afforded for more mature deliberation. The interests of the tithe-owner had not been sufficiently attended to, and if the time were allowed, an equitable arrangement might be effected in regard to the owners of tithe. He would not say, that a measure of this kind was not necessary, but rather than proceed without mature deliberation to legislate on a subject so important as the present, it would be better to suspend for a time the compulsory operation of the Tithe Commutation Act. Of the two evils, that, he thought, would be the least, for at present they were totally without information on this subject, while it was clear that great injustice would result from the operation of the bill if it were passed. The interests of the land-owner had been more attended to than the interests of the tithe-owner, and they might depend upon it, that if they, as land-owners, acted upon that principle, posterity would condemn their legislation. The interests of the Church would be seriously affected were this measure carried into operation. It would also alter the liabilities of property, and he therefore contended that time ought to be allowed for further consideration, as the House had not sufficient information to enable them to come to a sound decision on the subject.

said, that great injustice would be done if this measure were not passed.

considered a measure of this kind necessary; but he thought, that they were dealing with too much haste with the important question of the liability of property.

thought, the shortest way would be, to introduce a clause to exempt all future rent-charges from poor-rates; and at the same time make no additions to the tithe compositions for the rate. That would, he thought, settle the question of rating profits.

observed, that it was said that in many parts of England, the farmers had been living upon their capital, and that the yeomanry were gradually disappearing; but whether that was the case or not, there would be great difficulty in ascertaining the rate of profits of farmers; because, in many parts of this country, farmers did not keep books. As to the Tithe Commutation Act, the general feeling in the north and west of England, was not that the landowners received any great benefit from that act.

did not concur in the suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend, but still he recommended the reconsideration of this subject to the hon. Member for Hampshire.

said, he had already stated, that he felt that the case of "The King v. Joddrell" was not law, and that the bill was right; but he voted against the bill, because it was very dangerous for that House, by legislation, to reverse the decisions of courts of justice; he was afraid it would become a precedent, to which they would hereafter find themselves bound to hold. But there was another objection; the bill appeared to him not at all adapted to meet the real difficulties of the case, and he thought it would be unwise to pass such a bill, because it must necessarily be inefficient. It was too late in the day to talk of rating profits.

concurred in the views stated by the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, and could not think that the bill would interfere with voluntary commutations, or with those compulsory commutations which would take effect in October next.

objected to going into Committee at so late an hour. He moved, that the House do now adjourn.

observed, that the hon. Member had stated that the Record Commission cost the country large sums of money. He should not then stop to inquire with which side of the House that commission had originated; but should then content himself with saying, that the object of the present measure was merely the improvement of that commission, and it would be for the House to judge of the consistency of the hon. Member, who had previously made such loud complaints of the expenses attendant upon the commission, and now at once proceeded to oppose a bill, the main object of which was, to place all matters relating to the public records under the unpaid control of the Master of the Rolls.