wished to learn from the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, whether it were his intention to proceed with the Bill which he had been pleased to call the Agricultural Statistics Bill?

felt that there would be no opportunity of pressing this Bill to a successful result, as he wished. As matters therefore stood, for the present Session, he was of opinion that it would be as well at once to discharge the order for the further stages of this Bill.

was extremely sorry to hear the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived. There could not be a more beneficial measure, and more especially to the agricultural interest. He understood that one of the chief objections to the Bill arose from the local expense which would attend its being carried into effect; if this were the case, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find no difficulty in paying the necessary expenses out of the Consolidated Fund.

was also sorry to hear that the Bill was to be abandoned, as he regarded it as an important measure. Its value had been much underrated, and the experience of the last two or three months was fully sufficient to show this. To the smaller farmers it would prove a most beneficial measure. The right hon. Gentleman who had brought it forward had rendered a benefit to agriculture; and he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not been supported in it by the agricultural interest as he should have been. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that all those who were best acquainted with their duties as agriculturists and farmers, felt indebted to him for the exertions which he had already made, and they trusted that he would press it next Session.

begged to know whether, if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose meant to go on with the debate on his Motion, the hon. Member for Finsbury would persist in his Amendment, and present it to the House in the form of a substantive proposition?

I don't know what may be the intention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, but I beg leave to assure the House, that so far as the object of the resolution proposed by my hon. Friend contains an expression of the wish of this House that the constitutional rights of the Portuguese people should be preserved, and that the British Government and authorities should use all their influence to obtain that object—whether such a resolution be proposed or adopted, it is their intention, and the British Government consider it to be their duty, to do so. I am happy to say, that from letters which I have received within the last ten minutes, I have acquired the information that the Portuguese Government are of opinion, that notwithstanding the capture of Das Antas and his squadron, it is their duty, and the proper course for them to adopt, to proclaim as full and complete an amnesty as they were prepared to grant originally, and which was rejected by the Junta. That being the intention of the Portuguese Government, and all the Allied Powers being anxious that the rights and privileges of the Portuguese people should be preserved, it will be unnecessary for my hon. Friend to make his Motion.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Evesham, before putting that question to me, ought to have ascertained from his leader the hon. Member for Montrose, what his intention was with respect to the debate upon his Motion. I merely proposed mine as an Amendment to that of the hon. Member for Montrose, and so it remains at the present moment. At the same time I may say, that I consider my Motion virtually carried by the declaration of Her Majesty's Ministers, and from the manner in which it was received by the House. I have only therefore to say, that for my own part I am perfectly satisfied. But I think that the hon. Gentleman opposite should have also asked a question of those hon. Gentlemen behind him who were instrumental in counting out the House last night. What, I wonder, has become of all the virtuous indignation that was expressed by the country party? I think, after the exhibition of yesterday, the sooner they adopt their intention of taking off themselves and their Motion, and "go to the country," the better.

The hon. Member for Finsbury may be satisfied, and of course he must be, as he says he is; but I am sure, with all his love for constitutional liberty, and the warmth with which he came forward to sustain it, it is rather extraordinary that he should have so cooled down; and as he has suppressed all his angry feelings towards Her Majesty's Government, he must be well content with the termination to which the question has been brought. In justification of my own conduct in having counted out the House last night, I must beg leave to say that at the time I did so there was no Cabinet Minister present on the Ministerial benches. [An Hon. MEMBER: Lord PALMERSTON.] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman the Master of the Mint was in his place, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department. But I found myself all at once solus on these benches. I found myself in an ambiguous position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth must have been well pleased at the course I pursued after the speech he made, which would have done him honour had he been the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But after a debate on so great a question, with no prospect of any decided expression of individual opinion upon it, I thought the further continuance was little worthy of the dignity of the subject; and I felt that any course was desirable which should relieve this country from the position of having the name of a Royal Sovereign mixed up with the defence of those who had prostituted the royal authority in a sister country.

I don't know, Sir, what has passed before I came in; but I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that he was placed last night in a very peculiar position. He was left alone on that side of the House; at least there was but one hon. Gentleman more on the same side, and, therefore, he might fairly consider himself in a singular position. There was only one other hon. Member whom I, sitting here, could observe on those benches opposite; hut I must say, that it is little to the credit of the House of Commons that the course which such a circumstance required should have taken place. That it should have taken place without a previous arrangement, I cannot believe. I noticed that after the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who brought forward a complete tissue of absurdities—for the right hon. Baronet talked of levies of Spanish troops to interfere in Portugal, and raising Spanish legions to march to the frontiers of Portugal, in which there was not one single word of truth. The right hon. Baronet made up his case in an extraordinary manner for a person so well acquainted as he is with what ought to be the duty of a Member of Parliament. He quoted from papers: I contradicted him; I asked him to point out from the papers before the House where those levies had been made. I said there was not one man levied. He could not show where those legions were. There was no legion, in fact, but in the right hon. Baronet's own brain. But I noticed that immediately after his speech the right hon. Baronet left the House; and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester spoke to another hon. Member near him, and he moved off immediately after the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth moved off; and a general move at once took place. An hon. Member came to me, and said, "They're going to count out." I said, "That is nothing to me: if they choose to count out, I can't help it." But I believe the House was counted out by an arrangement made between both the parties. ["No!"] I merely say what is my own opinion. I merely say that it is very discreditable to the House of Commons to allow a question of that kind to be disposed of without coming to any conclusion—without delivering some expression of opinion upon it. I may be in error; hut I think it a constitutional question of great importance; and I thought there ought to be, and I was very anxious there should be, a division, to show what was the opinion of the House upon the subject. I, of course, have now no remedy except taking any opportunity I might and would have of renewing the question; but I have put the question to myself, "Of what use would it he to follow such a course, when I see that the House is unwilling to interpose or entertain it?" The noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury came in last night a few minutes after the House was counted out, and he showed a disposition that the question should be renewed. He had no unwillingness to go to a division; on the contrary, he said that it was a termination not at all satisfactory to him. I was anxious that the hon. Member for Finsbusy should have recorded his vote. If there was any one man in the House more anxious than another, or who wished to have the question pressed, it was that hon. Member. But I find that the whole bevy of hon. Gentlemen on my right hand, who were urging me on, have changed their minds, and by yielding to them I found myself in a very unpleasant situation. But it does seem to me very singular that such a change should have taken place in hon. Gentlemen's opinions. There must be some influence at work—in the air, perhaps—which operates in the same way as, after the 5th of April, some magical influence seems to have come over the councils of Her Majesty's Ministers to change their opinions, which seem to have been right up to that time; but from that date forward to have undergone an alteration which nothing contained in these documents accounts for. There are certain influences which are very infectious, as even the right hon. Baronet opposite appears to have felt their effects. I can only express my deep regret at finding that it was Her Majesty's Ministers, as appears by the papers, who first urged this interference in the affairs of Portugal. The Ministers of France and Spain were unwilling to agree to any such proposition; and after all the arguments we have heard from the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and after all Her Majesty's Ministers have said—that if they did not interfere, others would have done so—it turns out that it was all an arrangement of Lord Palmerston's. Now, it appears to me that the Ministers who signed the protocol here signed without any authority. I see by the public newspapers that British officers are about to be decorated with Portuguese orders. I should he sorry to see such a stain cast upon British arms. I hope it is not so. In conclusion, I bog to say, that it is not my intention, unless some pressing matter should arise, to renew my Motion—unless new events, particularly such as if Colonel Wylde should continue to interfere as a firebrand to do mischief, although holding the character of a mediator, or that the parties now under the protection of the British Government should be given up to the power of their opponents—unless such events should occur, I shall consider that I have already done my duty.

I do not wish at all to evade the question which the hon. Member for Montrose brought under the consideration of the House, and which has been disposed of by the extraordinary interposition of the hon. Gentleman opposite. Still less should I attempt to defend the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth from charges of misrepresentation; but without entering into any defence of that right hon. Gentleman, I must say, I consider that throughout his very admirable and most comprehensive speech he kept close to the facts of the case, and deduced inferences from them, the truth of which, I think in reason, it is difficult not to perceive. But the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that the two opposing parties in the House must have come to some understanding to count out the House last night; and the hon. Gentleman opposite says there was no Cabinet Minister present. I should say that there was no party in this House who were such great losers by what happened as Her Majesty's Ministers. I think that after a careful perusal of the papers, attention to the continuance of the debate, and the speeches which were made, the division which must have ensued, giving, as it undoubtedly would have given, a very considerable majority to Her Majesty's Ministers, was an advantage which they have lost by the abrupt termination of the debate. And therefore I say that, whilst the opposers of the Motion were very great losers, I am at a loss to understand the course which the hon. Gentleman has taken. Although I don't think that for such a strange interposition there is any precedent exactly in point to be found upon the books of this House, resembling as it docs nothing but the mythological wonders effected by the poets of antiquity, who carried away their hero in a cloud when he had got into a difficulty, and there was no other way of extricating him from it. I believe such a termination of a most important debate, involving as it did a vote of censure upon the Government, is hardly recorded in our books, and is hardly to be found at all except in those ancient books of poetry to which I have alluded. The hon. Member for Montrose says he will not bring forward this Motion again; and I think that he is right, because he is in fact saved from the reply which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would have made, and from the division which would have ensued. As to the changes which the hon. Gentleman observed had taken place in the opinions of other hon. Members, he must not be surprised that the perusal of the papers which were laid before the House, and the progress of the discussion, should have had considerable effect upon the minds of hon. Members. With respect to the absence of Cabinet Ministers from the House last evening, I must observe that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs might have left the House for a few moments—["No, he was present"]—but so far as regards the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, we went from this House to the House of Lords, to ascertain what was going on there, and it was whilst we were there that the House was counted out. It so happens that from the construction of the new House of Lords, there is not time for Members of this House (who, I must observe, were in considerable numbers in the other House) to get back here in time to prevent counting out, as was the case formerly. But so far as regards the assertion that the count out arose from a combination of parties, there was no such arrangement between them. There was no intention on the part of the Cabinet; and it was not owing to the absence of Ministers, that the debate suddenly came to a termination. I have only one word more to say with relation to the gallant Officer, whom I am sorry I omitted to defend, and to notice the charges against, at a former period of the debate. But as the hon. Gentleman has again brought charges against Colonel Wylde, for which he has no foundation nor justification, and which are quite inconsistent with the character of the gallant Officer, I take the present opportunity of replying to them. It was stated that the gallant Officer was in favour of arbitrary proceedings on the part of the Government. He was charged with being a firebrand, and it was said that he was sent out to Portugal merely because he was attached to the household of Prince Albert. Why, Sir, Colonel Wylde was recommended to the post he now occupies by his great and intelligent services in Spain, where he was for a long time engaged at the head-quarters of General Es-partero, and where he gave that general most useful advice—advice which materially aided him in obtaining those advantages over the Carlists which General Espartero was fortunate enough to obtain. No man, Sir, is more anxious than Colonel Wylde to establish the constitutional rights and privileges of the people. He has always furnished most accurate reports of all proceedings. He has ever shown himself most anxious to put an end to the civil war, and his advice has always tended to that point, and to the establishment of peace, of unity, and harmony in Portugal. he has repeatedly said that his private business and the state of his health required his being recalled. He has asked several times to be recalled. And it was always at the desire and request of the Government that he consented to remain. I deny, therefore, all the charges that have been brought against Colonel Wylde. As to his being a firebrand, his character hardly requires vindication. All who know him know that a man more capable of performing his duty in the task assigned to him, of giving his services to arrange between the Portuguese Government and people, could hardly have been chosen.

I should not have thought of saying a word upon this subject, had not the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose alluded pointedly to me. And as the hon. Gentleman has said that it is not his intention to proceed further with his Motion, I think it was highly inexpedient that he should have renewed the debate upon its merits, and, in the absence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, to have made, as he has, two accusations against him. The first of these charges was, that my right hon. Friend's speech was full of absurdities. I really must leave it to the opinion of the House, and to that of the whole of Europe, to say whether the speech is full of absurdities, or whether the charge of absurdity does not attach rather more to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose himself—to those other hon. Gentlemen who have been connected with the bringing forward of the debate—or to the hon. Gentleman who put such an abrupt termination to it. The second charge was, that the speech contained statements not consistent with the truth. Now, if the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his course, and bring his Motion forward again, it will not, I think, be difficult to show that the perspicuity and accuracy of my right hon. Friend could only be excelled by his strict attention to the truth and to the facts contained in the evidence laid before the House. This can be easily shown if the hon. Gentleman thinks fit to renew the discussion. With regard to what more immediately concerns myself, the hon. Gentleman says, that as soon as my right hon. Friend had concluded his speech, I spoke to an hon. Gentleman near me, and immediately after left the House. I did converse with an hon. Friend near me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth stated that he delivered his opinions without any previous consultation—that he delivered them not as the opinions of a party, or of one connected with any party—that he gave to the House his own individual opinion. The noble Lord opposite has accounted for his absence in a manner becoming the dignity of a Minister of the Crown. He had gone to the House of Lords to hear the debate which was then going on there. Whilst I confess that for my part I can- didly stated to my hon. Friend near me, when I saw the huge bundle of papers in the hands of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Bowring), that with all due respect to the hon. Member for Bolton, I preferred going to dinner to sitting to hear his speech. I did go, accordingly, for a very short time, not expecting the abrupt termination of the discussion. I went home—I was foolish enough to return, and found the House had been counted out. I really was never more astonished in my life than I was at the termination of the debate. I was prepared myself to take part in it. I should have followed the same course as that adopted by the right hon. Member for Tamworth; and I would most unhesitatingly and conscientiously have given my humble support to Her Majesty's Ministers, and my opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.

defended those hon. Gentlemen who had been stigmatized with the charge of absurdity by the right hon. Baronet for supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. The right hon. Baronet had accounted for his own absence by having been placed in the not very absurd position of going home to dinner. Surely some allowance should be made (all hon. Gentlemen being in want of that needful meal) for those who were similarly employed above stairs, in appeasing their appetites with the delicacies provided for them by Mr. Bellamy. But the House having been so very small, and the question so great, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) was quite justified in acting as he had done in counting it out.

had to apologize to the right hon. Baronet for having, by the course he had adopted, prevented his making his intended speech. The right hon. Baronet had very properly denied all collusion between parties, but he had certainly shown that his appetite, at all events, if not his will, had been in collusion with those who terminated the discussion.

defended himself from the charge of absurdity. He did not understand whom the right hon. Baronet meant by "those who supported the Motion;" but, for his own part, he had come down at nine o'clock to record his vote, and was very much surprised to find that the House had been counted out. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to cast imputations upon an entire party, but confine his observations to the individual with whose conduct he felt dissatisfied; but if Her Majesty's Ministers wished to have a division upon a question, they ought to keep a House. They should keep it as railway boards insured the attendance of their members—if they did not come, they received no pay. The right hon. Baronet should not attack an entire party upon such an occasion; but the fact was, the right hon. Gentleman never missed an opportunity of having his throw at those who, from having once been his supporters, had found it necessary to separate from him.

called the attention of the House to the position in which the debate stood. On the former occasion when the Bill had been before the House, he had moved the second reading on the 28th of April, at a late period of the evening, in the hope that he would induce hon. Members interested in the question to take the debate when going into Committee. It had subsequently been moved by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. B. Osborne), that the Bill be read that day six months; an adjournment of the discussion then took place; and as he (Mr. S. Crawford) had not before made any statement of the objects of the Bill, it now became his duty to explain the grounds on which he asked the House to allow the Bill to be now read a second time. The Bill was introduced to effect a change in that system which at present prevailed in the south of Ireland; to give security to occupying tenants; and by bringing about a most desirable alteration in the existing relative condition of tenants and proprietors, to benefit the entire agricultural community. It was very evident that there was something wrong in the system hitherto pursued, inasmuch as the necessity of some such measure as this was generally admitted among all persons conversant with the circumstances of the population engaged in the cultivation of land in the sister kingdom. One of the principal ends which he desired to attain by the Bill, was to put a prohibition upon the levying of distresses without full previous notice having been given to the party proceeded against. Up to this time there had been no such condition imposed upon landlords; and the result had been, a state of things disgraceful to the country, and reflecting most discreditably upon the Legislature. The hon. Member quoted the evidence of a great number of witnesses examined before various commissions appointed to inquire into the condition of Ireland, to show that in the absence of such, a restrictive measure as that now under discussion, the landlords, in a great majority of instances, had been encouraged to neglect all social considerations in the subletting of land, and to take steps only to extract from their tenants, in the most unjust manner, the largest possible amount of rent. The principle of establishing by law the right of compensation to tenants for improvements effected by them in their holdings, had been sanctioned by Lord Devon's report. Resolutions in its favour had been adopted at various meetings of landlords and tenants in various parts of Ireland. The like course was pursued at an important meeting which not long since took place in Dublin, and at which nineteen Peers and thirty-five Members of Parliament were present. The principle had likewise been embodied in two Bills brought forward by the late Government, one of which was introduced in that House, and the other in the House of Peers; and in 1841 he himself submitted to the House another Bill, the object of which was to secure compensation to tenants, though the late period of the Session at which that measure was brought forward prevented it from being carried into effect. It must, therefore, be evident to the House that the principle of the Bill of which he was now about to move the second reading, was supported by high authority, and had been adopted in the Bills framed by the late Government. He had hoped that Government would have introduced a measure on the subject; but as they had not done so, he ventured to bring the question once more before the House in the shape of a Bill. Another hon. Member had introduced a Bill having reference to the same subject, which had been allowed to go to a second reading, and therefore he could not suppose that the same privilege would not be extended to his measure. The title of the Bill declared it to be a measure to secure the rights of occupying tenants in Ireland, and thereby to promote employment. That, undoubtedly, would be its effect; and he ventured to assert, that no measure which the House could adopt would promote the employment of labour- ers in Ireland to an equal degree with his Bill. The number of acres under cultivation in Ireland was 13,465,000. Now, supposing his Bill was to stimulate improvement to the extent of 1l. per acre, the result would be to put into circulation a sum amounting to nearly 14,000,000l. It was a low calculation to estimate the sum which would be expended in improvements at 1l. per acre; it was more likely to be 4l. or 5l. It might be said, that the great body of the Irish tenants had not capital to enable them to effect improvements; but they had labour, which was the source of all capital. He had proved the preamble of his Bill; and the necessary consequence was, that the Legislature should pass a measure to protect the tenant in his right. The first clause embodied the principle of the Bill; and the mode in which he proposed to carry it into effect was by arbitration. That, however, was a matter of detail which could be considered in Committee; and he would not insist upon that precise mode of giving effect to the principle of the Bill, if a better one could be suggested. The present measure differed from the Bills introduced by the late Government in this respect, that it did not, like them, make it a distinct stipulation that a tenant must make no improvements to which the landlord did not assent, or must make them at his own cost. To clog the measure with such a condition, would in effect set aside the tenant right as it existed in Ulster; and no tenant right which fell short of that would satisfy the people of Ireland. In the county of Down, no public money was expended; the people were not dependent on England; they were able to do what was necessary for their own subsistence. It was the tenant right that conduced to the comfort and well-being of the people. He believed it would greatly increase the production of Ireland by the impulse it would give to better cultivation. The people of Ireland were spoken of as idle and ignorant; but their poverty and ignorance were caused by maltreatment, and the want of security as to the result of their labour. No one would accuse him of a desire to injure the interests of the class to which he belonged; he had made similar arrangements with his own tenants; and he only asked the House to adopt what he believed to be just. The hon. Gentleman concluded by hoping the House would agree to the second reading.

said, it was necessary the House should see some great practical object to be gained from this Bill, before it could be induced, at this period of the Session, to involve itself in legislation upon so complicated a subject as the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. He certainly wished to see the interests of the occupying tenant protected; but he expected much more from voluntary arrangement and the good feeling of the landlord, than from any legislative enactment. He did not much object to the preamble of the Bill; but he was of opinion that the provision for compensation would not work so well as the hon. Member anticipated. By the provision as it at present stood, if the landlord let a piece of land for one or two years, expecting to get it back at the expiration of that term, he might find that the tenant had laid out a large sum of money bearing no proportion to the term of years; and he might be called upon to pay a sum for compensation on receiving back his land, which possibly he might be unable to pay. That would be manifestly unjust. In his opinion, any measure for affording compensation to the tenant, should bear some relation to the value of the land, and to the term of years for which it was held. The machinery also for carrying out the Bill appeared to be very imperfect. He thought the subject was one requiring very serious consideration at the proper period; but certainly this was not the proper period, and he should move therefore that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, the principle of the Bill was one of the greatest importance; but, though it was not likely the measure could have been sufficiently matured to pass into a law in the present Parliament, he thought it ought not to be treated like the Bill of the hon. Member for Berkshire, which applied the same principle to England. From the beginning that Bill was opposed as if it were a sham measure, meant only to amuse certain farmers who thought themselves betrayed and deserted, and who looked to it as a compensation for some legislative protection they had lost, but was never intended to become law. What was the object of the present measure? To secure the rights of the landlord, the tenant, and the labourer, in their respective positions as owners, occupiers, and tillers of the soil. No measure they could devise would give such an impulse to employment in Ireland as this, by inducing the occupiers to lay out more money in the cultivation of the land than they would do at present, because they had no permanent right or interest in the land. He trusted that the House would read the Bill a second time, and take the discussion on particular objections to it in Committee. The hon. Member for Rochdale was not wedded to the Bill as it now stood, but was anxious to go into Committee, where such alterations could be made as the House might deem advisable. He hoped that, whether they were able to carry the Bill to the third reading or not, the House would, at all events, establish the principle of the Bill; and a future Parliament would find themselves called upon to carry through a measure that he believed would prove of more advantage to Ireland than any other, not excepting the Poor Law itself.

deprecated the idea of going into a subject of such great importance and of so complicated a nature with the view of deciding a mere abstract proposition. If the measure before the House were to be of benefit to both the parties whose interests it affected, it must depend altogether on the nature of the details; and, therefore, it would be rash and inexpedient at this period of the Session to decide upon it merely as an abstract naked principle. In all other relations of life—in all other trades and professions—it had always been considered that those engaged in them were much better judges of their own interest than any other parties; and nothing was deemed so impracticable as for the House of Commons to say what was the proper course for those parties to pursue in managing their affairs. It would be regarded as contrary to all the principles of political economy and free trade if that House was to undertake to legislate as to what line of conduct any description of traders, such as coach makers or bakers, ought to pursue in their avocations; and why, then, should they do so in the case of landlord and tenant? By such a proceeding they would embark in a course that could only lead to an increase of the evils they were endeavouring to remove. In this Bill the Member for Rochdale had introduced a measure objectionable in principle, still more objectionable in detail, and by a speech still more objectionable than either. He had brought forward charges against the Irish landlords so criminatory in their character, that if they were established, the public would he led to the conclusion, that the whole of the pro- perty and rights of those landlords was held by a downright imposition upon the community. He did not mean to accuse the hon. Member of intentionally calumniating the Irish landlords; but his charges contained the grossest exaggerations; and he maintained that if they had been the unjust oppressors he had represented them to be, their oppressions would not have been so long borne, but justice would long ere now have overtaken them. So far, however, from the sentiments of the hon. Member being borne out by facts, he held that the Irish landlords had made greater sacrifices than the landlords of England had ever done for the benefit of their tenants. The hon. Member charged the minute subdivisions of land in Ireland upon the landlords. In many cases this might be true. He did not not deny that 40s. freeholds were created for political purposes; but, generally speaking, this was not the case. The Irish landlords were less swayed by an ambition to make their properties available for political than for pecuniary objects. Neither were the middlemen the great cause of these subdivisions of land which were found in Ireland. The real difficulty both landlords and middlemen in Ireland had, lay in the disposition and habits and tendencies of the population of Ireland. They were accustomed to look to land as their only source of subsistence, and not to trade or manufactures. Early marriages were universal; and these were almost invariably accompanied with the subdivision of some farm already too small; so that the landlord, when he first heard of the subdivisions, found that if he dispossessed the parties, he could only do so by throwing a young couple and young family destitute upon the world. This was the real cause of the evils arising from the subdivision of land in Ireland. He had the most perfect conviction that in accomplishing the improvement of Ireland, the landed proprietors must be the principal agents; and this could only be effected by keeping up a community of interest between both landlord and tenant in the land. The landlord was placed with respect to his tenant in a sort of double relation. As the mere holder of the soil he was entitled to the rent; but also as a capitalist, contributing a certain proportion of the outlay necessary to the cultivation and improvement of the soil, he became entitled to a proportion of the profits that were received from it; therefore the more inducement they held out to the landlord to embark along with his tenant capital for the cultivation of the land, the more they increased the produce, and established a better footing between landlord and tenant. If, however, they attempted to regulate by law the arrangements between the landlord and the tenant, the consequence would be, that the former would be afraid to embark their capital either for building purposes on farms, or for the general improvement of the soil. He would assuredly employ his capital in other ways, and decline to embark it in the improvement of his own property, if he was to be subjected to conditions that would give him only an uncertain interest in the advantages which were to be derived from it. He must express his sincere satisfaction that Her Majesty's Ministers had postponed the consideration of this subject till a time when they could consider it in a more deliberate spirit, and give to it that attention which a measure of such importance demanded at their hands.

was unwilling to give a silent vote on this question, lest his silence should be liable to misconstruction, though he would not enter at any length into the various topics bearing on this very important subject, especially after the speech which they had heard from his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Monahan). If the question was, whether it was or was not expedient that that House should consider the propriety of some legislation to improve the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland—if there was nothing but that question before the House—he could not refuse his assent to the Motion; for there could be no doubt it was desirable that some legislative enactment should be matured by which those relations should be improved. Such a course would be quite consistent with the sentiments expressed by Her Majesty's Government. His noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury had stated at the beginning of the Session, that the Government intended to bring under the consideration of the House, a safe and satisfactory measure on this most difficult and important question. That measure was delayed till the noble Lord who then filled the situation of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (the lamented Earl of Besborough), who had paid particular attention to the subject, should be able to attend in his place in the House of Lords, when he could recommend to Parliament such a measure as, on the whole, would be most beneficial. The delay, therefore, had been owing to the unfortunate event which had deprived this country and Ireland of the services of Lord Besborough; and the great pressure of Irish business during the Session had reluctantly compelled the Government to give up the intention they had entertained of submitting a measure on their own responsibility to Parliament on the subject—a subject which was as complicated and difficult as it was important. He agreed with those Gentlemen who thought that any false step on this subject—any measure merely passed for the purpose of gaining popularity among the tenantry of Ireland, which would shake the foundations of property in that country, and deprive the landlord of all inducement to embark his capital for the improvement of his land and the encouragement of his tenantry—would be attended with the most disastrous consequences. At the same time, he could not agree with those who had argued that no measure of this kind should be introduced. He thought, looking to the present state of the relations between landlord and tenant in many parts of Ireland—looking at the jealousy and estrangements that unfortunately existed between two classes of society that ought to have the deepest interest in, and the best understanding with, one another—looking at all the circumstances of Ireland—he believed that measures might be devised of a nature that would be objectionable in a country circumstanced like this, which, if maturely considered, might produce beneficial consequences in Ireland. He confessed that he was prepared to approach the consideration of this subject with reference not only to general principles, but with reference to the special circumstances of Ireland. He believed a measure might be framed that would avoid shaking the security of landed property in Ireland, while, at the same time, security would be given for the profitable outlay of capital in judicious improvements of the soil, and encouragements given to tenants; who, he was afraid, were not at present, in some parts of Ireland, so much encouraged as they ought to be. But he could not admit that this was the question they had to decide on the present occasion. A Bill had been submitted to the House by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale; and he need scarcely say that he, for one, could have no prejudice against that Bill on account of the source from which it came. He admitted that any measure of this kind, coming from a Gentleman who, like his hon. Friend, was an extensive Irish landlord, and known for the kindness and consideration with which he acted towards his tenantry, had a right to meet a favourable construction from that House. But, although he confessed that he was disposed to look at the measure with a desire to give it the most favourable consideration, yet, after the best attention he could bestow upon it, he did not think it one which he was prepared to state to the House they could hope to put into such a shape that Parliament would give its sanction to it. The hon. Member for Winchester admitted, that, looking at the Bill itself, there was no prospect that it could become an Act of Parliament in the present Session; but that, he added, was no reason why this House should not sanction the principle. But he considered that this was a very dangerous course in relation to such a measure. It would give rise to misconstruction and alarm amongst the landlords of Ireland, and excite unbounded expectations amongst the tenantry; and, there by, so far from affording facilities, would create obstacles to another similar measure. He, therefore, assured the hon. Member for Rochdale, that if he objected to the second reading of this Bill, it was neither from any personal disrespect to him, nor because be did not agree with him that the subject deserved the serious consideration of Parliament; but because, having examined the Bill, he was satisfied that it did not afford materials for framing out of it a measure which that House ought to pass and send to the other House of Parliament, with a view of its becoming the law of the land; because he did not think it could be made a useful and satisfactory measure, or promote what ought to be the object of such a Bill, namely, to provide a proper security to the tenantry of Ireland, and at the same time promote the cultivation of the soil; but it was because he saw in it the seeds of litigation and disputes. He did not know that he need trouble the House with any further observations. If the hon. Member for Rochdale persisted in going on with the Bill, it would be his duty to record his vote against the second reading of it.

tendered his humble thanks to the hon. Member for Rochdale for having introduced this Bill. The great evils of Ireland resulted from the unsettled state of the relations between landlord and tenant. That being the case, he wanted to know why it was that Her Majesty's Ministers had not been prepared to come forward with a measure for remedying this great source of evil? In both England and Ireland, there was no body of men who had been so deluded as the farmers. Upon this question of the relations between landlord and tenant, they had been deluded. There were two parties in that House whom he accused of deceiving the farmers of Ireland. In the first place, Her Majesty's Ministers had deceived them: they had made promises at the beginning of the Session, and now they were at the end of it and their promises had not been fulfilled. The other party in the House of whom he complained, on the part of his constituents in Ireland, was the party called the "Irish party"—called "Irish," he supposed, because they had not fulfilled any one thing they had promised to do. If this Bill were thrown out on the second reading, the excitement of the public mind in Ireland would not be relieved by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had spoken as usual in a very kind and conciliatory tone, but had promised nothing, and pledged himself to nothing. That right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the question which the Bill sought to settle was a very important one; and he concluded his speech by declaring his intention to vote against it. By giving the Bill a second reading, the House would be affirming the principle that the relation between landlord and tenant in Ireland was in such a condition as to call for the interference of the Legislature. That was all that the promoters of the Bill required. Whatever was objectionable in the measure, could easily he altered and modified in the Committee up stairs. He implored, therefore, of the House to give the Bill a second reading. If they refused to do so, the result would be to impress the Irish people more strongly than ever with the conviction that, no matter what promises might be held out to them at this side of the water—no matter how rich the vision might be with which English statesmen might seek to allure their imaginations—there was but one hope for Ireland, namely, the restoration of her domestic Legislature. His hon. Friend below him said that he heartily wished they had it; but it was to be hoped that the hon. Gentleman would attest the sincerity of his words by voting for it when the proper opportunity should arrive. How could the people of Ireland have confidence in that House, when that House played with them in such a manner? Deceived by the Whig party, for whom they had made such sacrifices, and for whom the frieze-coated voters travelled miles upon miles to the hustings that they might carry them on their shoulders into power, and deceived also by that new party who started into existence to redress all abuses, and to lead public opinion in Ireland, the Irish people would be impelled irresistibly to the conclusion that it was idle to expect justice from the Imperial Parliament—idle to rely on the professions of pretending friends—and that there was no hope on earth for them except in repeal.

said, that he had little more to do than express his general concurrence in the reasons which had been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, against the second reading of the Bill. He respected the character and the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Bill, and gave him credit for the best motives in so doing. He was not unfriendly to a principle of fair compensation to the tenant for the permanent improvements he might make upon the land; but he would desire to see the principle founded, as far as it was possible, upon voluntary arrangement between landlord and tenant. The hon. Member for Winchester represented the hon. Member for Rochdale as not bound to any of the details of the present measure; but the hon. Member himself said, that he did consider it essential to the principle of the Bill to retain the retrospective operation of the compensation clauses; and also that the so-called "tenant right," in Ulster, now a matter of voluntary agreement between landlord and tenant, should be converted into a legal right on the part of the tenant. To both of those provisions he entirely objected. He wished also to explain that the law of landlord and tenant, under the civil-bill ejectment code, in Ireland, was not altogether as might be inferred from the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. S. Crawford). It was true, that in one sense a fifteen days' notice and a small expense would suffice for the purposes of a civil-bill ejectment; but there must, moreover, be a regular six months' notice to quit in case of an over holding tenant; and in other cases, either a full year's rent in arrear, or an absolute desertion of the premises by the tenant; and he had always been of opinion that the system in question, entailing very small comparative cost, was fully as advantageous to the tenant as to the landlord. With regard to the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that two parties in that House, namely, the Government and the "Irish" party, had greatly disappointed the Irish people, he had only to say that he was not bound to defend the Government, nor was he in any other way a member of, or connected with, what had been called the Irish party, than that he had at all times expressed and acted upon the determination to co-operate with any Irish Member, without reference to party or to politics, in promoting the general welfare of Ireland; but he could not help saying, that there was a third party which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roche) had not mentioned, and to which the hon. Gentleman belonged, which had more egregiously disappointed the Irish people than any other. He (Mr. Shaw) meant the Repeal party. On the whole, he gave credit to the Government for the straightforward course they had taken in opposing the present Bill on the second reading, instead of consenting to go into Committee, without the possibility of any good result; and he would, if the hon. Member (Mr. Crawford) should divide the House, vote with the Government against the second reading.

said, that when Gentlemen talked of the lateness of the Session, they should recollect that this debate had been adjourned since the 28th of April. he confessed that he had been considerably disappointed, first at the cautious manner in which the right hon. Recorder of Dublin had stated that he did not altogether object to the principle of giving some compensation to tenants; and, secondly, at the over-cautious manner in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had dealt with the principle. If this had been a new question, raised for the first time, he should not have been surprised at this caution; but he remembered that, four years ago, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had requested the hon. Member for Rochdale to withdraw a Bill upon this subject, on the ground that the Government of that day were about to inquire into the subject. That inquiry commenced in the winter of 1843; and the reports and evidence were laid before the House in 1845, accompanied by recommendations from the Commissioners of great importance. But, with a single exception, all that series of blue books had been as useless as if they had never been in existence. After the principle of compensation had been sanctioned by the respectable authority of the Commissioners, he thought the House ought to have had from Her Majesty's Government something more decisive than the declaration from the right hon. Gentleman, that he did not despair that something might be done upon, the subject. However, it appeared that they had not done so. A circumstance had occurred, to which no one could refer without feeling the most sincere regret. To Lord Besborough this subject had been entrusted, and no man was more fit to have brought it forward. He hoped the event that had happened would be a warning to the Government not to entrust such a subject again to any one individual. It had been said that the landlords of Ireland ought to give encouragement to their tenants; but this could not be effectually done unless the land were allowed to remain in the tenants' possession for a period sufficiently long to admit of their making improvements, and unless, also, security were given to the tenants that when those improvements were made, they should receive an adequate compensation. Instead, therefore, of looking upon this measure as one calculated to be injurious to the landlord, he was of opinion that it would be conducive to the personal and even selfish interests of the landlords. This being the object which his hon. Friend wished to carry into effect, he should give him his most cordial support.

remarked that the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. E. B. Roche) had accused the Government of having deluded the people of Ireland; but, in his opinion, this Bill was a complete delusion, for it held out promises to the tenants of Ireland which could not possibly be fulfilled.

said, that a large number of the proprietors of Ireland asked for this Bill; and it was matter of surprise that the hon. Member for the county of Cork should have thought proper to accuse the Irish party, as he was pleased to designate those Irish Members who deemed it their duty to confer together for promoting the common interests of their country, with having deluded and deceived the Irish people. It was unbecoming of the hon. Member, who remained at home in Cork, instead of attending to his Parliamentary duties in that House. And when the hon. Member talked of great promises on the banks of the Liffey, and small performances on the banks of the Thames, he (Sir H. W. Barron) would remind the hon. Member that great promises had been made in Cork, and there had been small performances in Westminster. He approved of the principle of the Bill, though he considered its details objectionable. These could be amended in Committee, and he should support the second reading.

considered the present question to be surrounded by a vast amount of difficulty. This was evident from the failure of former attempts to legislate upon it. Lord Stanley, when he was a Member of the Government of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, introduced a measure upon this subject, but it was withdrawn; and at a subsequent period the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk (the Earl of Lincoln) also brought forward a Bill having the same object in view, but that too was allowed to drop. This could only be accounted for by the fact that the subject itself was inherently difficult and complicated. Throughout the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Sharman Crawford), two very distinct subjects had been constantly mentioned together, and very much confused with each other: the one, due compensation to the tenant for a bonâ fide outlay in improvements in the land; and the other, fixity of tenure. It was very desirable that these two questions should be separated. No one opposed compensation for money laid out in improvements; and the only difficulty that existed was the mode of ascertaining what that outlay really was. But this Bill did not provide any means by which the actual improvements and their real value might be ascertained. There should be a preliminary valuation of the lands on the tenant's taking a farm; but this was not proposed to be done, so that everybody who chose to call anything an improvement might charge his landlord what he pleased. Every tenant who took a farm did so with his eyes open; he was competent to know its actual condition; and he was aware that if there were the necessary buildings upon it, he would have a higher rent to pay than if there were not. The whole effect of the Bill would be to make the tenants, in fact, owners, and the present owners merely rent-chargers on the land. The second preamble was contrary to the fact and to history: the reason why the tenants of Ulster paid a high rent for land was be- cause they had nothing else to live upon; but if there were such a thing as payment for labour on farms in Ireland, the tenant-right would disappear. Looking at this clause, it would seem that the tenant-right extended over the whole of Ireland; but it was partial even in the parts where it existed; and in Meath, with regard to the larger farms, the right did not exist at all; and if the Bill had the effect of continuing the present occupiers of land in their existing condition, the Legislature would inflict the greatest evil upon Ireland. The landlords of Ireland were anxious to improve the condition of the tenants; but they had great difficulties to contend with, and he excepted the resident landlords especially from the charge of not having done their duty. Upon the one-fifth who were resident all complaints fell, for whenever they thwarted a job or a popularity-hunter, they were opposed at home and complained of in that House.

defended the hon. Member for Cork for his absence in Ireland, where he had been attending to his duty as a landlord; and admitted that the Irish party, to which he had himself belonged, had done wrong in rejecting the proposal of the noble Member for Lynn for benefiting his country.

was of opinion that Ministers had adopted a most proper and discreet course in opposing a measure which, if passed, would be far from serving the interests of Ireland: he could not understand how the adoption of it could benefit any party in that country. At the same time he was not opposed to such a provision as had been adverted to by the Secretary for Ireland. From the Bill under consideration the tenants would be led to indulge hopes that never could be realized. Supposing Government to approve of the principle of the measure, they ought not to support the second reading unless they could concur in most of the details.

would have voted in favour of the principle of the Bill, if there were any hope that the details could have been settled in the course of the present Session. There was no possibility of doing so; and a measure which Ministers were very desirous to pass, had not yet been even introduced. He admitted that he could not agree in any of the details of the measure under consideration.

said, he would only delay the House while he alluded to a few of the objections that had been raised to this Bill. The first of these objections was, that it was now too late to press it forward; but surely the fault of the delay that had taken place rested with Her Majesty's Government themselves, and not with the hon. Member for Rochdale. The next objection was, that no compensation was to be given, except on the termination of a tenancy. That surely was not an objection worthy of much attention, for it was clearly only when the landlord determined the tenancy that he ought to be called upon for compensation. Another of the objections urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was, that arbitration would be very expensive. So it no doubt would, if lawyers were to arbitrate; but he could not see why such questions should not be left to the decision of two or three honest men who were not lawyers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin complained that the Bill had a retrospective operation; but ho, for one, could not see how such a measure could be just or useful unless it were retrospective in its effect. He should give his most cordial support to the second reading.

did not see that the House could occupy itself for the; short time it had to sit before six o'clock, with a more important question than that before them. If they wished to improve Ireland, they could not do so more effectually than by giving a stimulus to the occupying tenantry of Ireland to develop the resources of the country and increase its natural productions by every means in their power. To effect such an object, he considered the security which this Bill was intended to effect, absolutely essential. It had been objected, that if such a Bill were passed for Ireland, a similar Bill should also be adopted for this country. He could not agree in that argument. There were essential differences between the condition of the two countries, two of the principal of which arose from the facts that in Ireland the average extent of farms was but five acres, and that in this country it was customary for the landlords to effect all the great improvements themselves.