moved for leave to bring in a Bill to secure the rights of the outgoing tenants in Ireland. It was his intention to propose to secure those rights by confirming and extending the custom of tenant-right as it exists in the province of Ulster. His object was to bring before the House, in the form of a distinct proposition, what that tenant-right was, and what provisions would be necessary to make it law. His Bill would be confined to that particular object, the explanation of tenant-right, and those provisions that would be necessary to enforce it. As the proposition for leave to bring in the Bill was not, he understood, to be opposed by the Government, he would postpone his statement of details until the second reading, and now merely move for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, that it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill.

considered that a subject of more importance could not come before Parliament. Many years had passed of promises to and expectations on the part of the people of Ireland. Commission after Commission had sat on the subject, and the time seemed to be coming when, if the Legislature did not interfere, the people of Ireland would take the matter into their own hands. He perceived the repeal agitation was becoming a tenant-right agitation, and rallying around it the farmer classes of Ireland, many of whom were vitally interested in the question.

declared that he was opposed to the introduction of the Bill, and would, if necessary, divide the House on it.

had always found that any attempt to interfere between masters and men had been productive of greater injury to the men than to the masters. He considered that any individual who held out hopes that they could divide the land between the possessors and the tenants, held out hopes that would do injury. Though he would desire to see improvements effected, with the sanction of the proprietors, he would not wish to see compulsory means adopted.

begged to be permitted to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department respecting the collision between the people and the police which had taken place on the preceding day, in Trafalgar Square. There had been a meeting held in Trafalgar Square. It had been called by an individual—a certain individual. That meeting had been allowed to take place, and it had gone off perfectly decently and orderly till after a great number of speakers had been heard with decorum and tranquillity on the part of the people. After the meeting had ceased, and when the people were about to disperse, a collision took place between them, which had resulted in grave consequences. He, therefore, wished to be informed what directions had been given to the police with respect to the meeting; and he asked the question because he believed that, on the one side, the freest discussion by the people was the best security for the public peace in this country; and on the other, he also believed that the police forces of the metropolis were willing to their duty in the best manner.

The meeting was convened by a Mr. Cochrane. An advertisement convening it had been cir- culated, and bills had been posted in public places, signed by Mr. Charles Cochrane, summoning a meeting to take place in Trafalgar Square for the purpose of petitioning Parliament for the total and immediate abolition of the income-tax. The commissioners of police, seeing the advertisement, wrote to Mr. Cochrane, and in-formed him that there was an Act of Parliament, the 57th George III., the provisions of which prohibited the holding of any meeting in the open air for the purpose of petitioning Parliament for the alteration of any measure affecting Church or State at any place within one mile of Westminster Hall, during the sitting of Parliament, except within the limits of the parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden. Mr. Cochrane acknowledged the receipt of the communication, in a letter in which he stated that he was not aware the meeting was illegal. The commissioners, in reply, told him that he mistook their meaning. That it was not an illegal meeting, but that the place appointed for it was within the limits prohibited by an Act of Parliament. Mr. Cochrane accordingly abstained from attending the meeting himself, and put up placards informing the people that the meeting could not be held, and calling upon them to disperse. With regard to the "grave consequences" alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, no graver consequences had followed than a slight disturbance, and the breaking of some widows and lamps, which the police most effectually and (he believed) temperately cheeked.