said, he must oppose the Motion, although he had originally given it his support when it was brought under their notice. Although agrarian outrages and crimes had formerly been deplorably prevalent, no one could deny that they had lately very much decreased in consequence of the improved feeling of the population. He had seen those who were the foremost to protest against the remedy, the first to hail the cure; and, above all, he had seen the bloody, and capricious, and sanguinary ebullitions of unhallowed vengeance give place to a calm and mighty protest against the injustice from which they had sprung. The most exasperated, the most perverse, even the most guilty of the people of Ireland, had acquiesced in the justice of that wise sentence which proclaimed that murder under no circumstances, under no provocations, should dare to assume the seat of justice; and they now demanded in return that those legal murders which had hitherto obtained impunity, not in the bosom of a guilty populace, but in the dark recesses of a conniving law, should no longer be permitted to defile the land. And what was the answer to that appeal? It was this—that, no matter how blameless might be the demeanour of the people, no matter how offensive might be the conduct of the landlords, that House was determined to legislate for the landlords, and against the people. [Expressions of dissent.] Hon. Gentlemen dissented, but what was the state of the case? What was the great social scandal of Ireland at the present day, which affrighted the mind of every passing traveller, and filled the whole land with wailing and desolation? Was it the assassination of the rich by the hands of the poor? Was it the landlord or the agent slain on the highway by the arm of the vindictive peasant? They heard of none of these things, but, on the other hand, smouldering hamlets and roofless villages; evicted families cowering round their desolated hearths; others, hunted from that last retreat, dying by the wayside; children, with scarce a vestige of humanity, crowded in festering throngs within the walls of the poorhouse, or shivering in cold, and hunger, and nakedness in the rain outside—all, in fact, that met the eye from end of the country to the other, denoted a ruthless and exterminating war against a meek, forbearing, and unresisting peasantry, such as eye had never seen, nor ear heard, in the whole history of human wrong and human endurance. And was it to be credited that, as a remedy for such a state of things as this, they were now called upon to forge fresh fetters for unresisting poverty, fresh weapons for overbearing power, measures of prevention lest the hapless worm should turn, measures of enforcement lest the armed heel should not tread sufficiently heavy or sufficiently sure? He thought that amidst the scenes that were enacted in Ireland, to intrude three such measures as were now in progress through the House upon the gloomy stage, to enforce the strong and restrain the feeble, where strength was already rampant, and feebleness had almost sunk into collapse, was a scandal upon our legislation, and almost justified the calumnious imputation which had been alleged against our laws—that they were enacted against the many "by and for a particular few." The arguments alleged in support of this Bill were three. First, his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland said, that its provisions were directed against wrongdoers only. To this proposition he gave his entire assent. But he replied, in the words of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government on another occasion—"This is the argument put forward by despotic Governments." Of course this Bill was intended for wrongdoers alone. The same might be said, and said truly, of the torture, the knout, and the wheel. The objects of despotic and constitutional Governments were pretty much the same—it was upon the means that they essentially differed. It was the means, and not the object, which they were then debating; and he conceived no more indisputable axiom of constitutional government than that every arbitrary enactment which was not absolutely necessary was absolutely injurious. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin said, that this was a measure of prevention; and he added the somewhat musty proverb, that "Prevention was better than cure." He was sorry to hear an hon. and learned Member of his talents and character put forward an argument so unworthy of him; for he thought the House would agree with him that, whatever necessity might occasionally exist for arbitrary measures for the purpose of repression, the enactment of such laws for the mere prevention of possible and anticipated dangers was not only unworthy of a free Government, but one of the worst and basest expedients of despotic power. As for the argument of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government—that, because this measure had been successful in repressing outrage, they should persevere in a remedy which they had found so efficacious—it was about as reasonable as if a physician who had relieved a patient suffering from violent inflammation by copious bleeding, were still to persist in bleeding on, after the inflammation had subsided into atrophy and decline. In fact, the Government had no case. They frankly avowed it, and begged of the House to excuse the trifling deficiency. He, for one, must decline making that concession. He voted for this Bill on a former occasion, because he thought there was a full, complete, and imperative case for interference. He now voted against it in the same spirit, because there was no case, and worse than no case.

could not refuse to continue the Act if the responsible Government of the country considered it necessary to secure peace and order, and more particularly knowing how temperately it had been administered, and to what satisfactory results it had led. It was true that the state of things had changed since the Act was passed; but could any one who was at all familiar with Ireland venture to predict that the evil which had called it into existence might not again arise? He, for one, could not, and therefore he felt that he should not be doing his duty if he refused to continue a power in the hands of Government which could only be directed against the criminally disposed part of the Irish community, though he could not help regretting that the Bill for its continuance had first originated in the other House of Parliament, which had so peremptorily rejected the measure introduced by the Government for the extension of the franchise of Ireland.

said, it was his determination to oppose the Bill, and expressed some surprise that the hon. and gallant Member who last addressed them supported the Bill, because it was demanded by the Government. The state of things which called for this Act no longer existed, and he, for one, would be no party to its continuance, when the only reason that could be urged in its favour, was simply that Government wished it, though he was quite prepared to support a measure for the prevention of crime and outrage in Ireland of a remedial character. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, when he originally proposed the measure, said it should be limited and partial in its character, and that it should he accompanied by remedial measures. The Session had now endurd for a long period, but no remedial measures had been proposed. The Irish people were disappointed; they received nothing hut coercive measures. The land question was undecided, and the Franchise Bill had been a failure, and would not give satisfaction to the people. The Church question still remained unsettled. Ireland was in a perfect state of tranquillity, crime had almost entirely diminished, the Judges at the assizes stated the fact in their grand-jury charges, and there was nothing to justify the continuance of this measure. He felt a pride in stating that in one division of the county which he represented (Tipperary), there had not been one capital conviction for the last four assizes. In no part of Ireland were there any of those murders and outrages which formed the justification of the measure of 1847. In fact, the characteristic feature of Ireland at present was not crime but distress. In the nine months previous to April last, there had been no fewer than 225 deaths from starvation. In place of coercive measures, it was the duty of the Government to introduce measures of practical relief—measures to employ the poor and to relieve the farmers from the grievances of which they complain. An agitation had sprung up respecting the land question, which was supported not only by the Roman Catholic priesthood, but by clergymen of all denominations in Ireland. The Government might depend upon it that, if they did not take this question into their consideration, a solution of it might be forced upon them which they would grievously regret.

I am not surprised, that so few upon this side of the House should have been found ready to defend, in discussion, the measure which the Government now asks leave to bring in. With the exception of what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for the city of Armagh, not a word has been offered in justification of the course we are called on to sanction, by any one who is connected with Ireland, and who in this House is reckoned among the friends of popular rights. My hon. and gallant Friend has volunteered, however, his support of Her Majesty's Government, when support was never more needed. For whatever the numbers upon the division may be, there never was surely a measure so stringent in character, and of such wide applicability, for which so little by way of reason or argument has been advanced by its authors. Yet I must say that the statements and the admissions made by the hon. and gallant Member, so far from justifying the conclusion to which he has come, seem to me to warrant exactly the opposite inference, and to furnish grounds, if any were wanting, for coming to a different conclusion. He has told us that the agrarian oppressions and hardships the people endure, have been, and are, unparalleled. He admits that their long-suffering and forbearance have been, and are, unexampled. He confesses that Parliament has not hitherto done anything which might palliate this terrible wrong and misery; and therefore he says we should lose no time in passing this harsh and repressive Bill. The country is perfectly tranquil, and that is the reason, for want of a better, why we should pass a law of an exceptional character, to quell non-existent disturbance. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland attempted to make no case to justify the present proposal. I say so not as meaning thereby to insinuate any species of reproach. I can understand and appreciate the undisguised reluctance with which one so circumstanced as my right hon. Friend lends the weight of his name and experience to wholesale charges and accusations against the people of his own country. And when in a case like the present, matter of imputation is wanting, I honour the feeling which leads him to refrain from hinting that which he could not openly assert, and recurring to times of unhappily worse repute, in order thereby to darken the fame of the present. I would that others had been equally forbearing, and that the deeds of a former period had not been referred to when an impeachment was to be brought against this. But fresh materials were scanty, and the temptation was therefore great. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin was unable, as it would seem, to resist it. Not content with citing the deplorable fate of Mr. Mauleverer, and with stating that case, as I shall show, in the spirit and tone of an advocate, rather than in that which befits a legislative judge, the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to excite still further the indignation and disgust of the House by connecting therewith, as though in a natural course of retrospective suggestion, another terrible case of lawless vengeance in the self-same locality. Passing rapidly over all that in fact and fairness ought to have been distinguished, he told us that in the devoted district where Cross-maglen is situated, another victim, the late Mr. Powell, had fallen by the hand of an agrarian assassin. But he forgot to mention that between the one deplorable event and the other, a period of not less than nine years had intervened. And it was only in answer to an interruptive question that my hon. and learned Friend admitted the fact to be so. Now, Sir, I say that it is alike unworthy and unwise to rummage the records of by-gone guilt and misery in order to eke out the short reckoning of present sin and shame. I say it is not our duty to dig at the foot of the gallows for the remains of well-nigh forgotten crime. And I humbly trust that this House, for its own sake, as well as for that of a libelled and suffering people, will not be swayed in the judgment to which it may come on the merits of this most uncalled-for Bill by any reference that has been made to stale and irrelevant topics like those I have named. But, as they have been dragged into discussion, I too have a word to say regarding them. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin dwelt with much emphasis upon many details of the narrative he undertook to give respecting the fate of Mr. Mauleverer. He told you, in confutation of statements which had appeared in the public journals, that not a single ejectment had been executed under the orders of that unfortunate gentleman; and he took care to say "executed" in italics. But why was the cardinal fact omitted, that in the space of the twelve months preceding, no fewer than 321 processes or civil bill suits in ejectment had been brought by the ill-fated Mr. Mauleverer against persons who occupied portions of the property under his management? It happens, moreover, that in the county of Armagh, and more especially in its mountainous and impoverished districts, resort to ejectment, as a means of enforcing rent, has long been but too common. The evidence of Mr. Tickell, who fills the office of assistant barrister in that county, given before the Devon Commission, attests this sad truth. According to him, the number of ejectments brought at the quarter-sessions in that county alone during the years 1839–1845, were 1,953. It was during that period that Mr. Powell came by his untimely death. God forbid that I should say that those by whose hand he fell, perpetrated what, in any sense, ought to be termed a "natural crime!" That ominous phrase did not fall from any opponent of the present coercive Bill. I have never consciously uttered, and I earnestly hope I never shall, one word that by any construction could be wrested from its intended meaning into a palliation of deeds of vengeance. Did no higher consideration govern me, I should feel bound by that sympathy which I so deeply feel for the wrongs and oppressions of the people, not to allow anything to escape my lips which could by possibility be supposed to sanction crimes against life or property. I fully believe that those who would do so are not the true friends of the people, but that, on the contrary, they are evil advisers, who would lead them to their own undoing and destruction. But, on the other hand, I would with confidence put it to every English Member who hears me, whether he can realise easily the state of panic, of pain, and of passion, into which a whole community of poor and unfriended men may be thrown, when the fate of each and all of them seems to depend upon the capricious and all-powerful will of a single man? And what if, in addition to all the fears and animosities arising out of the letting and occupation of land among a neglected and rackrented tenantry, there be added the withering suspicion of sectarian antipathy, and of a desire to abuse the power that property confers, to purposes of proselytism? I say not that, in the case of Mr. Powell, such imputations were just, but I say that they were prevalent. And I further say, that being so, it is not surprising that the vindication of the law by the condemnation and public execution of the person accused of being his murderer, instead of producing a salutary effect by way of example, tended to create, on the contrary, feelings of new exasperation and aversion between the owners and occupiers of the soil; for how was that condemnation obtained? If my recollection of the circumstances of that frightful case does not very much deceive me, the person who was accused of the crime alluded to was a Roman Catholic. His name, I think, was Hughes. He was first tried by a mixed jury, who disagreed as to his guilt. At the next assizes he was again put upon his trial; but upon the second occasion the jury was exclusively composed of the religious denomination to which in Ireland the dominant class belong. By that jury he was found guilty. He died upon the scaffold protesting his innocence. It is not for me to hazard any opinion as to the justice of the verdict. He is gone to his account, and no man now can lift the veil that hangs over that miserable tragedy. But, guilty or innocent, I say that he had not a fair trial; because, in a country like Ireland, no trial can, under such circumstances, deserve to be called fair, when the jury is packed with the members of the favoured creed, while the accused professes the faith of the down-trodden race. I think the House will concur with me in opinion that the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin would have done better had he refrained from alluding to this case. With regard to this Continuance Bill, I can but repeat what has already been said by my hon. Friends around me, and admitted, indeed, by every one who has spoken, that the country never was so tranquil, and that outrage never was so rare. Every grand jury lately assembled—every Judge who has recently, addressed them—has borne the same testimony. In the words of Baron Lefroy, when opening the assizes of Westmeath, not three weeks ago, "a new day of peace and loyalty seemed to have dawned upon the land." Is this a time for the renewal of coercion? It has been said that we owe our present tranquillity to the application of this law. I asked a friend of mine the other day, who has had peculiar opportunities of knowing, to what extent this Act has been really put in force. He told me, to a very limited extent. How then, I asked, can its efficacy have been so great, that we must now continue it? His answer was, "It is useful as a threat." Sir, I must protest against the system of governing Ireland by threats. We have been told that, during the present Session, there has not been time to deal with remedial measures on the subject of agrarian grievances. But how does it happen that time never seems to be wanting for measures of agrarian coercion? Of the Bills that have come down from the Lords, this, though the last, is not the least. We have broken the neck of one of those birds of prey which lately alit upon your table; to-morrow we shall have to deal with another; and the question to-night will be, what must we do with a third? That which is now before us cannot be classed with these, for it is a Government Bill; but fearing, as I cannot but fear, that in Ireland all will be looked on alike; and fearing, as I cannot but fear, that the provisions of all may be most widely abused, I cannot agree to give my vote for leave to have it brought in.

said, he had never heard a speech in that House more calculated to excite angry feelings, or to draw attention from the real subject before them, than the speech which the hon. and learned Gentleman had just delivered. The hon. and learned Gentleman had altogether mistaken the character of the Bill. It would not give additional powers to the landlord. He was also mistaken in supposing that it was not in operation in Ireland at the present moment. It was in operation in the county which he (Major Blackall) had the honour to represent, and he defied any one to deny that its operation had contributed to the peace of that county; and yet he had never heard any one say that it had interfered in the slightest degree with the rights and liberties of any one. Believing, then, that if the powers given by this Bill were exercised with the same prudence and discretion with which they had hitherto been exercised, the happiest results would follow, he should give his cordial support to the Bill.

said, he was glad to find that by the 18th clause, accessories after the fact of a murder were punishable to the same extent as the principal, even were he not overtaken. He should not have wished to have supported the Bill as it came from the House of Lords, but with the amendments which had been introduced by the Government, he would give it his support.

said, that, although he might be willing to give the present Lord Lieutenant the powers conferred by this Bill, he was not willing to give them to those who might come after him, who would not only deprive the people of their constitutional liberties, but would raise their food to a starvation price. In the next Session of Parliament, he would move, as an amendment to the first important Government measure, that the landlord and tenant question in Ireland was of paramount importance, and should be first taken into consideration.

hoped that nothing would induce the House to believe that the moral, high-minded, and well-meaning people of Ireland looked with the slightest jealousy upon restrictions like those contained in the present Bill. On the contrary, they rejoiced in the tendency of such a measure to check the career of evil-doers, and to enable the peaceable and well-disposed to exercise their industry in peace. He regarded it as the grossest libel on the people of Ireland to represent them as so addicted to the commission of crime, or the protection of criminals, that any measure of restraint or repression must be odious to them. He thought the Government deserved great censure for having allowed the whole Session to pass without the introduction of a measure to correct the maladministration of the poorlaws.

said, he was one of those who from the commencement objected to the introduction of this Bill. He was fully alive to the great amount of crime which existed at the time the Bill was brought in, but he then said the existing law was sufficient, and that all they had to do was as they did in 1831, to issue special commissions. By applying the law as it stood, they did put down crime in Ireland. He said then that it was an unconstitutional law, and that they did not require it. Events had proved that opinion, and the same objection therefore applied much more strongly now. The argument for the Bill was, "True there is no crime in Ireland, and therefore give us this Bill that there may be no crime;" one of the most extraordinary arguments in favour of an unconstitutional law he ever heard. It was admitted on all hands that the great cause of crime in Ireland was the unsatisfactory relations of landlord and tenant. Surely, then, they had a right to say they would not agree to this Bill till they put these relations in a sound and satisfactory state. He must say that when at the latter end of the Session they had withdrawn measures for the amelioration of Ireland, it was unfair in the Government to bring in a measure of coercion without making out any case for it, and when many Irish Members were absent. Without this Bill there was law strong enough to put down crime, but the people of Ireland were tranquil; every Judge who had gone the circuit had congratulated them on the absence of crime, and therefore he trusted that even now the Government would consent to withdraw the Bill.

said, that there was one person who must be considered as being highly complimented by the whole course of this discussion; he meant the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; for, with all the ingenuity of the hon. Members who opposed this Bill, they had not been able to point to one instance in which he had used the large powers with which he had been intrusted in an unconstitutional manner. He maintained that the long and the short of the question was a vote of confidence or no confidence in the Government. The Government came forward and said, "We require such and such powers to enable us to conduct the Government of Ireland till next Session of Parliament." If hon. Members considered the Government of Ireland entitled to their confidence, there never was an occasion on which they might with greater propriety yield to their convictions than this. If, on the contrary, they thought the Government undeserving of their confidence, they ought not to have waited till the eleventh hour of the Session before bringing its conduct under the notice of the House. Attention had been called to the Irish Church—to the state of landlord and tenant—and to the Irish Poor Law. He must own his regret that the Government had not pushed on the Landlord and Tenant Bill, and thought the explanation of the noble Lord at the head of the Government on this head was unsatisfactory. As to the Irish Church, when a Motion was brought forward regarding it, hon. Gentlemen opposite mustered so thinly that the House was counted out. It was in the power of any hon. Member to bring forward a Motion for the amendment of the poor-law, but it had not been done. No one, however, had found courage enough to blame the administration of the Earl of Clarendon, for all parties concurred in eulogising the wise and conciliatory policy of that noble Lord. On a former occasion he opposed a similar Bill to this, not because he disapproved of its powers, but because he thought it was for the interest of the country that the then existing Government should be thrown out; and he was ready to admit, that if those who approved this Bill felt the same towards the present Executive, they were justified in their opposition. But, on the other hand, if they were not ready to take upon themselves the government of the country, or could point out a party ready to do it for them, they were bound to pass this Bill, because the Ministry had declared that they could not carry on the Government of Ireland without the powers of this Bill. For his own part, he knew no man to whom he would more readily intrust the extensive powers of the Bill than the Earl of Clarendon; and, as he was not prepared to undertake the responsibilities of the Government, he should give the Bill his hearty support.

said, it was rather a strange thing that the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, justified his vote because he had confidence in Her Majesty's Government, seeing that he generally voted against them. The hon. Gentleman voted against another Coercion Bill, because he had no confidence in the then Government, so that the hon. Member had been consistent. He agreed in the compliments paid to the Earl of Clarendon; but it must be recollected that those extra constitutional powers might be vested in other hands. The fact was, hon. Gentlemen opposite supported the Bill, because those powers were to be exercised against Ireland, and to coerce the Irish people. They seemed to have a notion in that House that the Government of Ireland was to be conducted on a different principle from that of England. No such Bill had ever been introduced for England. But it had been said that there had been a repression of crime during the existence of this Bill. Why, that was an argument that would justify their continuing such a Bill for over. His opposition to the Bill was the same as that declared by the present First Minister of the Crown in 1846, when he opposed the Coercion Bill then proposed, because there had been no case proved—no amount of crime proved to exist—which could justify the introduction of such a measure. It had been said, on the other side, that the measure ought not to be characterised as one giving extra powers to the landlord: but it strengthened the power of the Government for giving effect to the decrees of the landlords, whereby large districts were depopulated. What would history say of the conduct of a set of landlords who seized the opportunity of a famine visitation to eject their miserable tenants from their holdings, and of a Government who gave the landlords facilities for effecting this object? He opposed the introduction of this Bill, because it was unaccompanied by any remedial measures.

supported the Bill, on the ground that the coercive powers had operated as a preventive of crime. Without saying that those powers were absolutely necessary now, he would ask who could take upon himself to say that they would not be so soon? In the transition state in which Ireland now was, it was better that these powers should be continued, than have a constant renewal of these discussions. He was convinced that to make the law felt, was the only way to ensure its observance in Ireland. He regarded the cry about the landlord and tenant question, as one of the popular delusions which were constantly prevalent in that country. As the Government asked for a renewal of this Bill, he would give it with confidence; nor did he fear its being abused by any other Government or any other Lord Lieutenant.

confessed he was greatly surprised that any Member from the sister country could for a moment offer any opposition to the re-enactment of this measure. He considered it one of vast importance to Ireland. It had, in a great measure, restored tranquillity to that distracted country. It had restored confidence to the minds of the well-conducted, by punishing the disturbers of the public peace; therefore he, knowing well its value, would hope that Her Majesty's Government would use every exertion to have it carried through the House before the close of the Session, and it should have his warm and decided support.

contended that if the people of England were treated like those of Ireland, they would resist by force such an attempt to deprive them of their rights. The Government had made out no case for this Bill; in fact, there was no case to make out. On the former occasion he had thought it right to arm the Government with these powers. Nothing had been done since to give the people the civil rights enjoyed by the people of this country; on that ground he thought the representatives of Ireland fully justified in resisting this measure by every means which the forms of the House would allow. Sound policy alone would dictate to the Government some attempt at conciliation. This was the interest of England as well as Ireland; for in the absence of good government large and costly bodies of troops were necessary to keep the people of Ireland quiet. He should give every assistance to hon. Members who thought fit to avail themselves of all the forms of the House in opposing this measure.

tendered his thanks to the hon. Member for Montrose, on his own behalf and on that of his constituents, for his manly, generous, and frank declaration, which was, to him, consolatory and refreshing. He looked upon this Bill as a brand, a stain, and an insult on the Irish people. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland acknowledged that the country was tranquil, and yet he, because of his office, advocated this arbitrary measure. The Government asked for this Bill as a child asked for a toy—to play with during the recess; but, as the fable of the bull and the frogs had it, "what is sport to you, is death to us." Would they dare to propose such a Bill for England or Scotland. They would not. He felt that on his return to Dublin his constituents would naturally ask him why he supported a Government which thus treated Ireland; and he confessed the question would be a difficult one to answer. He was determined to oppose the introduction of this Bill, and would even record factious votes to put down this wanton infringement of the rights of the Irish people. If he had any influence with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he would ask him not to tarnish his high character by agreeing to any measure of coercion towards the Irish people. He thought that Irish Members had some claim on the noble Lord, for on a late occasion, when an attempt was made to oust the Ministry on the question of their foreign policy, the noble Lord owed his success to the support he received from Irish Members, for it would be found that the noble Lord's majority of 46, included 58 independent Irish Members. [Laughter.] He very well understood the meaning of that laugh; but he was not so unacquainted with the rules of arithmetic that he did not know that 58 could not be included in 46. He meant no such thing, but he meant this—that 58 Irish Members had voted in the majority with the noble Lord, and if they had voted the other way, it would have made a difference of 116 against the noble Lord. And what would have been the consequence? In all probability they would have seen the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon changing over to the Ministerial side, supported by a number of—he would not say "loose fish," but of those who, from their talents and position, could assist in forming a piebald Administration. He could tell the noble Lord that, during the recess, the Irish Members would get up a little constitutional agitation, and he would advise that the first pledge exacted from a candidate in case of there being an opportunity afforded should be, that he would not give his support to any Ministry who would introduce such a Bill as that they were now discussing. This might appear an empty threat, but he would remind the noble Lord that when parties on both sides were so nicely balanced, 80 Irish votes might at any time disturb his or any other Administration.

, with reference to the remark of the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire, that he had voted against a Coercion Bill on a former occasion because he bore a grudge to a particular Minister, and wished to drive him from office, said, he could not conceive that motives more abominable could possibly be avowed. He would say, moreover, that as long as Ireland was legislated for by such men as this, and upon principles such as these— as long as she was legislated for, not according to the interests of the country, but the exigencies of a particular party—as long as Ireland was made the battlefield of faction, and ruled with reference to the support or defeat of Ministers, so long would she have bitter cause to complain of the spirit of their legislation, and to agitate, however vainly, for legislation at home.

said, as the hour was approaching at which the House would probably adjourn, he wished to ask whether at the adjourned sitting they would proceed with the Orders of the Day, or with Notices of Motion?

thought it desirable that the House, after discussing this question for two days, should finish the debate before they adjourned. He was desirous that the Orders of the Day should have preference at the adjourned sitting; but if hon. Members who had notices on the paper insisted on their right, there was nothing to prevent their bringing them on.

asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government when he would be prepared to go on with the discussion respecting the Ionian Islands, because it was essential that some statement should be made respecting the conduct of Sir Henry Ward?

said, that he would give an opportunity of bringing the subject before the House on Friday or Monday.

wished to know when he might have an opportunity of submitting his Motion as to the propriety of laying the evidence which was taken before the Ceylon Committee on the table of the House?

hoped the hon. Gentleman would reconsider his view on the subject. The evidence was very voluminous, and it being doubtful whether it should be reported to the House, the Committee decided that it ought not. It appeared to him that the best course to take was to inform the Governor of Ceylon of the evidence which had been taken, and in the next Session of Parliament he would be prepared to support a Motion for the production of the evidence. But he did not think it fair to circulate the evidence where the parties concerned were at a great distance, and before they could ascertain whether the charges were true or false.

wished to say a few words on the question really before the House. He begged to express his gratitude for the speech of the hon. Member for Montrose, because it showed that there were some English Members who desired to maintain the rights and liberties of Irishmen. It had been said that the Amendment was tantamount to a vote of want of confidence. Well, without meaning offence to Her Majesty's Government, he for one would say that he had no confidence in their policy for Ireland.

said, that when the measure on which the present Bill was founded was introduced in 1847, it was sustained by an array of figures and statistics which induced a large number of the Members of the House, and especially the English Members, to vote in favour of it. A large number of Irish Members also were induced to vote for the Bill for the same reason. He believed that there were thirty or thirty-five Irish Members voting in favour of the Bill, and only four against it. That showed that the Irish Members were anxious and desirous that every measure necessary for preventing crime in Ireland should be introduced and carried. But on the introduction of the Bill in the present Session, the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland made out no case for the measure before the House. On the contrary, it appeared to him he showed as plainly as words could show, there was no absolute necessity for the Bill. Neither had the noble Lord at the head of the Government made out any case in its favour. On the contrary, all that he could say in its favour was that it was a measure of precaution. It had been said that this question was a want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. He could not concur in that view of the case. If he did, he should not follow the course he was about to do on the present occasion. He felt convinced that Her Majesty's Government would deal fairly, justly, and honestly towards Ireland, but they had a long series of misrule to contend with. He would, therefore, put it to the Government not to go on coercing the people of Ireland, for they had now arrived at a period in the history of both countries when Ireland must be governed by love, and not by fear. They never could rule Ireland by fear. He would therefore urge the Government to withdraw the Bill. This was not a vote of want of confidence in the Government, but this measure showed a want of confidence in the people of Ireland, and on that ground also he would recommend its withdrawal. But if it was persevered in, he, as far as he was able, would oppose its further progress in that House.

said, he so entirely concurred in what had been said by the hon. Member for Bolton, that it was very little he should add. He was strongly impressed with the necessity of creating a real and substantial union between England and Ireland. Times were coming which would call for everything in the shape of union which this United Kingdom, as it was called, could effect. Statesmanship was like seamanship. The best of seamen might go to the bottom; but if he was to keep afloat, it must be by watching the signs of the times, and taking early precautions against danger. So it behoved the statesman who saw the dangers approaching, to guard against them by a timely union of heart and mind, between England and Ireland. He hoped he had done something towards promoting that end, by impressing the necessity for such a course.

rose to put a question to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, in reference to some late despatches of his noble Friend who was at the head of that department. A certain foreign Potentate had appointed to a certain office certain persons in certain parts of Her Majesty's dominions. The question he wished to ask his hon. Friend was, whether Her Majesty's Ministers had advised Her Majesty to continue to recognise the precedence which such appointment gave other parties, whose orders had been conferred with Her Majesty's sanction?

had read over the notice which the hon. Baronet had put upon the paper, with some care, in order to divine, if he could, the direction which this question would take, and he certainly was not quite prepared for the direction which it had taken. The despatches that were laid upon the table contained all the information that it was in his power to give. A circular had been issued from the Colonial Office to the Governors of the different colonies, to the effect that Roman Catholic prelates in the colonies might use the titles belonging to their ecclesiastical dignities, and that those titles would be acknowledged. As to the question of precedence, the question was altogether different. The acknowledgment of the title did not necessarily establish the order of precedence—that was regulated by other rules, and those rules had not been departed from.

rose to put one or two questions to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was a report that 14,000l. had already been advanced from the Treasury to the Commissioners for the Exhibition that was to be held next year. He wished to know if this were so, and if not, he wished to ask the First Minister of the Crown whether he was disposed to pledge himself that he would not propose, or sanction the proposal, either directly or indirectly, the issue of any sum of money, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledge himself not to issue or advance any public money for the purpose of carrying on the works for the proposed Exhibition of 1851 without the sanction of Parliament.

said, with reference to the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that 14,000l. had already been advanced, it was utterly and entirely a mistake.

did not say it had been advanced. He said there was a rumour to that effect.

could at any rate give it a complete and unqualified contradiction. As to any pledge, he must decline coming under any promise in the way proposed.

And the noble Lord?

No, I must decline.

rose to call attention to the great public inconvenience caused by the present mode of transmitting the mails between Dublin and London. At present, the mails left daily between Dublin and London. One left Kingstown at 12 o'clock in the morning, and the other at half-past 7 in the evening. It was to the latter that he wished to call attention. The time was seventeen and a half hours, and he thought it possible that the transmission might take place in fourteen and a half hours, being a saving of three hours. In support of that assertion, he might state that the mail which left Euston-square station at 5 o'clock in the afternoon reached Kingstown Harbour at 6 o'clock the following morning, being a period of thirteen hours. If that could be done between London and Dublin, he did not see why it should not be done between Dublin and London. He had felt it to be his duty to bring the matter under the consideration of the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office department; but although he (Mr. Reynolds) succeeded in proving that a substantial grievance existed, and the noble Lord expressed his willingness to apply a remedy, it appeared that the noble Lord worked with such imperfect machinery that he was unable to control it. He would now show the manner in which the time occupied between Dublin and London was taken up. The departure took place at half-past seven o'clock, and five hours forty minutes were allowed for crossing between Holyhead and Dublin. Twenty minutes were allowed for landing the mails, making six hours as the time occupied in crossing the Channel. There was a margin allowed at Holyhead for irregularities in the arrival of the packets; and the mail did not start from that point till two o'clock in the morning. The train arrived at Chester at forty minutes past four o'clock, where the mails were detained one hour and fifty minutes. The train again started at half-past six o'clock, and arrived at London at one o'clock. This was equal to seventeen hours London time. He was prepared to propose a plan by which the mail would arrive at a quarter past ten in the morning, thus enabling a delivery of Irish letters to take place at twelve o'clock, and not at half-past four or five o'clock, as at present. From Kingstown the departure should be at five minutes past seven (equal to half-past seven English time); five and a half hours should be allowed for crossing; twenty minutes allowed for the landing at Holyhead. The train should start at twenty minutes past one o'clock, and it would be due at Chester at four o'clock. On arriving at that point, there ought to be no delay; but the mail should proceed to Blisworth, and then to London, where the arrival would be at a quarter past ten o'clock. This would enable letters to be answered the same evening by the nine o'clock express train. He understood that the cause of the detention at Chester was for the accommodation of Liverpool and the northern parts of England. He would do as much as any man to serve a neighbour, but he could not go so far as to sacrifice the correspondence with Ireland for the sake of accommodating the people of Liverpool, and of the north of England. The delay at Chester would be removed were the Government to incur the expense of a special train between that town and Blisworth; and he thought that ought to be done. He should conclude by moving for a copy "of any Regulations which may have been made by the Postmaster General relating to the Transmission of the Mails between London and Dublin."

said, that the present arrangements had been adopted upon the most mature and impartial consideration of the best mode of balancing different conveniences and inconveniences. There could be no question that the facilitation of communication between London and Dublin was a very important object; but, on the other hand, the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman would involve considerable expenditure. The Postmaster General, however, would, he was sure, continue to pay the closest attention to the subject, and be ready to adopt any practicable improvement.

expressed a hope that the improvement would be brought into effect at the earliest possible moment, for the present arrangements were most embarrassing to Irish correspondents.

said, that even if the mails were transmitted more rapidly from Dublin to London, it would be impossible to deliver them any sooner than at present, except by an entire reconstruction of the sorting arrangements. The letters from Dublin were delivered at the same time with letters from the north of England and Scotland.

said, it would be a very great convenience to have an intermediate mail from Dublin, enabling persons who had received letters from London by the five o'clock mail from that city to despatch the business to which they referred and return an answer accordingly, without having a whole day's delay intervene.

concurred in the statement that the present arrangements with reference to Chester were most inconvenient.

said, it was absurdly incongruous on the part of a Government which had only the other day justified the withdrawal of the Lord Lieutenant from Dublin on the specific ground of having established a more rapid communication between the two capitals, to permit the subordinates of the Post Office actually to impede that communication by their bungling arrangements.

said, if the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor had just cause of complaint at the great public inconvenience caused by the present mode of transmitting Her Majesty's mails between Dublin and London, how much more legitimate cause of complaint had they in the south of Ireland? After the arrival of the mails in Dublin, they were uselessly detained for four or five hours in the post-office there; and he almost doubted if his assertion would gain credence in the House, when he said a passenger coming from Holyhead in the same boat that conveyed the mails could actually reach the south of Ireland thirteen hours before the letters. He need not say any more to impress the House with the conviction that an alteration of such an evil was necessary.

urged upon the right hon. Secretary for Ireland the expediency of striking out for the present all the clauses relating to infirmaries, and leaving the Bill a Bill relating to dispensaries alone. The subject of infirmaries was a very large and important one. They possessed property by bequest and otherwise; and it was not right they should be handed, as the Bill proposed, to the complete authority of the Commissioners. The profession was of opinion that the infirmaries should be exempted. If the Government would not consent to this, he would move an Amendment, that the governors of infirmaries should, if they thought proper, claim exemption.

must resist the Amendment.

was anxious to protect the practitioners in Ireland, who were generally men of very high merit, from the power of the Commissioners, who might, under the clause, determine the important question of medical qualifications arbitrarily. He considered all the medical offices should be open to all medical men who were at present qualified by law.

said, he had no objection to introduce some proviso which would meet the case of institutions haying property, and which he would introduce on the report. He could not consent to mutilate the measure by confining it to dispensaries, nor to make its operation conditional on the consent of the governors of other institutions. Such an exemption would prevent the complete arrangement; that was contemplated, and interfere with the establishment of district hospitals. He believed also, that the abuses of the infirmaries were as great as those of the dispensaries.

, looking at the magnitude of the changes proposed, could not but wish that the Bill might be postponed till next Session. They were dividing on most important questions with less than fifty Members present, including very few Irish Members, and nothing was more easy than for the Government to over-ride whatever objections might be made.

said, there were four lines in brackets in the clause, which exempted the Dublin hospitals from the operation of the Bill. He saw no reason for exempting these hospitals, in one of which the medical appointments were regularly sold. He moved that the words constituting this exemption should be omitted.

said, that every one in Dublin would testify that these hospitals were well conducted, and were of universal benefit to the people, without distinction of creed. If their management was handed over to this new board, it would neutralise many of the benefits now conferred by those institutions. The people of Dublin had the most unbounded confidence in the managers, which would not be the case if any change were made.

opposed the Amendment.

said, these hospitals did not differ from any other county hospital. The Meath Hospital was the hospital for the county of Dublin. The system of bargain and sale which prevailed in some of these institutions, loudly called for a change in the management.

said, the Meath hospital was one of the most celebrated schools of medicine in Europe. On bringing up the report, he would insert a proviso, giving an option to these hospitals to come under the operation of the Act, if they thought it desirable.

withdrew his Amendment.

then moved the Amendment of which he had given notice. As he was informed, the apothecaries of Ireland were 2,000 in number, of whom one-half were surgeons or physicians. It was apprehended that these gentlemen would be excluded from holding any appointment under medical charities unless some such words as he proposed were inserted. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would perhaps say, that the apothecaries would obtain a status, under these words, to which they were not entitled; but up to a very recent period a clause or words were always intro- duced, preserving the rights of the apothecaries. He was afraid that the rights of the apothecaries were going to be sacrificed to the magnates of the medical profession in Dublin.

did not think that any such addition as was now proposed was ever introduced into the interpretation clause of such Bills, as that which they were now considering; and if he consented to insert the words he would be taking upon himself to decide a question which had been long a matter of dispute in the medical profession.

submitted, that the Bill was not in order as it then stood before the House. The Bill, as it originally stood, was entitled a "Landlord and Tenant Bill," its object being to improve the relations between these bodies. At present it was proposed to call it "An Act to Prevent the taking away of Crops to avoid the Payment of Rent." There was only one clause retained in the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, with part of another clause, to which, however, was tacked a long proviso. The Bill was in point of fact one for the creation of new criminal offences, and could not with any degree of justice be classed under the title of a Landlord and Tenant Bill, which was the character it pretended to on leaving the Lords. What he asked was, if this objection was not fatal to the Bill? and if not, he would proceed to state further reasons why the Bill should not be entertained.

said, the objection was not fatal to the Bill. If the Bill had ori- ginated in that House, the case would be different; but as the Bill came from the Lords, no objection could be taken to an alteration even in the title of the Bill.

would then address himself to some points of the Bill, and conclude his observations by moving that the House do not go into Committee upon the Bill. The measure then before the House was one for making more stringent the law of distress in its mode of operation, and extending that law to a class of property under circumstances in which it did not at present apply. The law of distress was altogether, in this country as well as in Ireland, very questionable; and on that ground he was fortified in his belief that they would not be acting wisely to make that law more stringent than at present. It might be observed by hon. Members that the Devon Commission received a very considerable amount of evidence which went against the law of distress in Ireland, showing it to be a harsh and severe law, and that it was a law not alone harsh and cruel to the tenant, but often not beneficial or satisfactory to the landlord. That being the case, and knowing that the law of distress was based upon a very questionable principle, conferring on a particular class of property the right of recovery not extended to other classes, he should declare himself opposed to the proposition now before the House, namely, to add new stringency to that power in the case of Ireland, particularly in the present condition of that country. It was well known that for some time past there had been a sort of servile war between the landlord and tenant classes of Ireland. He believed the landlords there were, in a great number of cases, oppressing and coercing the tenantry; and that the tenantry were endeavouring to avoid, by fraudulent means, the payment of their rents. In fact, there raged a sort of social anarchy, arising from causes heretofore discussed in that House, but which anarchy, or the cause of which, the present Bill was not calculated to remove. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin was a member of the Devon Commission, and would, he doubted not, bear him (Mr. Bright) out in saying that abundant evidence was laid before that Commission to show that the law of distress was so unpopular that in cases where property was distrained for rent, it was next to impossible to find a sale for it. Like goods seized for tithes, or church rates, in this country, it was almost im- possible to find a free market and ready sale for it; and almost invariably the property had to be sold below its value. Now, coming to the Bill before them, the House would see that, after its enactment, no person would be allowed to cut crops between sunset on Saturday and sunrise on Monday. That was a sort of sabbatical observance that might be turned to a very harsh use. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: No, no!] The hon. Gentleman who cried "No," must be more ignorant of the state of Ireland than he (Mr. Bright) believed him to be. The hon. Member should surely be aware that on estates in Ireland—where the landlords were absent, and even at home—the management was entrusted to the agents, and by them to the bailiffs and drivers; and he therefore contended that this Bill would be made use of in endless cases for purposes of oppression. The Bill provided that not only should not crops be cut between sunset on Saturday and sunrise on Monday; but even not between sunset and sunrise on the other days of the week, where the intention was supposed to be fraudulent, with a view to avoid the payment of rent. Every hon. Member from Ireland knew how the tenants were beset by parties who drove their cattle, and distrained on all possible occasions: and therefore it should be clear to them that a law adding fresh stringency to such a power should be regarded as most oppressive. When he was in Ireland last autumn, he happened to see in an office where was managed the affairs of one of the largest estates in the county of Limerick, a pile of papers drawn up and printed, and requiring only to be filled up with the name of the agent, commissioning the driver and bailiff to seize the cattle in payment of the rent due to the landlord. He saw hundreds of those forms, which showed that the whole management was carried on under a system of extracting rent, not by any free payment of the tenant, but by driving and impounding the cattle in lieu of the rent. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not know whether these cries, proceeding from hon. Gentlemen opposite, were intended for or against his position, but he asserted that where property had sunk into that condition, Parliament was not to look to the proprietor with a view of increasing his powers to extract his rent, but to the cause that produced that anarchy, with a view to remedy it. This Bill would enable the landlords to seize and impound the carts and horses and waggons removing, about to remove, or preparing to remove, those crops, no matter to whom belonging, and though not even on the land on which the particular landlord might not be empowered to make a distraint. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had read through the provisions of the Bill: neither did he believe the House would consent to enact the measure. This measure made that which hitherto was—if he might use the expression—only a civil wrong, in future a criminal offence. The non-payment of rent or taking away of property in this country, or in Ireland, had not been heretofore made a crime in the way that stealing was a crime, or felony: but by this Bill they were going to change the nature of the offence, and they were going to enact that the non-payment of rent in Ireland was a misdemeanour, punishable with twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour. This Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, showed to what desperate and cruel lengths Gentlemen of otherwise mild tempers and dispositions could go, in attaching twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour to an act that heretofore the laws of England did not recognise as an offence. He put it to the law officers of the Crown to say, if this Bill would not bring about the changes to which he had referred, and if it would not affect their notions as to law, and the principles on which law was based? When the Crown failed to obtain revenue, when payment of duties was evaded, penalties were attached and modes of recovery pointed out; but in no case was the offence made a misdemeanour, and followed by a punishment unjust and savage. There was a proviso introduced into the Bill which appeared to him not alone unjust, but also most absurd. It was to the effect, that any cart or waggon seized under the provisions of the Bill, not the property of the owner of the crop which was being removed, such cart or waggon should not be restored until the owner proved to the magistrate that it was not known to him (the owner) the purpose for which they were about to be used. Now, he wished to know from the hon. Gentleman opposite how he could call on a man to prove a negative, when it was for the prosecutor to prove him guilty? Thus the principles of law and justice were reversed. On these grounds the Bill was so objectionable, that he would oppose its proceedings that night, and also join with those hon. Gentlemen who took the same view as himself in opposing its further progress at every single step. He understood these clauses were recommended by no less eminent an authority than the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. But that was nothing to him (Mr. Bright); for there had been known Lord Lieutenants, both before and since the union of both countries, who recommended a great amount of legislation most pernicious; and, therefore, such high authority went for nothing with him. He certainly should like to see the Lord Lieutenant urging on Government the necessity of passing measures of justice to the whole people of Ireland, but not such measures as the present, and that which occupied the attention of the House at an earlier stage of that day's proceedings, particularly as there was no necessity for them, and as they outraged all sense of law and justice. At the commencement of the Session, the Government brought in a Bill for the purpose of settling the long-pending question of the relative rights of landlord and tenant in Ireland; and he might appeal even to the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, whether, in the present condition of Ireland, it was not the duty of Government to legislate between them? The Government had brought in a Bill of many clauses, five-sixths of which were understood to be protective of the interests of the tenant, with three or four clauses strengthening the right of the landlord. The Government found they could not carry the Bill this Session. It had, consequently, been put off from time to time, and was, he believed, fixed for second reading on Thursday next. It certainly was odd that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland should have allowed the Bill to lie on the table, whilst the Marquess of Westmeath, in the House of Lords, was getting on with his clauses. How, he wished to know, had these Bills been passed by the House of Lords? Why, about five noble Lords sat—two on the Ministerial side, and three on the Opposition—who would not divide; and in that way the measures came down to the House of Commons, and hon. Gentlemen were expected to legislate on them. [An Hon. MEMBER: No!] The hon. Gentleman said "No:" it might not be so as regarded the present Bill, but, generally speaking, it was so, and he could not help saying that such legislation would be disgraceful to any country in the world. He asserted such legislation was wrong in principle; because it gave more stringent powers to the Irish landlords, which powers all the world admitted were already sufficiently stringent, and had also been greatly abused. It was also wrong with regard to the temper that at present existed between the landlords and tenants of Ireland; it would only add fuel to the flame now raging, and would, in fact, give to the people, who were calling for "bread," nothing better than "stones" for their appeasement. The tenantry asked to be given a right in the land which they worked and toiled upon; and that House responding, came forward with a measure having only two such clauses as every tenant in Ireland would consider not alone not favourable, but more or less hostile to his interests. It was, then, because he conceived it would be disastrous to confer additional powers on the landlord class, that he objected to this measure. It was also brought forward at an unfavourable period—the fag-end of the Session, when not more than forty Members might attend for its discussion, and in the absence of very many who felt an interest in it. Therefore, conceiving it of too important a nature to be settled in that way, he begged to move that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.

seconded the Amendment.

said, it was necessary after the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, that he should make a few remarks. It was true, as stated by the hon. Member, that many of the witnesses before the Devon Commission had recommended the total abolition of distress; but it was also true that the Commissioners having given the subject their fullest and most anxious consideration, had come to the conclusion that it would neither be consistent with the rights of property, nor with the interests of the tenants themselves, that distress for rent should be abolished. They, however, recommended certain modifications in the law. They had recommended that distress of growing crops, though it was now the law in England, should be done away with in Ireland, and that certain notices should in all cases of distress he given, in order that the tenant might know how much rent was due, and have the opportunity of paying it before the sale of his goods. But the abolition of distress of growing crops had been followed by consequences which the Commissioners did not foresee. The House was aware that no civil process of law could be executed at night, or on Sunday. Fraudulent and dishonest tenants, therefore, by cutting and carrying their crops at night, or on Sunday, could escape distress altogether. This, however, was manifestly a fraud and act of dishonesty. It had been followed by very injurious consequences to the tenants themselves, and in some instances fatal collisions had taken place. The Bill was intended to prevent and punish this fraud. It was necessary in every case that a fraudulent intent should be proved, and a jury were to determine on it. He would be quite ready in Committee to show that it was not the case that any new principle of law was introduced in this Bill, and the law in England at the present moment was far more stringent as regards the punishment for carrying away distress.

considered the cutting of crops on Sundays to evade the rent to be a downright species of felony, and one of the most dishonest practices that ever prevailed in any civilised country. He hoped that the Government would take care that the Bill passed during the present Session.

denied that it was a general practice to remove crops in the way alleged by the supporters of this Bill. The tenantry of Ireland did not deserve the imputations which had been so lavishly heaped upon them; and he could not but believe that there had been some great moral constraint pressing upon the mind of the right hon. Baronet the Irish Secretary when he consented to the second reading of the measure. He (Mr. M'Cullagh) condemned the mode in which this Bill had been introduced and proceeded with. The last time it was discussed it was long after midnight; and he believed there was no formal advantage of which its promoters would not avail themselves in order to have it passed into law. Why was it not brought in sooner in the Session, if the necessity for it was so great as had been represented? Its framers had placed it in the hands of a Peer (the Marquess of Westmeath), the very last that he should have thought likely to be intrusted with such a measure. He was not one who was accustomed to make strong remarks relative to the Members of the Upper House; but be should have thought that the Government, or Gentlemen opposite, would have chosen as the person to introduce this measure into the House of Lords some man whose antecedents, whose character for sobriety of judgment, and whose consistency of conduct, in public life, were such as to win esteem.

rose to order. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he presumed, had no right thus to refer to what took place in the other House of Parliament.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not out of order if he referred to what was found in the Votes of the House of Lords.

held in his hand a copy of the Bill as it was printed by order of the House of Lords, and he found the name of the Marquess of Westmeath on the back of it. The measure originally brought in by the Government to amend the relations subsisting between landlord and tenant in Ireland had not been proceeded with, but its most stringent clauses were imported into, and now formed the whole of, the present measure; and he must repeat that Ministers could only have given their sanction to the second reading under some extraordinary feeling of constraint, or some overpowering sense of its necessity. Then, if that were so, why did they not adopt at once the responsibility of carrying it through Parliament? The hon. Member for Manchester had pointed out the difference between a civil wrong and a criminal offence; and he would only add to his statement, that, anciently, by the common law, nothing could be distrained that partook of the quality of the soil. It was only after 1688 that this principle was disturbed, and the right of distraint over growing crops was recognised by statute. This right, first established in England, was subsequently extended to Ireland; but the power was abused so universally and so notoriously that the Devon Commission, of which the sponsor for this Bill in that House (Mr. G. A. Hamilton), was a member, reported that it should be abrogated. Nobody proposed to take the power of distraint over growing crops from the landlords of England; but the Devon Commissioners reported that it was necessary to divest the landlords of Ireland in that re- spect of a statutable remedy which experience had shown to be liable in that country to great abuse. But, much as he approved of the proposal to abolish the powers of distraining growing crops, he would rather run the risk of the greatest abuse of that law, than support the Bill now before the House. They would not attempt such a measure for England; and they wronged the people of Ireland, when they imposed upon them a yoke greater than they themselves were willing to bear. He would appeal to the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland whether this was not an attempt to repeal by a sidewind the remedial and conciliatory Act of 1846, which had been passed at the instance of Lord Besborough? If the Bill should go into Committee, he would move an Amendment to do away with its criminal character, and leave to the parties a civil remedy only, and thereby efface from the measure its worst features. Had the proposition been confined to prohibiting, under penalties, the carrying away of crops on Sunday, he should not have felt so much opposed to it; but this was a law against the tenant cutting his crop any day in the week after a certain hour. Such an enactment would subject every tenant in Ireland to the malice of any scoundrel who might for the basest purposes inform against him. And then, before whom were the accused to be arraigned? Before the magistrates sitting at sessions; that was to say, before their own landlords. The crime was to consist in the intent of the accused; and this was to be proved to the satisfaction of two persons interested—if not directly, at least by sympathy of class—in his conviction. Circumstantial evidence, coloured by prejudice and passion, or the reckless swearing of some miserable dependant, would, of necessity, be the only proof. And what was to be the punishment? Twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour! A more tyrannical procedure could not be devised, even against the serfs of Russia.

said, that the hon. Member for Manchester possessed as little knowledge of the law upon this subject as he did of the facts to which it related; and he was surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk should have adopted the authority of that hon. Gentleman upon this subject. The real question for the House to decide was, whether the existing law was in so satisfactory a state as not to require any alteration. In his opinion the law as it at present stood aiforded no remedy to the landlord. He would ask whether the Government would allow the law to remain in that state? Was there, in fact, to be no such thing as the recovery of rent in Ireland? No Irish landlord would ask for more power than was absolutely necessary. He had lived among the Irish people for years, and his family had done so before him for centuries; he was, in fact, one of them; and he would fearlessly say, that that man would speak falsely who should assert that the landlords of Ireland required unnecessary powers over their tenantry. The oppressions exercised by the landlords of Ireland over their tenants were not to be compared in severity with the hardships endured by the factory labourers of England under their exacting taskmasters.

opposed the Bill. He considered the hon. Member for Dundalk quite correct both in his law and in his facts. The principle of the measure was simply this, that if a tenant, however conscientiously, presumed to differ from his landlord as to the extent of his liabilities towards him, as to whether, perhaps, he owed him any rent at all, the landlord was to be in a position to remove the settlement of the question from a civil into a criminal court, and to subject the unfortunate tenant to fine and imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a twelvemonth, leaving the tenant who would not submit to this tyranny no other alternative than a resort to agrarian justice. As to fraudulent removals, they were sufficiently provided against by the existing law. It was said that the Bill was merely to prevent tenants from moving their crops by night; why, the unhappy men were so engaged during the day, in the employment, perhaps, of the very landlord who was oppressing them, that they had only the night in which to attend to their own concerns. There were two principles which ought to govern any law upon this subject: one was that nothing should be done to prevent the tenant selling his own produce at the time he pleased himself; and the other was, that a distress should be levied at such a time as to avoid the probability of a disturbance of the public peace. Both those principles the present Bill violated. There was no provision in it to make the existing law more effectual than it was at present. It was a piece of landlord legislation, and, however accept- able it might be to the class represented by the hon. and gallant Colonel, it would be scouted by every man who wished to maintain peace and tranquillity in Ireland. He deprecated the idea of discussing a Bill of this nature in a House with not fifty Members present, and at the fag end of the Session; and, in order to get rid of the measure, he should conclude by moving that the debate be adjourned.

hoped this Bill would not become law, for he considered that it would be very detrimental to the interests of Ireland. Nothing, he believed, would tend more to the advantage of that country than the introduction of English farmers, of English enterprise, and of English capital; but if an English farmer who settled in Ireland attempted to reap his crops by night, he might, under this Bill, be committed to prison, tried, and sentenced to hard labour. He knew an English farmer who went to Ireland two years ago, and who occupied 1,000 acres of land in the county of Gal way, who would be precluded by this measure from working after sunset or before sunrise. A large portion of the land in Ireland was subject not only to" rent, but to rent-charge. Although, therefore, a tenant might have paid his rent, the rent-charge might be due, and, if the tenant proceeded to reap his crops within the prohibited time, he might be informed against, fined, and punished with hard labour.

thought it was unfortunate that the law of Ireland was not the same as in England. ["Hear, hear!"] The English farmer was liable to punishment for the offence here. He knew the hon. Gentleman was a magistrate for Surrey, and he had no doubt similar complaints had been made to the hon. Member as to himself (Mr. Henley) of tenants taking away goods to prevent their being distrained for rent. The law, however, gave power to the landlord to follow them for thirty days; and if he did not then recover them, he could proceed against the tenant, who would be liable to six months' imprisonment. He could not see why this was not extended to Ireland; for he believed the only remedy at present was, to bring an action for double the amount of rent, thus making it a simple debt.

thought the subject had been discussed with more warmth than was called for. All the Gen- tlemen who had addressed the House had admitted that frauds had taken place in consequence of the farmers carrying off the crops to avoid the payment of rent. It was not denied that it was desirable that there should be some provision in the, law to meet such cases. He had said, on a former occasion, and he then repeated, that all he wanted was a minimum punishment which would put a stop to a state of things which all must condemn. He did not think this question had anything to do with the relations of landlord and tenant. It was clear they must adopt some steps to put a stop to this practice, and he considered the object of the present Bill was merely to put down these frauds. An hon. Gentleman said that this was a landlord's alarm; but he (Sir W. Somerville) considered such a statement to be a calumny on the tenantry of Ireland. The system did not merely demoralise those who were parties to carrying off the crops, but when they were taken away, they were taken to the houses of other farmers, who, against their will, were obliged to take them in. He was sure the great body of the farmers of Ireland would be glad to see an end put to the practice. When they got into Committee they could calmly consider whether some means might not be adopted to put; an end to these frauds.

did not object to the objects of the Bill, but to the means proposed for carrying them out. If such a conspiracy as had been referred to existed among any large body of the tenantry in Ireland, to remove the crops in order to defraud their landlords, he contended that it was the duty of the Government to have brought forward a Bill on this subject at an earlier period of the Session. If a Bill of this kind were brought forward upon their responsibility, he would willingly consent to any reasonable measure for repressing so monstrous an evil. But the real fact was that Irish landlords, pressed by the necessity of the times, had laid their heads together in another place, and had devised this Bill to facilitate the collection of their rents: and he strongly objected to such a mode of legislation, as establishing a most dangerous precedent.

concurred with the right hon. Secretary for Ireland in wishing to prevent frauds; but he would not endeavour to do so by a one-sided Bill, which would prevent frauds on the part of the tenants, while it left the frauds practised by landlords unrestrained. He con sidered it a fraud on the tenant that, when he had made improvement on the soil, an enormous rent should be demanded from him which he was unable to pay, and that the landlord should then take posession of the produce of his tenant's capital and labour.

hoped the House would bear in mind the cheers with which the observations of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire had been received, that the law of England should be applied to Ireland on the subject of landlord and tenant. If they acted on that principle, to which they had by their cheers almost pledged themselves, they would remove various objectionable parts of the Bill. Should they go into Committee, he trusted they would content themselves with putting the law affecting Ireland on the same footing as the law of England. He had a great objection to legislating on the subject at this period of the Session. There were provisions in the Bill so offensive and insulting to the tenantry of Ireland, that it was impossible the House could assent to them. The grievances of the Irish tenantry were innumerable. One of the worst of those grievances would be aggravated by the Bill, inasmuch as, having to pay rents on a range of prices which had been materially changed by the legislation of that House, and calculated on the supposition of successful potato crops, tenants, if they did not pay their rents to the last farthing, would find that by the Bill power was given the landlord to prevent them from selling their produce as they saw fit, and from carrying away their crops for the purpose of sale. They would find also that any informer might bring evidence against them to show that in the removal of their crops they were acting in a fraudulent manner. The effect of such legislation would be to encourage landlords to maintain extravagant rents, and keep alive that unfortunate state of feeling between landlord and tenant which it was so desirable to alter. The depopulation of Ireland had been proceeding rapidly; no fewer than 100,000 families had disappeared within the last year or two. Tenants ought to be protected from harsh and cruel evictions. The common law was said to be sufficient to prevent these; but an Act was passed not long ago to provide an effectual check. It was notoriously a dead letter. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland received many accounts of evictions from the constabulary; and it might be asked why those returns were not produced? The effect which such evictions had in forcing numbers of the Irish population to come to this country, showed to what an extent the people of England felt on this subject. The Bill would tend still further to encourage evictions and promote the depopulation of Ireland. A just measure would give advantages to tenants as well as to landlords.

observed, that the Bill made every man to whom another paid rent a landlord under its provisions; so that not only a landlord in the proper sense, but every agent or driver, could prevent a man from digging a potato in his garden. One of the clauses would prevent a man from removing any of his chattels, and vehicles might be seized as if they were the property of the man whose house they were leaving. The provisions of the Bill were of so arbitrary a character that he could not, under any circumstances, give them his support. If the question of adjournment were negatived, he would be prepared to present his views in detail.

then moved that the House do adjourn. The House ought to adjourn in order that the subject might be more fully discussed. In Manchester the ratepayers paid 28,000l. in one year for outdoor relief to Irish paupers. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: Question!] He was glad the hon. Member for Kerry, who was fond of interrupting him, was before him on this occasion; the last time he interrupted him he was behind him. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL:No!] On the last occasion the hon. Member was behind him. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: That is not true.] The hon. Member stated that what he (Mr. Reynolds) said was not true. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: I never interrupted the hon. Member sitting behind him.] He would call upon the hon. Member not to interrupt him any more. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: Question, then.] Mr. Speaker would be the judge whether he was speaking to the question, not the hon. Member. What he (Mr. Reynolds) said might be unpalatable to certain persons who imagined themselves landlords, but were not landlords, either in the present or the future tense; and they appeared the most turbulent portion of the Irish landlords in the House. [Dr. NICHOLL rose to order. The hon. Member did not address his observations to the question.] He should be very sorry to be considered disorderly in the mind of a Gentleman who took a reasonable view of the subject, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was such an one; but there ought to be some latitude allowed. It was not just to the people of Ireland, after all the arguments brought against this Bill, to force it into Committee at half-past one in the morning—["Half-past twelve"]—well, half-past twelve. It might be inconvenient to him to remain in London during the entire of this month, but he would do so if he could be instrumental in defeating this Bill, which he considered an unjust attack upon his countrymen. He would proceed to call the attention of the House to the preamble.

must remind the right hon. Member that he was going again into the merits of the Bill, and not discussing the question of adjournment.

wished to show reasons why the House should adjourn. He would not trespass further than by repeating what he had already stated, that he should offer all the opposition in his power to this Bill, and expressing his regret that the Government should give their sanction to a one-sided Bill like this. He would not go again into the merits of the Bill; but he hoped the House would adjourn.

begged to say, that he remembered the occasion to which the right hon. Member referred when he accused me of interrupting him behind his back. He did not do so. He should be particularly careful in his conduct towards a person after the cessation of a previous friendly intercourse. The whole subject before the House had been debated, and Gentlemen, instead of going into Committee to proceed with the Bill, made the same statements over and over again.

was surprised at the lecture which the hon. Member for Kerry had bestowed upon the opponents of the Bill; because the history of Parliament could show no person who had more distinguished himself than the hon. Member by Motions of adjournment, for the purpose of obstructing Sir Robert Peel's Administration. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: Never.] Oh, yes! He remembered the hon. Member's conduct with regard to the Arms Bill. Now, he (Mr. Anstey) acknowledged that he wanted to defeat the present Bill. For that object he had moved the adjournment of the debate; for that object he supported the present Motion; and for that object, when the present Motion should be disposed of, he would repeat the Motion he had already made. The Government had abandoned their remedial measures for Ireland on the ground that there was not time to consider them; but they found time to press this penal measure.

thought that something ought to be done for the prevention of irregular debates. In the present temper of the House, it was perhaps advisable to consent to the adjournment of the discussion.

complained of the numerous speeches against time which had been made by the opponents of the Bill, and in particular of the painful effort of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk. He protested in the face of the country against such a disgraceful abuse of a privilege. Those who had been guilty of it showed little regard for the dignity of the House, to say nothing of their own character. The House ought, if possible, to visit with some censure the efforts made to impede the progress of public business. [Mr. ANSTEY: Oh, oh!] He was aware that the hon. and learned Member was unable to comprehend anything about the dignity of the House, and he dared to say that the hon. and learned Member, in his cups with his companions, would rejoice in what he had done. It was not to be expected, however, that the hon. and learned Member should be able to understand or appreciate the dignity of that House. He was only capable of turning it into ridicule.

wished to take the opinion of the Chair upon the language of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had spoken of him as a person incapable of comprehending what appertained to the dignity of the House, and said that when in his cups with his companions he would turn it into ridicule. He wished to know whether that was Parliamentary language,; and, if it were not, he hoped Mr. Speaker would visit the noble Lord with censure.

disclaimed having used the words imputed to him. He; had said that he dared say the hon. and learned Member would do as described.

The noble Lord says he did not use the words, which must be satisfactory to the hon. and learned Member. The words are certainly not Parliamentary.

said, the conduct of the opponents of the Bill in making such frivolous and vexatious speeches on the subject of adjournment was highly reprehensible. It was too bad that the progress of wholesome and salutary legislation should be impeded by such practices. It was all very well to talk about the rights of a minority, but it should not be forgotten that the majorities also had rights which ought to be respected. The conduct of the hon. and learned Member who was pursuing a course so factious and mischievous to defeat a Bill which would be so beneficial in Ireland, and the object of which was simply to prevent the illegal carrying away of crops, was like that of a vicious boy who might place a plank upon a railway line to overturn a train.

would remind the noble Lord that during the debate on the Franchise Bill he had himself divided the House no less than eight times on questions which the House had uniformly decided to be frivolous and vexatious. He (Mr. Bright) had observed, during the evening, that no lawyer had spoken in favour of the Bill; and on that ground he thought an adjournment necessary. Of the law officers of the Crown, only the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland was present, and he had preserved a profound silence. They ought not to go into Committee on the Bill till they had the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and knew whether the principal Members of the Government supported it. Till they had that opinion they were entitled to move the adjournment of the House with the view of obtaining an adjournment of the debate. And no imputation of factious opposition should prevent him from supporting such a Motion. He was astonished at the conduct of the Government, who had not the manliness to support the Bill, though there was no doubt it was suggested by the Lord Lieutenant.

thought it impossible to go into Committee at such an hour, and in the then temper of the House, with the prospect of making any progress; and, therefore, the House had only to consider whether they would adjourn the debate, or go into Committee pro formâ, in order to allow the opponents of the Bill to give notice of any changes they might think it expedient to make. He did not feel that any justification was necessary for the conduct pursued by himself and his hon. Friends. It was said that a practice prevailed which no one could justify of abstracting that which was to secure the landlord the payment of his rent. If that practice did exist, it was a fraud and injustice, and should be prevented. It really was no advantage to the tenants to permit them to practice fraud, for it could not lead to good, and if a tenant began by defrauding his landlord of half a year's rent, he could not expect to be continued on his land, and he (Viscount Palmerston) held that they did the tenant good by preventing his expulsion. As to the principle of the Bill, therefore, he thought that, as a measure to prevent such fraudulent practices, it deserved the consideration of the House. He did not, however, pledge himself to the details of the Bill, and' suggested that hon. Gentlemen on both sides should come to an understanding respecting it. As to the two proposals before the House, it was "an even toss-up" between them.

would, as a lawyer, remind the hon. Member for Manchester, who had taunted the lawyers with not having expressed any opinion on the question under discussion, that both in England and Scotland the case of the fraudulent removal of crops liable to distress for rent was, by law, punishable as a criminal offence. He would ask the hon. Member for Manchester what remedy he proposed to give the landlord against these frauds? If the landlord turned off the tenant, he was denounced as an exterminator, and his murderers would find some in that House to palliate their crime. He was to be denied the power of distraining for rent, and thus no remedy would be left to him against these frauds and robberies. This fraudulent removal of crops was no new thing. He had just received a letter stating that in one part of Ireland they had commenced putting it in practice already, and that if something was not done, "blood would be shed." If hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to take the responsibility of that blood, let them do so; but he would seek to promote the passing of the Bill by every fair means in his power.

thought he had perceived that the suggestion which had been thrown out by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire during the discussion—namely, that the law should be assimilated in England and Ireland—was received with general approbation by many of those who were carrying on the opposition to this Bill. Why not go into Committee pro formâ then, in order that any alteration which the hon. Member for the University of Dublin might wish to suggest might be printed for discussion hereafter?

appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to adopt those proposals. Surely no hon. Gentleman could approve of fraud and injustice. The law existed in England, and no one complained of it. Let the House go into Committee pro formâ, that the hon. Member for Oxfordshire might bring forward his Amendments.

thought that if they were colonists or British subjects in foreign countries, they would, no doubt, get justice from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinsale, and the noble Viscount the Foreign Secretary, but had not a chance of being treated as Englishmen, because they were mere Irish. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had censured the Bill because it did not assimilate the law of Ireland to the law of England; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin coolly asked them to go into Committee for that very reason. A tenant who committed a fraud in England was committed to prison in default of payment of the sum defrauded, but they should not confound such a just law with the provisions of that Bill.

said, that as the ground of the debate was now entirely changed—the proposal that seemed now to be most in favour being simply the assimilation of the law in Ireland to the English and Scotch law on the subject in dispute—he wished it to be understood that those who continued to refuse the application of a remedy for a state of things under which there was evidence of the existence of an organised system of fraud and violence, were, in so doing, pursuing a course which was nothing short of justifying, if not supporting, a violation of the laws of property in Ireland.

then said, as it was impossible the debate could lead to any result, it would be better that it should be adjourned.

would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the House.

wished to say, in reference to an accusation that had been made against him in the course of the debate, that when the Irish Arms Bill was before the House he had followed the system now complained of, of repeatedly moving adjournments for the purpose of obstructing the Bill, that he had not taken that course, and in support of his statement he could refer to Hansard.