moved that this Bill be read a Third Time. It had not been his wish to legislate for Ireland on this subject, but during last autumn he received from two tenant-right societies in Ireland a request that he would include that country in his Bill. Seeing it was not likely that any Government measure would be introduced this Session on the subject, and the hon. Member for Kerry having given notice of a Motion to extend the Bill to Ireland, he (Mr. Pusey) had consented to adopt that suggestion. From all he could learn from Irish Members, the measure could not do Ireland any harm; he there- fore respectfully asked hon. Members belonging to that country to allow Ireland to stand part of the title of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be 'now' read a Third Time."

said, that in Lincolnshire there was a decided objection on the part of the tenants to any legislative interference with the relations existing between landlord and tenant; and he knew that although at agricultural meetings the members were not allowed to talk politics, yet that they did, in their private conversations, speak of this Bill as being a most absurd measure. He therefore moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

seconded the Amendment.

considered the reason assigned by the hon. Member for Berkshire, for extending this Bill to Ireland, namely, that it would not do that country any harm, was a very odd sort of reason on which to ground an act of legislation. The question they ought to consider was, whether it would do Ireland any good. In his opinion the Bill was full of objectionable provisions, and if enacted it would open the door to endless litigation between landlord and tenant. It might possibly suit the purposes of large farmers in Lincolnshire and Norfolk; but it was totally inapplicable to those parts of the country where the tenures were small, and the tenants without much capital. To them the effects of the measure would be very injurious, and would indeed be the means of preventing them from taking any farms at all. He entertained a strong objection also to the interference which the Bill would sanction with the interests of tenants in tail by the tenants for life. With these views, he should vote for the Amendment.

replied, that there might appear to be some force in the objections of the hon. Baronet if the system which the Bill sanctioned had never yet been tried; but it was already in existence in Lincolnshire. [Mr. CHRISTOPHER: No, no!] If the hon. Member would refer to the blue book, he would see that that was the case; and that the system had produced none of those evils which were anticipated by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devonshire.

said, the hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken when he said that the system which this Bill would establish was applicable to the county which he (Mr. Christopher) represented. The system which existed in Lincolnshire had arisen out of a voluntary contract and a mutual goodwill between landlord and tenant; and that, he begged to say, was a very different thing from the enforcement by Act of Parliament of arrangements between those parties, and more especially in other parts of the country, where circumstances might render such arrangements wholly impracticable.

had hitherto supported the Bill, and he did so because it was an English Bill; but now that it was proposed to extend it to Ireland he could no longer give it his support.

had always considered the Bill to be a most objectionable measure. It would interfere improperly with the rights of private property. It was said to be permissive only; but if this measure were agreed to, another year would not pass without the hon. Gentleman's bringing in a Bill to make it compulsory. The hon. Member wished to instruct farmers in the management of their property; but it appeared, according to the opinion of the Times Commissioner, who had visited the farm of the hon. Member, that it was overstocked with lean sheep. It was said, that this Bill was brought in to gratify the tenant farmers; but they were not so benighted as not to see that it was a delusion. He considered that they were amongst the worst-used class of Her Majesty's subjects; and, for these reasons, he should support the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 17: Majority 36.

Bill read 3°.

moved the omission of the word "Ireland" from the preamble. He objected to accept for Ireland a measure of this imperfect character, while a more just and perfect one was imperatively called for. It would be, in his opinion, most injurious to the best interests of Ireland to pass a measure so totally ineffective as the present, and thus to give an apology to the Government for neglecting to do their duty in bringing forward such a measure as they would stand by, and offer as a final settlement of the subject of tenant-right in Ireland. The only mode by which the agitation in Ireland on the subject of tenant-right could be prevented from arriving at dangerous results, would be by some timely step being taken by the Government to do that which was just and fair towards both the landlords and tenants of Ireland.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the words "or Ireland."

supported the application of the measure to Ireland. He did not see how the Bill if good for England, would not, as far as it went, be good for Ireland. He thought it inconsistent in the hon. Member for Dundalk to vote for the third reading of the same Bill last year, and to oppose it on this occasion. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not allow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale to pass.

said, that if it were necessary he could point out several clauses in the present Bill which differed widely from those contained in the Bill of last year. But he did not wish to rest the vindication of the altered course he now deemed it his duty to pursue, upon any nice distinction between the tenor of the two Bills. He supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, because the circumstances of the country had, with reference to this question, greatly changed; and he must be allowed to add, because the hopes and fears with which his own mind had formerly been swayed with regard to it, had undergone a very great alteration. Last year he owned that he was one of those who did not despair of seeing a practical settlement of this most important question attempted by the Government. He had even clung to the hope during the earlier part of the present Session that something effectual might be done. Day after day, however, had been suffered to pass, and the precious opportunity had been lost for adjusting the great controversy that now rent society in Ireland. The people had seen their prayers neglected, they had seen the attention of Parliament devoted to almost every conceivable subject but this—this which touched them more nearly than any other. They were disappointed, irritated, agitated; and he must say, that whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite might think of the avowal, he thought the people of Ireland had just cause for irritation, at the way in which this, their paramount concern, had been neglected. Nothing could be more unwarrantable than the insinuation that had been made, that those Members of that House who had lately taken more than ordinary interest in promoting the due consideration of the claims of the Irish tenant classes, had sought to stimulate angry passions, or to foster unreasonable expectations on the subject. Their advice and admonition had undeviatingly been of an opposite character. But they felt themselves all the more bound, at whatever risk of unpopularity in that House, to urge upon those who unfortunately deemed their interests as landlords adverse to those of the tenantry, that the indefinite delay in which they were encouraging the Government, and the perpetuation of just discontent which they were thus causing, was a perilous course both to themselves and the country. However this might be, he thought that no impartial man could charge his hon. Friends who had voted last year for the Bill of the hon. Member for Berkshire with inconsistency if they now refused to do an act which would naturally be regarded by an irritated people as mere trifling with their wants and wishes. The best that could be said of the Bill was, that in England it would do no harm. But the people in Ireland were not at the present moment in the humour to be offered this miserable prescription of "spermaceti for an inward bruise." As for assimilation, he would say that he believed a more hollow or absurd cant never had prevailed. It was not many hours since they had been stunned by a signal proof given in another place that there was no intention whatever, so far as the party opposite were concerned, to yield any substantial right of franchise that would tend to assimilate the liberties of the two nations. And it ill became the hon. Member for Kerry, who by his vote in that House had encouraged others to commit the act to which he alluded, to taunt others with a want of faith in the delusion called assimilation. After suffering the Session to pass without one serious attempt to pass a substantial measure on the subject for Ireland, he could not help thinking that the unmeaning insertion of the name of that kingdom in a Bill solely applicable to England, would be felt, by the majority of the Irish people, as something very like an insult and a mockery.

would support the Bill, but he deprecated the course pursued by the hon. Member for Dundalk. The tenantry of Ireland would at least see that the hon. Member for Kerry had endeavoured to gain something for them by assimilating as much as possible the law of England and Ireland; but the hon. Member for Dundalk had protested against any assimilation, and, despairing of a large measure, he had refused a small one.

said, that the question was, whether this Bill should be extended to Ireland, or whether that which the Committee had decided should be reversed? He saw no reason why this Bill should not be extended to Ireland. The object of the Bill was, that persons having limited agreements were to make them binding on their successors. This was for the benefit of those persons, because it would encourage permanent improvement. It was desirable to remove the obstacles which existed in Ireland as well as in England. He hoped the object of the Bill would be to lead to well-considered amendments between landlords and tenants. There was nothing in this Bill that need prevent future regulations as applicable to Ireland when the Bill came under consideration. He should vote for the retention of those words in the Bill which extended it to Ireland.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 14: Majority 50.

Bill passed.

The House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.