should move as an Amendment, that the House go into Committee upon that day three months. He denied that the Bill would effect its object, even in the metropolis; and he strongly objected to confining its provisions, supposing it to be an effective Bill, to the metropolis—drawing a line, in fact, round London, and saying, "Here, up to this point, you must observe the Sabbath, but beyond that point you are at liberty to break it." The Bill was neither more nor less than a piece of undigested nonsense. It was all very well to say that the small tradesmen desired the Bill; but the fact was that they were the worst enemies of the poor, for it would always be found that when a battle of classes commenced, it was the class immediately above the lower which tyrannised most. He objected to the Bill also as an oppression of the Jew by the Christian. He believed that much of the favour with which the Bill was viewed by certain tradesmen, was owing to a jealousy of the Jews who were in the same line of business as themselves, and who, having kept their own Sabbath, did not of course feel it necessary to keep the Sunday also. But he objected to the Bill most of all because it was a war of the rich against the pleasures, enjoyments, and conveniences of the poor. The tendency of the measure was to oppress the poor, and to let the rich escape untouched. If the Bill should get through Committee, he gave the House fair warning that on the bringing up of the report he would move a series of Amendments, conceived in an opposite spirit, and directed against the running of private carriages, and the employment of domestic servants on the Sunday. He did not intend to do this for the sake of obstruction, but for the purpose of producing a reaction. He might be deemed tedious in his arguments, but for that he did not care; for if by his tediousness he defeated the measure, he cared not by what term it was designated. He warned the House that if they passed this unjust, wicked, absurd, and disgusting Bill, they would stink in the nostrils of the public; and that when the franchise was extended, as he hoped it would be next year, the people would execute summary vengeance against those who had been the means of oppressing them. He trusted that the House would not sanction a measure which might accord with the convictions of a few sincere zealots, but which would tend chiefly to the gratification of a vast body of hypocrites.

seconded the Motion.

said, that the preliminary question as to the principle of this Bill was practically decided last Wednesday, when it was read a second time by a majority of 101 to 22. He did not see the propriety of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal detaining them at such length at this stage with a discussion of the details of the Bill, because it was clear that by pursuing that course they could make no progress with the Bill. If the hon. and learned Gentleman insisted upon taking the sense of the House again upon the subject, he had better divide the House at once. With respect to the Bill, he begged to say that he had been waited upon by several deputations of tradesmen, earnestly pressing upon him the importance of the measure, lie certainly was not disposed to take the Bill into his own hands, being well aware by past experience of the facilities which existed for obstructing a measure of this kind on the part of Members opposed to it. It was true that the Bill, considered with regard to its details, did not rest upon any clearly defined principle; but, at the same time, he believed that, if passed, it would accomplish great practical good, and go far to remedy a great and crying evil. He had already given his opinion in favour of the Bill by voting for the second reading, and he was willing to give a fair considertion to every bonâ fide Amendment that might be made in Committee.

wished to correct an idea which had forth among some of his friends, that he supported this mea sure with a view to a reaction. Now, lie had expressed no such opinion. On the contrary, he approved of it, as being in its nature a permissive Bill, and not a prohibitory; and be did not believe it would lead to a reaction. So far from that, be thought, if properly conducted, it would be a peace-offering. There were two strong parties in the country, each strongly addicted to its own opinion; and it was the duty of a prudent man to endeavour to make some composition between them. Nobody would suspect him of the Sabbatarian heresy. He did not doubt but that the cloven foot of that heresy might be traced among the supporters of the Bill; and it was because he was aware of this, that he was anxious to secure the introduction of such provisions as would insure the just liberties of the public. He thought this could be done most effectually by the friends of religious liberty joining in the endeavour to extend the exemptions in the Bill, rather than going to the bottom in a barren minority.

supported the Amendment. The people were not to be made religious by Act of Parliament; and the only effect of this measure, if it was passed, would be to operate as oppressive and coercive upon the poorer classes of the community, without making one single person more go to church. The days of penalty for opinion were gone, and, if this Bill injured the interests of but one man in a hundred, it ought to be rejected. If the Government thought such a measure expedient, the Government ought to have brought one forward, whereas here, upon a question closely affecting that religious liberty of the subject, as advocates of which the Whig Ministry had risen to power, there was only one Member of the Government present.

opposed the Bill. He entertained many objections to it; looking at it as being the offspring of shortsighted religious bigotry, and thinking that it was opposed to the general course of popular progress. He objected to a sour and sectarian observance of the Sunday, and would have no objection to see museums and similar places of recreation open to the people upon that day.

said, the object of the Bill was to relieve thousands of persons in the humbler ranks from the severe competition to which they were now exposed on the Sahbath, and to enable them to avail themselevs of the high privilege of enjoy- ing that day in the manner dictated by their religious feelings.

wished to know who was responsible for this Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Homo Department had repudiated: who was the father of the Bill, who was the godfather of the Bill? Where was the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne? It was said he was in Jerusalem. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Surrey, who had moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill, had not said a word as to the position in which he stood with regard to the measure; and the hon. Gentleman who had moved the second reading of the Bill was not now a Member of the House. It was said that the working classes demanded this Bill; why, the working classes knew nothing about it, and would know nothing about it, until, if it passed, they found the shops closed at which, heretofore, on Sunday mornings, they had made the purchases they had no other time for making. As to the petition said to have emanated from the operative classes in support of the Bill, they had been worked up, under false pretences, by the canting hypocrites of Exetcr-hall—gentlemen who set up to be by no means as other men, but who were, at the very utmost, no honester, or better, or straightforward than other men; with no fewer carnal infirmities, not a bit more moral in any way; who lifted up their eyes and invoked the blessing of God on their operations one day, and the next, if it so suited them, betrayed the cause on which they had invoked that blessing without the smallest ceremony. The public had already had more than enough of Exeter-hall in their cant on the Post Office Sunday arrangements; and this Bill was eminently calculated to aggravate the public disgust. It was to be admitted that the measure was not so flagrantly bad, so malignant, as previous measures on the subject; but he knew the sort of men by whom it was brought forward. Once let them get the bigotry-wedge in, and be sure they'd lose no more time than they could help in driving it home. The best security for the proper observance of the Sabbath by the humbler classes, was the kindly development of their own good feelings, and the example to good of those above them in life.

said, that this Bill affected the interests of many thousands, and indeed millions, of the people, and some 12,000 or 13,000 inhabitants of the metropolis had petitioned against it, and yet the House had been told that, because they were within ten days of the prorogation of Parliament, they ought to assent to it; and that, because its principle had been discussed on the second reading, independent Members were not now to debate that principle. That was a dictum to which he cortainly would not succumb. He considered that this was not a practical measure. Mr. Elliott, the police magistrate, bad stated in his evidence before the Committee, that, speaking as a lawyer, he thought the Bill was not technically drawn, and that he did not think it would work in its present form. There was a clause in the Bill relating to the sale of beer, and he (Mr. Wall) wished to put a question to the hon. and learned Attorney General on that subject. He believed that all beer sold without a, licence was illegally sold; but there were many small shops in the metropolis where table beer was sold at 1½d. a quart without any licence; and that beer, he understood, was very extensively consumed by the working classes. But the clause to which he referred, would, he believed, prevent those classes from obtaining this less intoxicating liquor than was sold at public-houses, by preventing the tradesmen's shops from being open on Sunday at the time public-houses and beershops were open. There were, however, conflicting opinions on the point, and he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would state whether table beer could be sold without a licence, and, if so, whether that liquor should not be exempted from the operation of the Bill, as ginger beer and other refreshing beverages would be. He thought the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, or (he law officers of the Crown, would do well to apply themselves to the preparation of a measure repealing the obsolete laws relating to Sunday trading, and so placing the law on this subject upon a footing more satisfactory to the public than it now was. There were undoubtedly very great difficulties in carrying out the Act of Charles II.; but it must not be supposed that that Act was entirely a dead letter, for it was stated that in the course of eighteen months nearly 150 convictions had taken place under that statute in different parts of the country. The state of the law on this subject was at present unsatisfactory, and would be rendered still more so if this Bill received the assent of the Le- gislature. The poor man was now liable to be "pulled up" for the non-observance of the Sunday under any one of three Acts, namely, the Act of Charles II., the Police Act, and the statute known as Michael Angelo Taylor's Act. He objected to this Bill, because it would impose-cumulative penalties, extending to a sum of considerable amount, which the poor man would not be able to pay. He was himself most anxious for the decent, proper, and spiritual observance of the Sunday; but he thought when the Government endeavoured to promote a rigid observance of that day, they ought to act with consistency. Now, on the Sunday, all the boats on the Serpentine were locked up by the directions of the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests; hut any one who visited the park on that day might purchase nuts, oranges, ginger beer, or lollypops, at a stall which was open under the authority of the noble Lord. If the supporters of this Bill wore consistent Sabbatarians, how, he would ask, could they read the Monday's newspaper, which had been in a great measure prepared and printed on the Sunday? And how, too, could a consistent Sabbatarian accept an invitation to dinner for a Monday, seeing that many of the entrées must have been prepared on Sunday? When this Bill was last under discussion, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon had expressed himself in favour of the second reading of it, and had said that a Mr. Hayman, who had been examined before the Lords' Committee, stated that be could bring forward a witness who had taken between 300l and 400l. on the Sunday for the sale of clothes. Now, Mr. Hayman said, in his evidence before a Committee of the House if Commons, that the person to whom he alluded had one Whit-Sunday taken as much as 120l.; and before the Committee of the House of Lords, he stated that the same person bad on another Whit-Sunday taken from 300l, to 400l. But he submitted that that was a very loose mode of taking evidence, and it was well known that such testimony would not be received in any court of law. He relied upon the evidence given before the Committee by Mr. Mayne, the commissioner of police, and by Mr. Elliott, the magistrate, both of whom expressed opinions opposed to this measure, and concurred in stating that the evils complained of were local and not general evils, and that the existing law was sufficient to put them down. He called upon the House, then, at least to postpone the consideration of this Bill.

regretted that the hon. Gentleman who had taken charge of the Bill in that House had resigned his seat, and was consequently unable to defend its provisions. The supporters of the Bill had been denounced as actuated by a Sabbatarian, a puritanical, and a hypocritical spirit, and on that subject somewhat hard words had been used. He could only say, for himself, that he was actuated by no such feelings. He supported the Bill, because he thought it necessary that some means should be taken to protect the respectable tradesmen in different parts of the metropolis, who suffered from the present system of Sunday trading. So far from the Bill being of a stringent character, the provisions proposed were of the most mild and moderate character.

said, that his views respecting the observance of the Sunday differed very materially from those entertained by a great majority of Members of that House, and also by the great majority of those for whom Parliament legislated. He did not regard the observance of the Sunday as commanded by Divine authority. He regarded the observance of Sunday, and of other holydays, as a precept of the Church. He regarded those holydays, as set aside by the precept of the Church, to be as strictly observed as the Sunday; and he considered that the Church had the power, if it thought fit so to do, to alter the observance of the Sunday to Tuesday, Wednesday, or any other day of the week. If the observance of the Sunday were established by Divino authority, the Church would have no power to make such an alteration. In Rome, in Sardinia, and in many of the German Catholic States, the shops were as generally closed on the Sunday as they were in any part of London; while in some of the German Protestant States, the shops were as generally open on that day as they were in Paris. He could not sympathise, on the one hand, with those who wished to have the Sunday desecrated, as he considered; or, on the other hand, with those who desired to have it observed with a rigidness he thought unnecessary, and therefore he would not vote upon the principle of this measure.

said, as it was impossible the Bill could be passed this Session, he thought they were wasting time in discussing it, and moved that the debate be adjourned.

wished to say, that he had received communications from the proprietors of several first-rate weekly newspapers, stating that the Bill would have a most injurious effect upon their interests.

thought it would be singularly inexpedient, while these parties were suffering severely by the new postal regulation, to follow that up by another measure injuriously affecting their interests. They were useful to the public in communicating early information.

believed that the present measure might be made one of a very useful character, and knew that some such measure was wished for by a large portion of the inhabitants of this metropolis. Not only tradesmen, but a great many journeymen and working men, had petitioned for it. But he must say, it ought to be taken up by the Government, and not left to a private Member. He regretted the opposition which had been offered to the Bill by his hon. and tedious Friend opposite. ["Oh!"] He had a right to call his hon. and learned Friend tedious, and that without meaning any discourtesy, because his hon. and learned Friend was tedious, and said he was tedious, and that he had endeavoured to be tedious. Having said so much, he (Lord D. Stuart) was bound in justice to add, that his hon. and learned Friend had perfectly succeeded in his attempt, and he might be congratulated upon his success. If hon. Gentlemen were determined, at this period of the Session, to obstruct the measure, it was to be feared it would be of no use to press it; but if they would meet the supporters of the Bill in a candid spirit, and go into Committee, there was ample time to deal with it, after the great consideration the subject had received.

then intimated that he would not press the Bill further this Session.

believed that, if the practice of paying wages on a Friday were to be adopted, so as to give the Saturday for marketing, the necessity for any legislation upon the subject would be avoided.

protested against the spirit in which the opposition to the Bill was conducted, and the wanton attack upon the feelings of a very large portion of the community. He must deny that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Member for Youghal) had the slightest pretension to claim to be the mouthpiece of the working classes, lie must deny also that any among them, save the dissolute and irreligious, were against the Bill; indeed, he had never come in contact with a decent working man who had communicated to him any solid objection to it. It was not, in that House, placed upon religious grounds, but was brought forward as a Bill for diminishing unnecessary trading on Sunday, and putting an end to abuses which brought discomfort and irregularity into many families. He knew that persons who had a reverential regard for the Sabbath had made considerable sacrifices of their feelings in putting forward a measure solely for the decent regulation of trading on Sunday; and he thought the Bill was entitled to respectful treatment. He was sorry to find that the Bill was to he withdrawn; he should, have preferred seeing the whole responsibility of its not being passed thrown upon those who had set themselves up as its opponents.

begged to join in the protest against the hon. Members for Salisbury and Youghal having any claim to be considered as the exponents of the views of the working classes, lie (Lord 11. Grosvenor) had attended a meeting of the working classes, where, after speeches on both sides, there was a division, and it was five to one in favour of the Bill.

would ask why, if the working classes were so much in favour of the Bill, they had given so much occasion for its introduction? As for those persons who pleaded conscience, why did they not observe the day? Surely the salvation of their souls was worth the sacrifice of the day's profit. Did men want to "serve God and mammon?" But, as in the instance of the Post Office, the convenience of the many was to give way to a plea for the few. Generally speaking, there was in this metropolis a very becoming observance of the Sabbath; and, if there were two or three districts in which it was otherwise, such outlets might he necessary in the condition of society; and at any rate calm inquiry into the causes should precede this rough attempt to put down the scenes occurring there. The law was very stringent already. At a police court, a short time since, a man was fined 40s. and costs for serving on Sunday, he having supplied a bottle of beer to a woman, who took it home quietly to her family; while at the same court, on the same morning, another, who was convinced of using false weights, by which he had cheated his poor customers of several ounces in the pound, was fined hut half the amount—20s. and costs.

expressed his belief, that it was impossible to make a people religious by means of legislation, but that public feeling was strongly against Sunday trading.

vindicated himself from the imputation that he ever said the subject was one for legislation, or ought to be taken up by the Government, He was opposed to any legislation at all in the matter; but he had said that if there was anything good in the present Bill, Government ought to take it up. He believed they must leave the question of Sunday trading to be dealt with by public opinion and the religious feeling of the country.

thought the hon. Member for East Surrey had exercised a wise discretion in consenting to withdraw the Bill. He was by no means sorry it had been introduced, as the discussion which had taken place could not fail to be of benefit; and if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that the men should he paid their wages on Friday instead of on Saturday night, was carried into effect, it would greatly conduce not only to the observance of the Sunday, but to the comfort, welfare, and happiness, of the working classes. [The right hon. Baronet then read a letter from a gentleman employing a large number of workpeople in the metropolis, in which he described the advantages of paying his men their wages on Friday night, and the evils of the present system. The working man rarely received his wages till after six o'clock on Saturday; he knew he would not have to rise at five o'clock, next morning, and went off to an alehouse, where he left 2s. or 3s. of his wages. On his return at ten or eleven o'clock at night, it was too late to get those things which his family required, and hence arose the whole system of Sunday trading. The payment of wages on Friday prevented these evils. The work- man had to go homo in order to rise in time, and the instances were rare in which he neglected to make his appearance at the usual hour on Saturday morning, particularly if there was a penalty of dismissal. He hoped this suggestion would not be thrown away.

said, that he arose to resume an old debate. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale had moved that this Bill be read a second time that day three months. He (Mr. Fox) implored the House to assent to the proposition for throwing out this Bill. He begged to inform the House that this Bill was a mutilated abstract of the original Landlord and Tenant Bill of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, of which it contained the five clauses in favour of the landlords, whereas all the clauses in favour of the tenants were cut out of this professing Landlord and Tenant Bill. Now, these clauses might possibly contain something useful, which, however, he denied altogether, either as regarded landlords or tenants; but he would not consent to discuss them now. There was at this moment violent political excitement in Ireland on the subject of the relations between landlord and tenant, and the House of Commons could not avoid considering that subject amongst the earliest of their duties next Session. The proper course would be, if there were any weight in the Bill now before the House, to discuss all this subject early next Session. The tenantry of Ireland had been promised a settlement of their claims during this Session. None had been given to them, and he implored the House and the Government not to send over to the people of Ireland this landlord Bill as the only, result of their deliberations upon their unhappy position, at a time when all parties were raising a loud outcry for the full and complete settlement of the relations of landlord and tenant.

thought that if the Government intended to bring the whole question before the House next Session, such partial legislation as this Bill contained would be useless. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more injurious than constant legislation, and the Government ought really to state what they intended to do with respect to the Bill before the House.

said, that without pledging himself to all the details of the Bill, his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland had already stated his opinion that the House ought to take the second reading, and that there were several of the clauses calulated to be of considerable benefit. In that opinion he entirely agreed. No one could doubt that the frequent carrying off of crops at night and on Sunday, and the conflicts which ensued between the police and the people, were very serious evils, and it was desirable for the benefit of all classes that some provision should take place on the subject. He should vote, therefore, for the second reading, as some of the clauses were valuable, but was by no means prepared to give his assent to the Bill as a whole.

considered that some measure was imperatively called for, in order to prevent the cutting and carrying off crops at night and upon Sundays by the tenants.

called on the House to consider well before they rejected a measure which, in effect, assimilated the law of the two countries. Every material clause was intended to do justice between landlord and tenant. Was it unjust, for instance, to enable a landlord to bring an ejeetment against a tenant who owed him a year's rent? Well, it could not be done under the present state of the law, and the Bill sought to remedy so great an injustice. Another clause was intended to meet a state of things which could not be understood in this country. When a landlord had got possession of his land from a tenant, after an expensive law process, it often happened that the tenant returned immediately, and by force or fraud got into possession of the land again. As the law stood, there was so much confusion and injustice about it, that the landlord was obliged to allow the man to remain in possession till he had brought another eject- ment. Could any one say that the clause which enabled the landlord by a simplified process, and without going into law courts at great expense, to recover his land under such circumstances, a great amendment of the law and an act of injustice? As a landlord and magistrate, he knew, and was convinced, that in nine cases out of ten between landlord and tenant, the landlord was the party aggrieved. Of his own knowledge he asserted there was more injustice, usury, injury, wrong, and violation of the law, committed upon the landlords of Ireland, than upon any class of Her Majesty's subjects. The grossest injustice and tyranny was committed against them, and the whole bearing of persons in authority in Ireland was against the landlord, and in favour of the lower orders. He knew hundreds of cases where people who owed six and seven years' rent held pos session of their land, removed their crops as they pleased, and bade defiance to their landlords. Would any man of common honesty demoralise the people by protecting such proceedings? Would any man in that House, by denouncing the landlords, give a cover to persons to commit acts of fraud and dishonesty in the performance of contracts with their landlords? It was a favourite subject with some hon. Members who had met with one or two oases of injustice and tyranny on the part of landlords, in the blue books, to inveigh against all the landlords, and to take those cases as examples of the habits of the whole class. He would challenge the persons who made such accusations against the Irish landlords, and he would leave the whole question to be decided by twelve or fifteen respectable English Members, and if he could not prove that in nine cases out of ten the landlords were the aggrieved and injured parties, he would never make the statement again. They were kept out of their rents and out of their lands—he did not say by the whole, but by a large.' part of their tenantry. He would ask the opponents of Sunday trading, would they encourage the present system of fraud and dishonesty? Any one who voted against this Bill was a direct supporter of a system which enabled the tenant to cheat his landlord by cutting and removing his crops by night and on a Sunday. The practice had taken place extensively in Ireland, conflicts had ensued between the people and the police in consequence, and lives had been lost and blood shed on several occasions. He hoped the House would consent to a Bill which would remedy such serious evils.

said, that the citizens of Waterford had great reason to congratulate themselves upon having secured the services in Parliament of the hon. Baronet who had last addressed them, and who took upon himself to assert in that House that the great mass of the tenantry of Ireland were robbers, cheats, and swindlers.

That is false.

The phrase which the hon. Baronet has used is unparliamentary, and I must call upon him to retract it.

Then I say it is untrue.

But does the hon. Member retract it?

As the phrase is held to be unparliamentary, and as you, Sir, say that it ought to be retracted, I obey your orders.

said, it was by no means an unusual tiling for hon. Members in that House to use strong negatives, and frequently to express them in unparliamentary language, while, as they were immediately obliged to withdraw those phrases, there was no danger attaching to such a course of conduct. On the present occasion the hon. Baronet had used expressions which he was compelled to withdraw; but using such language in that House was not the same thing as using it out of doors. The hon. Baronet had stated that any one who voted against going into Committee or reading a second time the Bill then before them, would, in effect, sanction a system of fraud and swindling. Without intending to quote the language of Scripture irreverently, or to impute any intentional misrepresentation to the hon. Baronet, lie would say that he had borne "false witness against" the country. The hon. Baronet, moreover, said that the landlords of Ireland were the most maligned, the most calumniated people in the whole country; and the hon. Gentleman then went on to say that on that question he was willing to appeal to the decision of twelve English gentlemen; from whom he (Mr. Reynolds) very much doubted that the hon. Baronet would receive a favourable verdict. He certainly could not reckon upon the support of such a gentleman as the Rev. Mr. Sidney Godolphin Osborne, an English Protestant clergyman, whose writings with regard to the state of Ireland had excited and merited the warmest gratitude of the unfortunate people of that country. For what Mr. Osborne had done, he (Mr. Reynolds) could not help exclaiming, "God bless him!" His humanity and benevolence were deserving of all praise. He had spoken the words of truth and justice, and, committing them to the press, had sent them not only to the furthest corners of the united kingdom, but to every land in which the English language was understood. On the statements, then, which Mr. Osborne and other witnesses had made, he would say that the people of Ireland ought not to be interfered with as to the times at which they might cut or gather in or remove their crops; and he did not hesitate to say that to resist them in that respect was an audacious, an insulting, and an Algerine proceeding. Such a measure could only have emanated from landlords of the class which Mr. Osborne described and denounced. Let Gentlemen only look at the roofless houses, the destitute people of Ireland, and then they would see the effect of landlordism as it exhibited itself in that country. As to the poor-law, he believed it was to a certain extent the salvation of Ireland, and but for its operation there would have been much more to complain of. He had recently travelled ten Irish miles, in the course of which journey he did not see one house with a roof on it, one field that was not open to the public—he did not see one man, woman, or child, or even a beast; and he could not help then exclaiming, that if ever there was a body of men who deserved to be visited with Divine vengeance, that body was the landlords of Ireland. It was time, then, that some stop should be put to their progress. More than 100 Acts of Parliament had been passed for the promotion of their interest. It was time that something should be done for the protection of the tenantry, and it was now, in the year 1850, that that enlightened legislator the hon. Member for the city of Waterford walked into that House and told them that the landlords were compelled to seek for protection. For his part, he should say that, though among the landlord class in Ireland, there were many honourable exceptions to the general rule; yet, as a body, he held that they deserved to perish. He desired only to add, that if in the course of that debate he had used any discourteous phrase or intemperate language, no one would regret anything of the sort more than he should; but he could not sit down without cautioning the Government not to listen to those who seemed inclined to "bear false witness against" the country.

denied that he had brought any wholesale accusations against the tenantry of Ireland. What he said was that, in nine cases out of ten, in disputes between landlord and tenant, the landlord was the injured party; and that he would leave to the judgment of any competent tribunal. He never knew any case come before a court of justice in which it was not manifest that the landlord was the aggrieved party.

said, he was willing to except the two clauses to which the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary objected, and merely to retain that part of the Bill which made it penal fraudulently to cut or remove crops on a Sunday, together with such other portions of the Bill as might be necessary for giving effect to that.

was glad to hear what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend, because it obviated to a great extent his objection to the measure. He believed some legislation on the subject was necessary, but at the same time could not help adverting to the singular title of the Bill. It was entitled an Act "to improve the relations of landlord and tenant;" but there was not a single clause in the Bill with reference to the improvement of the tenant. The whole object of it was to give more power to the landlord, and he thought it ought to be entitled "a Bill for the most speedy and effectual recovery of rent in Ireland."

said, the measure was to all intents and purposes a landlords' Bill. Was this a time for passing such additional restrictions upon the people of Ireland? The attention of the people of that country had been drawn to the Bill; with one voice they denounced it, and that voice would now be more loudly heard but that they thought there was little probability of the measure being carried through Parliament at the present period of the Session. He conceived that the Legislature was not entitled thus to interfere with the rights of property. The crop was the property of the tenant, and Parliament ought not to restrict him as to the times of cutting or removing that crop. Moreover, in the north, if not in the other parts of Ireland, the tenantry were not, and ought not to be anywhere, at the mercy of the landlords. The tenant-right existed in Ulster, and was as genuine a right as any that the landlord possessed. In the name, then, of those rights and interests—in the name of equity—in the name of pacification, he called on them not to adopt such a measure. It gave the landlord a lien over the crops of a tenacity which he never before possessed; and it deprived the small holder, when he happened to be a labouring man, of the privilege of dealing with his crops between sunset and sunrise, the only opportunity a labourer could possess.

said, that any person who knew Ireland must be aware that if they expected peace in that country they must give a power to the landlord to pre-vent the fraudulent taking away of crops—a practice that had led last year to much misery.

said, he should not detain the House many minutes, but he wished to express his anxiety for the adoption of the clauses No. 6 and 7 of' this Bill being enacted, and to corroborate what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for the city of Waterford. In his opinion these clauses were essentially necessary for the preservation of tranquillity in Ireland. He would only state one case which occurred in his own immediate neighbourhood, where life had been lost for want of this Bill. A large party of persons assembled upon a Sunday morning, and being accompanied by a number of carts and horses proceeded to take possession of a quantity of corn and other produce, under distress for rent. Unfortunately a collision took place between the peasantry and the police: one man was killed, and several severely wounded. The magistrate in attendance was insulted, and the riot consequent was not quelled without great difficulties, after the arrival of the military and more bloodshed. Even this single occurrence, he thought, proved the necessity of an enactment to preserve life and property.

was against any plan for increasing the power of the landlords, and he regretted to observe that, notwithstanding all that was said, nothing was done for improving the condition of the tenantry. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was anxious that the same law should exist in England as in Ireland; but what would be said if the farmers of England were forbidden to cut their crops between sunset and sunrise?

said, the law would not prevent the farmers of Ireland from cutting their crops, but would only prevent them from carrying them away at night.

Well, it might be a good clause, but when the Government professed in the Queen's Speech to legislate on a large and comprehensive scale for the benefit of both landland and tenant in Ireland, he certainly considered that the postponing of any general measure in favour of the tenant, as well as the landlord, was not keeping faith with the people of that country.

thought it impossible to discuss the question during the present sitting; he therefore moved that the debate be adjourned.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion.

was opposed to the penal clause, which would subject tenants to the proceedings of informers if they worked in their fields after sunset. He would recommend the hon. Member to withdraw the Bill.

thought it very inconsistent to proceed with the second reading of a Bill several important clauses of which had been withdrawn.

said, the Bill had come down from the House of Lords, and the alterations which might be made in it could not be made until it went into Committee; it was therefore necessary to read the Bill a second time.

in moving the Second Reading of the Bill said, he had had communication with various parties connected with coal mines, and had received from them suggestions which he was perfectly ready to insert in the Bill, which it was known to the House had originated in the House of Lords, where there were many large coal-mine proprietors.

hoped the right hon. Baronet would not press the second reading at that late hour (a quarter to six o'clock).

said the measure was one of great importance, and every suggestion would he fully attended to in Committee. He hoped his hon. Friend would give way, as assenting to that stage of the Bill was merely saying that some steps should he taken to put a stop to those lamentable accidents. The subject would receive the fullest attention in Committee.

opposed the Bill, on the ground that it would lead to the appointment of a number of officers with large salaries.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would press the Bill. It had received the approbation of the large body of the miners of this country.

said, the Bill had passed the other House without discussion; it was, therefore, of essential consequence that it should receive the most full and calm consideration in that House. He should oppose their proceeding with it.

said, that it had undergone a long discussion in the other House, and had there met with the approval of many of the largest coal proprietors.

said, the right hon. Baronet had not given a single reason why they should proceed with that Bill; he should therefore move that the debate be adjourned.