moved that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

said, that he was so decidedly opposed to the measure that he should move that the House go into Committee on that day three months. He was of opinion that copyhold tenure should be done away with, and that fee-simple tenure should be substituted for it. His objection, therefore, was not to the principle of copyhold enfranchisement, but to the framework of the Bill, as not being calculated to carry out the object in view. If the House would look into the Bill, it would be seen that it would not enforce the enfranchisement of copyholds. Indeed, it was not for the enfranchisement of copyholds, but for the commutation of rents, which it was proposed to effect in a manner most unjust towards lords of manors. He also objected to it on the ground that it was not in conformity with the usages of that House to go into a Bill, the enactments of which did not coincide with its title.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.

seconded the Amendment. He was favourable to the principle of enfranchisement, but he did not think that, under the provisions of this Bill, they would be able to carry its object into effect. The machinery of this Bill did not touch the enfranchisement of copyholds, as it only provided for getting rid of fines and commuting rent-charges. Its provisions were also most objectionable, as they were perfectly one-sided, and were proposed to be carried into effect in a manner which he thought the House should not sanction. He feared this Bill was brought in to meet a particular case, and not for a general object. The customs also of manors in this country were as variable as possible, and it was impossible a measure of this kind could pass without their looking into the whole character of the various tenures in manors. The major part of the copyholds in this country were for terms of lives; but by the 37th clause they were specially excluded from the operation of this Bill. He thought this was a question rather to be dealt with by the Government than by a private Member.

was a cordial supporter of the principles of the measure; he was therefore sorry to hear such objections raised against it. Some years ago an Act was passed to encourage the voluntary enfranchisement of copyholds, but its operation had been very limited; it therefore was now proposed to extend the principle by enforcement of enfranchisement, with the view of simplifying all tenures. He admitted that he entertained objections to some of the machinery of the Bill; but he hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Preston would let them go into Committee with the view of seeing how they could best get rid of copyholds.

felt assured, however much time they might expend on the Bill in Committee that day, that it could not become law during the present Session, attacking so many interests as it did in many parts of the country. He should oppose it as inviting gross injustice.

knew the measure was regarded as one of great importance in many parts of the country, and above all in the north of England. The chief opposition to it had originated in a self-constituted body calling themselves the Committee of Lords and Stewards of Manors, and who had sent statements to nearly all the Members of that House in which the Bill was grossly misrepresented. The hon. Member for Preston said, there was not a word in it about the compulsory enfranchisement of copyholds, but that it only extended to the commutation of copyhold rents. He could hardly conceive that the hon. Baronet had read its provisions when he made such a statement. The Bill not only embraced the commutation of rents, but it extended to a great many other objects. It commuted fines, heriots, rent-charges; and it also commuted services, which were the most objectionable portions of copyhold tenure. He had appealed to the Speaker as to another objection which had been raised, and that high authority stated that he found the title was in conformity with the enactments of the Bill. He should be perfectly willing in Committee to give every consideration to objections which might be raised against its provisions.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 40: Majority 9.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill in Committee.

Clause 1.

moved an Amendment to the effect that all manorial rights should be commuted by the Copyhold Commissioners.

objected to the Amendment. The interests involved were so large and so varied that he felt it would be impossible to accede to it. In the case of mines and minerals it would be particularly objectionable.

said, his only object was to convert these copyholds into really freehold tenures, which could never be done unless all manorial rights were to be commuted.

supported the clause in its original form. To assent to the Amendment would be to greatly interfere with the rights of property.

should vote for the Amendment, with the view of sweeping away all the remnants of copyhold tenure.

looked upon the clause as a step towards the removal of all the annoyances of copyhold tenure which at present existed. He should therefore give it his support, for he thought that by omitting mines and minerals, at all events for the present, they would prevent a good deal of opposition to the Bill.

said, if the hon. Member would exclude mines and minerals from the Amendment he should vote with him.

did not object to reserve the question of mines and minerals. He would consent, therefore, with that view, to add to his Amendment the words "except as hereinafter provided."

Amendment proposed, page 1, line 17, to leave out from the word "That" to the word "may," page 2, line 3, in order to insert the words "all manorial rights except as hereinafter provided."

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 47: Majority 8.

then moved an Amendment to provide that the enfranchisement of a property should not take place, except on the application of three-fourths of the tenants in number and value. He was quite willing that the majority of the tenants of a manor should bind the minority, but he should object to individual enfranchisements.

objected to the Amendment. One of the main principles of the Bill was that there should be individual enfranchisements. It would be hard that an individual who wished it should be refused enfranchisement because three-fourths of the tenants did not desire it; and it would be equally hard that a man should be compelled to accept enfranchisement if he did not desire it, because others of the tenants happened to wish for it.

would support the Amendment. It would do justice to the lord as well as the individual tenant, and would not introduce the distinction that the poor tenant without capital should not be considered, but that the wealthy tenant who had capital should.

suggested that instead of pressing his Amendment, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire should allow the clause to stand as it was, and insist upon introducing words into a subsequent clause giving the same power to the lord as this clause gave to the individual tenant.

replied, that the same power could not properly be given to the lord as was now proposed to be given to the tenant, because, if the lord could claim commutation from one tenant, he could, of course, claim it from all; and the fact was that a large number of the small tenants were so poor that if they were asked to pay the commutation fine it would be absolute ruin to them.

said, there was another objection to the proposal. By the 22nd clause it was provided that the expenses of the commutation should be paid by the party making the application. It was useless, therefore, to give the power of making the application to individual tenants, because, in most cases, it would be utterly impossible that they could pay the expenses of it.

suggested that the number of tenants who should have power to make the application should be two-thirds instead of three-fourths.

said, he had fixed the number at three-fourths, because the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth had himself fixed that number in case of enfranchisement in another part of the Bill.

Same clause.

Amendment proposed, line 5, to leave out the words "a tenant," in order to insert the words "three-fourths of the tenants in number and value."

Question put, "That the words 'a tenant' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 74: Majority 30.

said, he should now move is an Amendment to substitute for the words "three-fourths in number and value," now adopted by the Committee, the words, "the majority in number."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "three fourths of the tenants in number and value," in order to insert the words "a majority of the tenants in number."

Question put, "That the words 'three-fourths of the tenants in number and value' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 53: Majority 13.

asked whether the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, upon calm consideration, thought it expedient to proceed with a Bill which it was now clear could come to nothing?

said, that the effect of the Amendments had been, in his opinion, materially to damage the Bill; but still he would not throw it up in a pet.

suggested that, as the hon. and learned Member would not throw up the Bill in a pet, he would do so upon calm consideration, as there was no chance of its being carried this Session.

said, that he had bestowed already two years of calm consideration on the Bill; and he was determined to press it as far as possible.

said, he should then move that the Chairman report progress.

thought that, as important alterations had been made in the Bill, with respect to commutation and enfranchisement, it would be as well if the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, who had charge of it, would state whether he could proceed with advantage with the other parts of the Bill, without taking time to consider the further alterations which were necessary. It was hardly fair to force the hon. and learned Member to postpone his Bill if he was prepared to make the alterations in the various clauses which had become necessary in consequence of the decision of the Committee. The hon. and learned Member would not, he was sure, embark the House in any useless discussion; and if he thought he could proceed with the Bill with advantage, he (Sir J. Graham) should certainly give his vote against the Motion for reporting progress.

said, that he should be perfectly prepared so to alter the clauses of the Bill as to make it in accordance with the decision of the Committee, without requiring any delay of the Bill for that purpose. There would, however, no doubt, be some difficulties with some hon. Members who were not so conversant as himself with the provisions of the Bill, in striking out some of the clauses, which would be necessary in consequence of the decision of the Committee.

The Motion for reporting progress withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to; Clause 2 postponed; Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4,

proposed to strike out the words which limited the period in which such applications should be made to the admittance of a tenant, or within six months after such admittance, and to insert words giving power to the Commissioners to entertain applications for commutation in cases where the lord or lords, being the owners of three-fourths in value of the manor, required such commutation.

objected to the insertion of the words, as they involved a new principle, and were not required in order to carry out the views of the Committee.

thought that the same right to compel enfranchisement should be conferred upon the lord of the manor as upon the tenant.

was now prepared to suggest the postponement of the further consideration of the Bill, as he thought the anticipated difficulties had arisen.

suggested that the 4th clause should be conformable to the 29th, which affected the object in view with respect to enfranchisement. He thought the machinery contained in the 29th clause should be applied to commutation

was willing to withdraw the Amendment, but he must move that the Chairman report progress.

said, the effect of reporting progress would be, to throw the Bill over for the present Session.

House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Wednesday next.

, in moving the Second Reading of the Smoke Prohibition Bill, said the measure was one which had come down from the other House of Parliament, having received the sanction of their Lordships. Although he entirely approved of the principle of the Bill, he believed that in Committee it might require some alteration. He wished on this occasion, however, to take the sense of the House on the principle of the measure, and to ascertain whether it was the opinion of hon. Gentlemen that the great nuisance to which the Bill referred should be the subject of legislation or not. He might remind the House that in the ensuing year the attendance of a very large number of foreigners was expected in this metropolis, not only from all parts of Europe, but, as they were told, from all quarters of the world; and he felt anxious that they should not see our public buildings, institutions, galleries, and museums disfigured as they now were by smoke. During the present Session he had been attending a Parliamentary Committee on the National Gallery, and several witnesses examined before the Committee had stated that the pictures in that gallery were not only injured, but were being gradually destroyed, by the effects of a London atmosphere, impregnated as it was by emanations from the furnaces burning on all sides. The guardian of the Berlin Gallery, who was examined before the Committee, stated that he had visited the National Gallery some years ago, and that he had not language to describe the change that had taken place in the pictures since that time, but that he might almost say they were destroyed by the action of the atmosphere. Another witness had stated that the change he had observed in the Vernon Gallery of pictures by their removal to the National Gallery, he was unable to describe, but that they were in process of destruction, owing to the same cause. The condition of the gallery was bad enough before, but baths and washhouses had lately been erected exactly at the back of the building, so that a new infusion of smoke was now pouring down daily into the gallery, and was injuring the pictures so seriously, that the impression on the minds of many Members of the Committee was, that the pictures must be removed, or they would be totally destroyed. This nuisance had, however, another effect of still greater importance—it was most injurious to the public health. A lengthy report from a member of the Board of Health had lately been published in the news- papers, in which particular allusion was made to this nuisance, and the writer expressed his decided opinion that it was most injurious to health. It had been long ago established that it was not necessary to prove that a nuisance was actually injurious to health, but that if it could be shown that it interfered with the enjoyment of life and property, the public had a right to be protected from it. He was a Member of the Committee on Prison Discipline, and their attention had been incidentally drawn to the smoke nuisance. They had found that the most noxious effects were experienced at the Millbank Penitentiary in consequence of the smoke from the steam engines in the neighbourhood of that prison. Although the governor of the Penitentiary was not prepared to say that the illness and deaths which had so frequently occurred in that prison arose from those noxious furnaces, it was clear from the frequent coroners' inquests that had been held that the building was beyond all dispute in a very unhealthy situation. He would not refer to the numerous reports that had been made by Parliamentary Committees which had considered this subject, and had recommended the removal of the nuisance; but he might observe that those reports established the fact that the nuisance was one capable of a remedy, at some expense to manufacturers he would admit, by the use of machinery for consuming smoke, or of fuel which did not produce any smoke. He would only refer to one authority, that of Lord Mansfield, who had laid it down on a trial relating to a nuisance that it was not necessary to constitute the offence of a nuisance that a smell should be unwholesome; but it was enough if it rendered the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable. It therefore appeared to him highly reasonable, in conformity with that opinion, that they should by an Act of the Legislature get rid of the nuisance to which this Bill referred. He thought it would hardly be disputed that there were modes of remedying the evil. They had been told, on the authority of the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851, that although a large furnace was to be placed in the building to be erected in Hyde Park, it would not cause any nuisance, because it would consume its own smoke. If, then, there was a machine in existence for consuming smoke, he called upon the House to require that all furnaces should be fitted with such machinery. The Members of that House were aware that a steam-engine and furnace had recently been erected in the Palace-yard by the Commissioners of Sewers; but the House had been informed by one of the Commissioners that there was no reason to apprehend any inconvenience from that furnace, because, although it was not provided with a machine for consuming its own smoke, a description of coal would be used that would not cause any smoke. He (Mr. Bankes) did not consider that it was any sufficient answer to say that the adoption of these means would throw some additional expense upon manufacturers and others, because they ought to be required to pay some regard to the comfort of the persons residing in the neighbourhood of their establishments. He admitted that the Bill was capable of some improvements, and in Committee he would not only be ready to consider any Amendments that might be suggested, but he would probably propose some himself.

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

said, the hon. Gentleman had complained very bitterly that the pictures in the National Gallery and the contents of museums in London were injured by smoke; but he (Mr. Copeland) doubted whether any instrument or machine could be invented that would consume the smoke of the cities of London and Westminster. The hon. Gentleman had also stated that smoke was detrimental to health. He (Mr. Copeland) could only say that he knew many learned men who were of opinion that what proceeded from a chimney where attempts were made by machinery to consume smoke, was more detrimental to health than the smoke itself; and in the districts with which he was connected, the operatives stated that their health suffered more where attempts were made to consume smoke, than where no such endeavours were made. With regard to the furnace in Hyde Park, he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to wait till it was erected, and then to ascertain whether it really did consume its own smoke. He was as desirous to get rid of the nuisance of smoke as any Member of that House or any person in the country could be, and he had expended large sums of money in endeavouring to effect that object. He had tried many experiments, but none of them had been successful. It had been said, that an eminent brewer in Spit- alfields had apparatus which consumed the smoke of the furnace. He had visited that establishment, and he would unhesitatingly say that the machine was not efficient. He had himself tried an invention for this purpose at his works in Staffordshire, on the terms of "no cure no pay;" but it was wholly unsuccessful, and he would either have to pay for the experiment, or a lawsuit would be brought against him. He was therefore unwilling to shackle the trade and commerce of this country by legislation on such a subject, when no machinery had been invented to carry out the objects of the Bill. Was every great manufactory to be liable to stoppage because any person might go before a magistrate and say the furnace caused offensive smoke? He saw in the House many hon. Gentlemen who were deeply interested in manufactures, and he would ask them whether they thought it probable or possible that the provisions of this Bill could be carried out? They had been told on a former occasion, when this question had been brought before the House, that the Government were about to try experiments for the consumption of the smoke at Portsmouth or Woolwich dockyard, and he would be glad if the Government would state whether those experiments had been successful or not. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire had admitted that the carrying out of this Bill would be attended with some expense to the manufacturing interests. He (Mr. Copeland) could confirm that statement, for he had been asked to try an experiment for the consumption of smoke at a cost of 30 l. for each of his furnaces, so that he might have to pay altogether some 3,000 l. or 4.000 l. for that purpose, and still be in doubt whether the experiment would turn out successful or not. He begged, therefore, to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second 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."

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

seconded the Amendment, and said he thought that the manner in which attempts were made to interfere with the manufacturing interests required the serious consideration of the House. He was satisfied that if this measure was adopted it would be attended with most injurious consequences to the manufacturers. He had no individual interest in any manufacture in this country, but he wished to see capital left as free as possible. If this Bill were passed, he might be taken before a magistrate and subjected to punishment because he had a furnace for heating his house during the winter, from the chimney of which smoke might be seen to issue, although he took every care to prevent any nuisance. He hoped the House would reject the Bill.

believed, that though it was said smoke was so unhealthy, London was a healthy city. However, he would say that he should be happy to agree to a measure upon this subject, when a way for persons to consume their own smoke should be ascertained; but at present experiments had not succeeded, and therefore it would not be right to pass this Bill.

doubted whether smoke could be got rid of, as some supposed, when it had once been made. He had been lately to see an experiment, where the fire was very gradually introduced, and the principle appeared good; but he could not obtain an estimate as to the cost, and he should not feel justified as a legislator in forcing upon the people a system the expense of which was not known. In one part of the country some coal could be obtained that would not cause smoke; but a general Bill like this would not be just. Indeed, this Bill could not be worked, and evidently emanated from people who knew nothing of the subject.

said, that considering the fate of the Bill of last Session, and the extreme resemblance of this Bill to its predecessor, he could not see that even if the House were now to affirm the principle of its being desirable to put an end to what was termed "the smoke nuisance," they would advance a step towards the attainment of that end. He did not think that this Bill would be found to work effectually; and it would be only wasting time to read it with a view of going into Committee upon the details, when it must end in the defeat of the Bill, as before. There was an Act obtained, for Manchester, he believed, with a view to effect the object aimed at by this Bill; and it would be desirable as far as possible to assimilate the provisions of any Bill of this kind to those already in operation, if they had been found to be of service. He understood it was said that that Act was not found to be operative; he did not know how this might be, but it was of no use to proceed now, with no prospect of obtaining the assent of Parliament to a measure upon this subject this year; and, having some regard for the time of the House, he must object to its being further occupied with this Bill.

hoped the principle of the Bill would be adopted by the House sooner or later, but would recommend the hon. Member now to withdraw the Bill and bring in another next Session.

could not proceed further with the Bill against the opinion of the Government. Such a measure could not and ought not to be carried against them; but he very much regretted that the nuisance should continue, and hoped the Government would turn their attention to the subject.

Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read 2° this day six months.

moved that it be read a second time upon that day three months. It was one of several Bills sent down from the other House, the object of which might be described to be to facilitate extermination, and this at a time when the tenantry of Ireland were calling for a just measure of relief and protection, which would not be granted. There were most arbitrary clauses in the Bill. By the first clause a tenant-at-will was to be liable to an ejectment for non-payment of rent with out notice to quit; and Clause 6 provided that if a tenant cut his grain on a Sunday, or between sunset and sunrise, with a view to its being removed to prevent a distress, he might be fined 10 l. and imprisoned with hard labour for twelve months. To any legitimate measure for enforcing the just rights of landlords he should not object, provided there was just respect, also, to the rights of the tenants; but to these provisions he must object. Grain must often be cut after sunset, and there might be a suspicion of an intent to remove it to prevent a distress; but how was that to be established? The Bill professed to be "to amend and improve the relations of landlord and tenant;" but there was not a clause in it to do any justice or give any relief to the tenant.

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

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

defended the Bill, but should be very sorry to support one which could fairly be said to lead to extermination. The first clause would remedy an evil to which a yearly tenant was exposed, subjecting him to annoyance and uncertainty—namely, the having continual notices to quit served upon him by the landlord, in order that the latter might have power to eject him if he should fall into arrear with his rent; and the clause provided that the landlord might bring his ejectment for non-payment of a year's rent, as under a written contract, but only provided he would forego the arrear of rent. The 6th clause was directed only against fraudulent tenants, and was necesary, because ill-disposed persons had in many instances cut and carried away their crops in the night or on Sunday. The clause was to meet cases where there was reasonable ground to apprehend that this was done to defraud the landlord.

could not agree to a clause directed against cutting grain after sunset—a monstrous interference with the freedom of the agricultural population. But with regard to the Bill altogether, he should consider it ill-judged and improper to proceed, with so little time for deliberation, to pass any measure giving additional powers to the landlords in Ireland, when so bad a spirit existed on both sides, he feared, and when the Government Bill upon the subject was to stand over, and the whole landlord and tenant question must be deliberated upon in the next Session.

hoped the Government would consider that the Bill ought not to be proceeded with, but postponed with the other Irish measures that had been alluded to. He further wished to add that, having reference to the lateness of the hour, it was to be hoped that the House would deal with this measure as they had done with others of the same character, and not then proceed with it. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, he felt it his duty to move that the debate be adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."

supported the Bill, and took that opportunity to call the attention of the House to the frequent collisions which took place between the police and the country people, arising out of the removal of crops, and out of disputes connected with rent.

said, that though Ireland was in a most lamentable condition, yet he very much doubted whether the measure now under consideration was the most effectual remedy that could be applied. He asked, was the House really taking the right course? Would such a Bill as that, if brought in for England, be entertained for a moment? Then, why treat Ireland differently from England?—and why not give the same protection to the tenants in both countries? In his opinion the Ministers ought to bring in a measure of this sort—some measures, he meant, to correct the evils against which the Bill then before them was directed.

regretted to observe that some hon. Members seemed to regard the Bill before them as a landlords' measure. Now, in his opinion, it was not by any means a Bill for the benefit of the landlords alone, but quite as much for the advantage of the tenants. He admitted that there was some difference of opinion as to some of the clauses; but there could be no doubt as to the necessity of relieving the tenantry of Ireland from many of the harsh and distressing modes of proceeding which it was now in the power of landlords to put in force against them, and these proceedings had in times past, as well as on more recent occasions, led to much disturbance. In the course of the last year many outrages had been committed in consequence of those proceedings; and, lest there should be a repetition of them, he trusted that the House would give to this Bill a favourable consideration; therefore it appeared to him desirable that it should be read a second time, and as to his own opinions respecting the first clause, he should not insist upon them, but leave the matter open for discussion in the Committee. He did not urge the House to adopt any of the clauses as they stood; still less any enactments that were likely to prove of a harsh or severe character.

would oppose the measure, as it appeared to him nothing more nor less than a Coercion Bill, directed against the tenantry of Ireland.

And it being Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till To-morrow without putting the Question.