Debates anb iproteetrings in 'parliament.

Tim Imes Comiciox Ban.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the order of the day for the second reading of the Preservation of Life (Ireland) Bill having been read,

Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE moved that the bill be read that day six months— He had hoped that, considering the long delay since its introduction, and the wonderful change in opinion brought about by the previous discussion; the Go- vernment would not have persevered with this measure. It was precisely of the same character as all the coercive bills of the last half century, and all had com- pletely failed. Coercive law had been the rule, the absence of it an exception, from the Union downwards. Till they could win the affections of the people to the side of law and order, so long would their nostrums fail; so long would they be compelled to resort to unconstitutional measures, which ended in nothing but exasperating the people. Instead of passing such bills as that now before the House, Parliament should go to the root of the evil. There is scarcely an insti- tution in Ireland which does not require reform or regulation. Until the Irish people are taught to love and support the law' there would be neither peace nor contentment, in the country. The delay of the bill for five months was of itself a proof that the Government did not consider the case a pressing one. In this view, he called upon Lord George Bentinck and those Who acted with him to pre- vent the Government from carrying out this most unconstitutional measure; which had been unnecessarily delayed, and changes made in it which showed that the Government did not know what were the powers necessary to carg-it into effect Mr. %awn, seconded the amendment—

He was free to confess, that, years back, he bad supported measures of a simi- lar kind for the suppression of the same evils; but he had been by no means con- vinced of the salutary use of such measures. They operated as strong and surgical measures, with the lancet and the probe, and not like remedies. [Whilst Mr. Bernal was speaking, Mr. DILLON BROWNE moved that the House be counted. The galleries were slowly cleared; which enabled ten or twelve Members to be called in from the Library and the refreshment-rooms. The ne- cessary number having in this way been made up, Mr. Bernal resumed; and the Members, finding that the object for which their presence was wanted had been accomplished, retired.] Mr. Bernal proceeded to refer to the difficulty with which a" House" could be kept together, as an evidence of the indifference with which the measure was regarded. [While he was speaking, Mr. Driaxin BROWN& again moved that the House be counted: which was again met by sending out for the necessary number of Members. These Members soon retired as before, and left an audience of not more than twenty or thirty.] Mr. Bernal remarked, that the proceedings they were engaged in bore very much the resemblance of a farce. He was told that many noble Lords who had given their reluctant support in another place were now of opinion that the bill ought not to pass. Now those noble Louis must have some reason for abandoning the measure—was it not that the time for it had gone by ? It seemed something like a romance that they should be called upon to give a second reading to a bill which was recommended in the Speech from the Throne in January; but it was a romance not creditable to the country, nor creditable to the Parliament, that a measure of such grave and paramount importance should be considered in a House that was scarcely legal.

Mr. OSBORNE (Mr. Bernal's son) followed up this line:of remark with more of personal bitterness— He wished to put it seriously to the First Minister of the Crown, whether he thought it fitting to permit this question to pass to a division in a House ofanbarel forty Members, after speeches made by the mover and seconder of the meat, unanswered by any one on the part of the Government—whether from un- willingness, incapacity, or contempt, God knows. He believed it to be total in- capacity; because the noble Lord to whom the administration of Irish affairs was chiefly committed went to that country, no doubt, with the best intentions, but as innocent as a child as to the circumstances of the country. But, however in- experienced in the affairs of Ireland, the noble Lord the late unsuccessful candi- date for Nottinghamshire might be the members of the Government ought to know that the way to conciliate the Irish people was not by maintaining an aris- tocratic reserve and hauteur' but by giving some answer to the representations made on their behalf. But he should pass by the noble Lord, for really his opinion was of little consequence; and ask the Prime Minister whether he would not at least put forward some of his knights or pawns—whether he seriously thought it becoming treatment of Ireland as a part of the empire, and entitled to a fair share of our legislative attention, to suffer this question to go to a division under such circumstances.

The Earl of LiNcotw disclaimed the imputations of the last speaker— It certainly had been his intention to speak after the seconder of the amend- ment; "but I confess, that when I saw the House attempted to be counted twice within ten minutes—when I looked at the state of the benches opposite, from which issue the charges that we are offering an insult to the Irish people, and saw only three or four of the representatives for Ireland occupying their places in this House—and when I found that this was the interest which the representatives for Ireland themselves bestowed upon the question—I confess I did think that I was acting a more becoming part, nay, that I was showing more respect to the Irish Members themselves., if, upon a question so deeply involving the interests of the Irish people, however ignorant I may happen to be, yet, as holding the respon- sible situation of Irish Secretary, I endeavoured to postpone to a later period of the evening, when the Members for Ireland should be ,present, those observations which, as I should not shrink from making in their presence, I was anxious they should hear when I had the honour of addressing the House." It was a matter of perfect indifference to him at what period he rose: it was his duty to address the House, and he would do so now. Government had been told by honourable gentlemen op' '-te, that the bill was introduced without reason, necessity, or justification; an by honourable gentle- men below the gangway they were charged with the fault of having delayed legis- lation too long. The first objection was disproved by the debate on the first read- ing of the bill, and as to the second, the blame lay with the accusers. For five years the present Ministry had governed Ireland without a coercion bill, being the longest period for fifty ye.rs without resort to such a measure. They had also exhibited every disposition, in dealing with laws in some degree coercive—such as the Party Processions Act, the Unlawful Oaths Act, the Arms Act—to ameliorate their severity. He denied that the charge of delay attached to the Government as respects the measure before the House; but of the two charges, that of acting prematureiy or of proceeding too slowly, if the Government were guilty of either, he would, for himeelf and his colleague; prefer bearing the blame of the latter. He would not lightly and prematurely bring forward such a bill; and he did. not think it a very heavy charge that they had delayed this measure as long as it Was compatible with their duty; and had waited to see whether other measures would not produce the results which would now be effected by this bill. He ad- mitted that, owing to circumstances over which the Government bad no control, the different stages of this bill were not rapidly taken ; but Sir Robert Peel had pledged himself that, except the first reading, no stage should be taken till the tom Bill and the Tariff had passed the House of Commons.

The measure had been called unconstitutional ; and so it was. It could only be ju.stified by a stern necessity, and by a state of things in which life and property could not otherwise be protected. They were told that it was an infringement of the liberty of the subject: but he asked whether, if they fairly looked at it, it was not more a measure of protection than of coercion? When they talked of the in- fringement of the liberty of the subject, what was that liberty in some parts of Ireland?—the liberty of murder and outrage. The measure applied only to five Bounties; the rest of Ireland was exempt. The evils were local;—they were an endemic in Ireland; but he feared they were also contagious. Of the five coun- ties now affected, four were exempt in the year 1833; and what was now the or- derly province of Leinster was in 1885 one of the causes for the act of 1835. This latter circumstance proved the legislative success of former measures, and held out a great encouragement for the prosecution of this bill.

He disputed Mr. O'Connell's assertion that the disorders which prevailed in Ireland were principally if not mainly of an agrarian character; and in support of this position, he read a number of extracts from the reports of the Constabu- lary. In the return for 1844, of 6,337 cases of outrage, 5,336 were not of an agra- rian character. Of incendiary fires, 404 were not of an agrarian character, and only 121 were of that character. Of assaults endangering life, 238 were not of an agrarian character, whilst only 12 were. There were 464 aggravated assaults not agrarian, mid only 40 of an agrarian character. For firing at the person there were 67 not of an agrarian character, and only 26 of that character. Of homicides there were 127 not agrarian, and only 18 agrarian. Mr. O'Connell was also in error when he asserted that crime had diminished since the introduction of this bill: but although that were correct, it could form no reason for resisting the second reading. During the long days crime did for a time diminish: but, from returns which had been furnished far the five mosths ending 31st May, it appeared, on a comparison with the corresponding period of last year, that there had been little or no diminution of crime in the five counties, with the exception of Leitrim. Daring the period referred to, 2,098 crimes had been committed in the whole of Ireland; and of these 1,188 had been committed in the five counties. The decrease in Leitrim was gratifying, but it was only a decrease from an excessive amount- It had been asserted as an argument against the night clauses of the bill, that the great majority of outrages took place during the day: now it is a notorious fact that those murders and attempts to murder which take place in the day are almost invariably plotted at night. But it is not true that most of the murders take place during the day. In Tipperary, of the 260 offences contained in the list, between 130 and 140 were committed at night. These are general outrages, and not offeuces against life only; but the offences against life bear nearly the same proportion. In Leitrim, out of 359 outrages, be- tween 200 and 210 were committed by night, between 90 ad 100 by day, and of 50 or 60 the time is not specified.

Alluding to Lord John Russell's threatened opposition to the second reading of the bill, Lard Lincoln thought that the opposition ought to have been reserved for the Committee, agreeably to Lord John's previous declarations. "If the noble Lord object to the principle of the bill, of course he has a right to oppose it now; but if he do so object to its principle, I should be glad to know what has operated upon the noble Lord's mind to produce so great change of opinion since the first reading."

Lan Lincoln proceeded to reply to the charge adduced that the Government had evinced no desire to legislate m a conciliatory spirit towards Ireland; refer- ring to the measures passed last session, and to those introduced and passed this session for giving employment and protecting the people against the evils of scar-. city; adding, " The honourable Member opposite, who has stated that we had not proposed any measure calculated to meet the wants of Ireland as regards the holding of land, cannot have looked over the noticespaper, or he would see that I have already given notice of my intention to move on next Thursday for the in- troduction of no fewer than three new bills founded on the report of Lord Devon's Commission." "Have we neglected the condition of a great portion of the people of Ireland in the exigency from which they now suffer? Indeed, I need not aek that question, for even our opponents admit fully that we have not neglected it, and have given us their mead of approbation. (Opposition cheers.) Let me remind the House, that we adopted some of those measures because the exigen- cies of the country required them; and that we did so in the teeth of taunts of opprobrium from many of our former friends; tharfor doing so, we were subjected to reproaches which we felt we did not deserve—reproaches which, I do not he.i- tate to say, would not be cast upon us out of the House." "If the Government proposed this measure as a panacea for the evils of Ireland, then indeed honour- able Members might be justified in rejecting it: but when it is brought in avow- edly as a corrective, and simply as a corrective, without which any other measure or scheme, however wise, is liable to fail, the case becomes very different. When we avow, that we do not look upon the bill as likely permanently to affect the social system in Ireland, but as a preparative measure—when we state the ground upon which we submit the bill to the House—while I admit that those who oppose it are actuated by conscientious motives, I may say that the course which they are taking is one which as regards its probable results may not be wise or prudent" Mr. MORGAN JOEIN O'CONNELL remarked, that however much he might differ from the conclusions of Lord Lincoln, no fault could be found with the tone and. temper he had displayed in expressing them—

The statement that there had been rather an increase than a diminution of crime astonished him; and he heard that statement with a constitutional dis- trust, taken as it was from the officials in Ireland.

Lord GEORGE Bissrnercie announced the ultimatum of himself and PRAY- lt would be in the recollection of the House, that previous to the Easter holy- days he gave due notice to the Government, that be and his friends *meld be disposed to support the measure before the House, provided the Government, by then earnestness in pressing it forward with all the liege with which it could be pressed, proved their sincerity and desire to carry it: but if her Majesty's Ministers permitted all other measures of less immediate necessity to be earned through the House in preference to this, they should then be of opinion that no such necessity existed for carrying a measure so unconstitutional as this, as would justify any party in supporting it. From the delay which had taken place, and the indifference dis- played towards the bill by the Government, he thought it must be admitted there was no earnestness, no sincerity on the part of her Majesty's Government to carry this measure into a law. "On this ground, Sir, I think we are constrained to declare that the casus fcederis has arrived when we can no longer give our support to this measure." He could not say that any new ground had been shown for passing the bill which did not exist in February. The increase which had taken place in crime during the five months did not exceed 51 per cent. The agrarian offences had actually diminished during the past year. But he had stronger and graver reasons still for opposing the bill. "The gentlemen who sit around me will refuse to trust her Majesty's Ministers (and they have good rea- sons for having ceased to place any confidence in them) with the charge of an, unconstitutional powers whatever. It would be reason enough if we refused those who have exhibited such ignorance and double dealing on. other questions con- nected with Ireland. And are we, who have been deceived in the way we have by her Majesty's Ministers—are we, who have been told that for the last four months four millions of people would be starving in Ireland—are we who have been falsely told that there would be a famine in Ireland,.—are we,' after these statements have been scouted by every man of sense—are we now to trust in a Ministry composed of men who dared to come down with such statements as these, with our confidence, or with the further government of the country ?" (Profess- tionist cheers.) Lord George contrasted the anxiety displayed by Ministers in pushing forward the Corn Bill, with their dilatoriness Ili the matter of the Coercion Bill, and proceeded to say—" Is there a man in the country fool enough to believe that her Majesty's Ministers are in earnest as to the passing of this Life and Property, Protection' Bill? (Cheersfrom the Protectiosists.) Believing that there is not, the sooner, 1 say, that we kick out the bill and her Majesty's Ministers with it, the better. (Vociferous cheering from the Protectionists.) I was prepared, had a direct vote of no confidence been proposed, to have supported it. But if we have faith in pledges, we must be convinced that when a Govern- ment is no longer able to carry its measures, it ought to retire. We used to be told by the right honourable Baronet, that he would never consent Lobe a libliater OR sufferance. He must be deaf indeed if by this time be has not learned that he is no- thing but a Minister on sufferance. (Immense ch.eering from the Protectionists.) Supported sometimes by gentlemen opposite, sometimes by the friends about me, the only steady adherents they have are forty paid Janissaries and seventy renegades, who, in giving them their vote; cannot hide their own shame." (Loud ch and laughter.) Lord George indulged in a violent tirade against Sir Robert Peel, accusing hint of having in 1827 chased and hunted an illustrious relative of his [Mr. Calming) to the death, on account of his opinions on Catholic Emancipa- tion ; while Sir Robert Peel on told the Howe, in 1829, that he had changed his opinions on that very measure in 1825, and that he had communicated that change of opinion to the then head of the Government, Lord Liverpool. Com- bining this with his conduct under present circumstances the country could not forgive twice in the same man an insult to its understauding, and a betrayal of the constituencies of the empire. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT answered Lord George with unusual warmth- " His charges were couched in language seldom heard in this House—(Cheers) —in langutge which it would be for the character of this House should not be heard—in language which I will not repeat—in terms which I will not retaliate so long as I have self-respect for my own cheracter. (Continued cheers.) As long as I have that respect for the character, the temper, and the reputation of this House, which becomes its Members, I will neither impute to others motives which I scorn to be influenced by myself, nor will I consent to import into this Howe, into the Senate of this country, terms and language and expressions which are bet- ter suited to some other arena--(" Oh, okr from the Pratectiosaists)—than to one where gentlemen are met together, gravely, seriously, and deliberately to discuss measures vitally affecting the great interests of the country." Mr. Herbert re- pelled the charge of insincerity; and cast the blame of delay on the conduct of Lord George Bentinek himself and those who followed him. That noble Lord, who says there has been no cause whatever for any interference in Ireland on the subject of food, has now found out, after three weeks' reflection, that there is no cause for say interference to protect life and property in that country.. A short time ago, so keen was he on this head, that he actually anticipated the diecussion on the firat reading by producing harrowing cases of outrages perpetrated at noon-day on inoffensive and helpless females. These was then no measure to his indignation: but where was his indignation now? He said that if Ministers de- layed the passing of this bill but for one day, the blood of murdered men mast rest upon their heads: upon whose head is the blood of murdered men to be now ? "Sir. I repeat that Government have brought in this bill under a paramount sense of its necessity; and I tell the noble Lord, that it will persevere in urging it through Parliament—urging it in spite qf all bis sarcasms—in spite, too, of that factious combination—(Long- continued cried, of " 0141oh I' and confusion)—I make no charge against honourable gentlemen opposite., (" Oh, oh!" and "Hear, hear! ") Mr. Herbert went on to state, that he had heard it rumoured that pro- posals had beep made to Lord John Russell, on the part of the gentlemen below the gangway, that they should assist him in defeating the bill and in throwing out the Ministry; but that Lord John, with the manliness which belonged to his character, had treated the proposal with "that silence which I suppose it is hardly Parliamentary to designate as the silence of contempt." (" Oh, oh!" and loud cries of "Name, name!") Mr. Herbert declined to name his authority; recom- mending the parties to study the list after the division shall have taken place, ant they would find it.

The Marquis of GRANBY suggested that the only agreement which existed between the two parties was simply that of entire want of confi- dence in the present Ministry.

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN insisted upon Mr. Herbert producing his author- ity for the charge be had preferred againat the Conservative party.

Mr. HERBERT explained—

He had not asserted of his own knowledge any fact whatever: he bad merely said this—that rumours had flown about the town that somegentlemen had made offers to the noble Lord with respect to the opposition to this bill.

Mr. Exam YORKE called upon Lord John Russell to say whether any such offer had been made to him.

Lord JOHN RI:mania was quite ready to answer the question-

" No proposition or application has been made to me on the part of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, or of any honourable Member who usually acts with hina." (Cheers from the Protectionist benches.) Lord John referred to the statement he made during a previous discussion, to show that he was perfectly at liberty to oppose the bill at the second reading. The noble Lord the Member for Lynn has come to his conclusion on grounds which are satisfactory to him- (Langhter and cheering)—and I have come to the same conclusion with regard to this bill, on public grenade, which are satisfactory to me." (Cheers.) Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT expreseed his conviction that he must have been misinformed on the subject of the rumour.

The debate was then adjourned till Friday.

'IRE CORN BILL.

The Lords resumed the Corn-law debates on:Tlfaidey; when the Earl of RIPON moved that the House resolve itself into Committee ma the. Ca tai Importation Bill. Earl STanuoBE led the opposition, by moving as an amendment that the bill be committed that day six months— He had never beard a proposition of such importance so miserably defended. It had originated in the mistaken assumption of famine in Ireland: but although the assumption had turned out to be real, the way to meet the evil was to provide employment for the able-bodied and gratuitous relief for the infirm. The Corn- laws might also have been suspended for a short period. The conduct of the Premier was the converse of the old story of the mountain in labour bringing forth a mouse; for in the present instance it was the mouse which was pregnant and delivered of a mountain. Sir Robert Peel ought to have resigned when he discovered that protection was indefensible in principle. A more unconstitutional doctrine had never been heard than that recently promulgated, that their Lord- ships were bound to pass the measure because it was brought forward by the

Prime Minister and approved by the House of Commons. He believed that if there were vote by ballot, not twenty Peers would support the bilL

The Earl of Essex assured Earl Stanhope, that had the vote been taken by ballot he should have been one of the twenty.

The Earl of RADNOR followed in support of the motion; the Earl of Wicwww spoke for the amendment; Lord LTTTELTON for the motion • the Duke of BUCKINGHAM and Lord COLCHESTER for the amendment; Lord HownEN for the motion. A slight indication of the chief scope of these speeches will suffice, as, with few exceptions, they possessed no sort of novelty.

Lord RADNOR did not lay much stress on the apprehensions expressed by Earl Stanhope; as in former years he had made similar prophecies, none of which had been fulfilled. Certain expressions which had fallen from some of the members of the League had been complained of; but the expressions made use of on the other side should also be taken into account in striking the balance. At a Pro- tection meeting in Dorsetshini, it was said that Mr. Cobden "was properly called the Devil, for be was the father of lies." Agitation had been condemned by some of their Lordships: but it so happened that as regarded many desirable reforms, they never would have been effected without agitation. For thirty years it had been asserted that protection was of benefit to the farmers; but experience had east that assertion to the winds. Appeals had been made to the antiquity of the Corn-laws; and Lord Stanley had gone as far back as the reign of Edward the Fourth : bat those old laws were passed for providing food for the people, not for "protection." The population-returns disproved the assertion that the landed interest was the largest and most important interest in the country. Every in- stance of free trade had been successful in proportion to the degree in which it had been carried out.

The Earl of WICKLOw did not agree in the opinion that the Government had betrayed their friends, for those who had seats in Parliament could exercise their own discretion as to their votes. He opposed the bill, not on the ground of pro- tection, but because it did not carry out the principle of free trade justly, equally, and fairly. How could they ask the yeomanry of this country to compete with the slaveholders of America or the serfs of Poland, if they did not place them on the same footing with regard to tea, sugar, coffee, and many other articles. He viewed with peculiar alarm the effect of the measure on the Colonies. He hoped he should be a bad prophet, but he had no doubt if this bill passed that in five years Canada would not be a portion of this state.

Lord LYrreLroir (Under Secretary of the Colonies) was satisfied that in a matter of this kind the Colonies must needs follow in the wake of the Mother- country. His conviction was that those colonies which are interested in the question need be under no apprehension about the result. New South Wales was more pastoral than agricultural, and was an importing rather than an exporting country. It would therefore happen, that its neighbours having wheat to ex- pert would find New South Wales a. better market for their commodity than this country. Van Diemen's Land and South Australia need fear nothing for their wheat; for in addition to its moderate price, it beds protection peculiar to itself in its surpassing quality. With respect to Canada, he could not refuse to admit that he laboured under some disadvantage in speaking of the feelings of the in- habitants, 'after the "address which had just been received. He knew that the whole tone and purport of that address were entirely inconsistent with the occur- rences which had taken place in the Canadian Legislature. He had been in- formed, and was enabled to state on the best authority, that the address had been passed most unexpectedly. If any noble Lord would take the trouble to refer to the reports of the debate, or rather of the "no debate," on the occasion of the ad- dress being carried, they would see that there was very little argument indeed. The motion for the address was carried just before the mail went out: it was moved by Mr. Robinson in a very few words, that a Committee should be appointed to consider the address; and not one word was said in the reports in the papers be- yond the fact of the appointment of that Committee. The address was altogether unexpected; and the members of her Majesty's Government could not but think that the neiit mail would bring some document of a different character. He referred to various indications in the colony of different views and feelings from those embodied in the address; showing that apprehensions were not really entertained by the people of Canada of injury from the measure. There was only one argu- ment used in the address, that he was aware of; and that was, that the St. Law- rence was frozen for six months in the year. That was perfectly true; but it was equally so of the Erie Canal, by which the produce of America was conveyed. He would riot Call, as others had done the Colonial system a system of mutual robbery, but it was a system of mutual privation and impediment. These re- strictions were, in fact, either injurious or superfluous—injurious if they were effectual, and superfluous if they were not. It had been stated with a degree of fearlessness for which he had scarcely given Lord Stanley credit, that a mono- pely was the only chance for our Colonies. He had always considered that the

nies were chiefly to be regarded as an outlet for our superfluous population, and for continuing the laws, habits, and institutions of this country, to the furthest ends of the earth.

The Duke of BtroxproBast thought the question a very simple one: it was whe- ther, under the circumstances in which the country is placed, Free-trade measures could be adopted. He denied the propriety and justice of encouraging free trade when no other country in the world was so heavily burdened with local and general taxation. Re argued that the bill would throw land out of cultivation, reduce the wages of the labourers, and reduce the incomes of the clergy by 25 per cent. So far from settling this question, as some supposed, the passing of the measure would keep up agitation; and he believed that before many years the Minister would come down and ask for the enactment of protection again. Lord CoLcuserrEn thought that the main use of colonies was to take off our manufacturing produce, and to maintain our navy. He denied that relaxation of duties had been of any benefit to British shipping. He believed that in a few years the Americans would undersell the English manufacturer, not only in the markets of the world, but in Manchester itself.

Lord llowDEN was convinced that the Minister had not erred in devising and enforcing this measure. He did not fear what foreign nations could do, but he feared that circumstances would arise in this country which wauld deprive the measure of much of its merit and all its grace. He would ask noble Lords about to oppose this measure, what they expected would be the result of the present state of things? It might be that the Minister who had been courageous enough to sacrifice his place to principle might cease to bold his office; but those noble Lords had no reasonable hopes of succeeding to his inheritance. They might ren- der impossible the existence of a Government with which they had one feeling of dissent and re thousand in common; but they were paving the way and macadam- izing the road for a party with which they bad not one sympathy nor a single tie. As an hum-ble individual sincerely attached to the true Conservative policy, he hoped their Lordships would not find they had been traitors to themselves. On'the motion of the Marquis of EXETER, the debate was adjourned, at a quarter to one o'clock, till Friday.

AGRICULTURAL hrPROTEMENr IN IRELAND.

In the Commons, on Thursday, the Earl of LINCOLN asked leave to introduce three bills, having for their object the improvement of the people of Ireland by encouraging agricultural improvement, and effecting other objects calculated to protect the interests of the occupants of land-

, , The object was one upon which sic feeling of party or animosity could be brought fte bear: it was todevisenteeni Weeny nut a common purpose. The three mea-

sures of which he had given notice were of a cognate character, and were mainly founded upon the report of the Devon Commission; but in some things they dif- fered from it The first bill provided for compensation to tenants, the second bill amended the law of ejectment and distress, and the third was to encourage the granting of leases of lands and tenements. Lord Lincoln explained the leading provisions of each bill; remarking, that no new machinery was created by any of them. Some machinery, however, there must be and Government had adopted that of Assistant Barristers.

In the bill for giving compensation to tenants, the first two elaUSes referred to voluntary agreements, which would admit all kinds of improvements. Perma- nent improvements in buildings and thorough-draining would be converted into a charge upon the inheritance. As to voluntary agreements, it was in that a tenant anxious to effect any improvements should serve a notice, in a form

prescribed in a schedule attached to the bill, upon the immediate landlord. If the landlord approved of the improvement, he signified his assent also in a form which was prescribed. But this part of the plan being voluntary, if the landlord refused his assent the whole matter dropped to the ground. But, further, it was proposed to give the tenant a right of applying, in the event of the landlord's re- fusel, for a compulsory arrangement in reference to these two heads, building and thorough-drainage. One great difficulty, which had no parallel in England, arose from the multiplicity of landlords connected with the same piece of land in Ireland. The notice which was to be served with a view to a compulsory im- provement was to be served upon all the landlords having an interest which extended to thirty-one years. The service upon the immediate landlord was to be in person; upon the others service through the post-offiee. The immediate land- lord was bound to name an arbiter, and bound also to say whether he was willing to do the work himself; otherwise an allowance would be required on the outlay, not exceeding 5 per cent upon building, and 4 per cent upon thorough-drainage. Upon the notice per served in the form prescribed, the landlord might see fit to assent to the execution of the work either by himself or by the tenant; and the landlord's form of assent was given in the schedule. If he assented, the trans- action became a voluntary agreement; but with this difference from the voluntary agreement contemplated in the earlier clauses of the bill—that it was confined to two objects exclusively, building and thorough-drainage. On this notice being served upon the landlord, be might assent to these improvements being made by his tenant, or, as he had before stated, he might make them himself; but, in either case, his assent must be notified in a form prescribed in the bill, and must be filed with the Clerk of the Peace for the district. If the landlord dissented, then he must give the tenant notice of his dissent. If he refused to appoint an arbi- trator, the Assistant Banister and Justices at Quarter-sessions were empowered to appoint an arbitrator for him. The duties of the arbitrators were defined in the bilL If they agreed, they would at once make their award: if they differed, they were empowered to appoint an umpire; and if they could not agree on that point, then an umpire was to be appointed by the Assistant Barrister. The award having been made, an option was given to the landlord during thirty-one days to perform the work himself if he so thought fit. An appeal, too, was given from that award to the Assistant Barrister and the Justices in Quarter-sessions. The final award was to be deposited with the Clerk of the Peace; and the parties would be entitled to proceed immediately after- wards to their improvements. As soon as the works were completed, and a power of inspection was given to both parties during their completion, a schedule of completion was to be registered with the Clerk of the Peace, and was to be the title-deed for future compensation. The rate of compensation would be as fol- lows: when a party quitted his tenantry within seven years, he would be en- titled to the repayment of his whole outlay; within fourteen years, to three- quarters of that sum; within twenty-one yOars, to one-half; 'and within twenv- eight years, to one-quarter of it; and if he remained on the land for twenty,eigitit years he would be entitled to no compensation at all. A provision was also ic sorted in the bill, that,-by consent, the landlord, on the completion of the work, might pay all the cost of it, and thereupon receive the increase of rent which he had already stated. For the protection of the landlord it was necessary that a limit should be placed on the amount to be expended by the tenant on building and drainage; and it was therefore provided that the amount should not exceed three years rental of the occupation.

He now came to the second bill, which related to ejectments. On this subject Mr. O'Connell had suggested the repeal of the 56th George III., and of the 1st George W.; but Lord Lincoln agreed with the report of the Commissioners on this point, and the opinion of other high authorities, that such a course was not advisable for the interests of the tenants. By the bill the landlord should be bound to give the tenant the particulars of the demand made upon him when the ejectment was served: power was then given to the tenant to pay the sum men- tioned in the demand either to the landlord or into court, as he might think fit, and to stop the ejectment at any time before the completion of the process, or be- fore he was actually dispossessed. As the law stood at present, if the landlord wished to eject a middleman, he was obliged to eject all the tenants under that middleman. This had proved a fertile source of disturbance. With the view of removing it, a provision was introduced, enabling the landlord to eject the mid- dleman without serving notices on the sub-tenants, who would stand precisely as before.

The third hill was to encourage the granting of leases. In coming to con- sider the actual working of that measure, it had been found very difficult to pro- vide the short form of lease which he desired. The fault of the present form was its great length. His object had been to provide one which the tenants could write out for themselves without the intervention of any lawyer. He proposed to limit the diminished stamp-duty, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given his consent, to the form of lease provided in the bill, or to that provided in an act introduced last session by Lord Brougham. It had been found impossible to in- sert, either in this bill or any other, a provision to enforce leases; but while they rejected anything like compulsion, they also felt bound to give every possible en- couragement to the extension of leases. He therefore proposed to give a dimin- ished stamp-duty of 2s. 6d. for the lease of lands not exceeding 50/. a year rent. That was perhaps a high maximum ; but it had been ado.pted after consulting with gentlemen well qualified to form an opinion on the subject.

Lord Lincoln's development of the proposed measures excited a cordial feeling in the House; and led to many compliments to himself, for the clear, able, and conciliatory manner in which he had made his statement.

Mr. SHARHAN CRAwuoRD expressed his great satisfaction that the question had been taken up by the Government. One point, which appeared to him an omission, was, that the bill would leave existing tenants without protection. Its effect should be retrospective, and embrace existing improvements. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL said, as the Ministry had thought it necessary to avoid a bold and just course of action between the Irish landlords and their tenants, the present was the next best thing they could have done. Mr. B. OsEoRNE would not go into any discussion of the bills; but it would be unjust and ungenerous on his part towards Lord Lincoln, after the imputation he had thrown on him on a former evening, if he did not express his sense of the clear, able, and cheering statement he had made on the present occasion. Mr. SHAW would not say anything to disturb the general unanimity, but con- gratulated Lord Lincoln on the success of his first attempt in dealing with a very difficult subject. Mr. PouLETr SCEOrk. joined in the feeling of approval; but thought the bills would not accomplish all that was needed.

Leave was then given to bring in the bills.

/WILDING-SIM FOR THR FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

On -Wednesday, Mr. Fox MAULE moved the second reading of his bill for compelling landowners in Scotland to grant sites for building churches—

The bill is a strong remedy for a great grievance. It was with much re- luctance he proposed it but no alternative was presented, every other means to accomplish the end having failed. The House would recollect the events of May 1842. In that year, one-third of the people of Scotland separated from the Es- tablished Church. Four hundred and seven ordained ministers resigned livings, worth to themselves and their families upwards of two millions of money and snore than two thousand lay office-bearers followed in the train of their ministers. By the liberality of their Dissenting brethren, the Free Church congregations in towns were accommodated with the use of places of worship till edifices bad been

erected for themselves; bat in country districts' many landowners had refused to grant sites for churches, thus compelling the adherents of the Free Church to

hold meetings for public worship, and the dispensation of the sacraments, in gravel-pits, upon the se.a.shore on the mountain-tops, and even on high-roads. He regretted to be obliged to bring before the House the names of those land- owners who had acted in so harsh a manner towards a decent and religious people. He would begin with Lord Macdonald; on whose estates there were not fewer than 4,000 Free Church adherents, but who refused to grant sites. Sir James Riddell had acted in the same manlier; and so had Lords Moray, Ailsa, Cawdor, and

Forbes. The Duke of Bucclench had adopted the same course; a circumstance the more remarkable looking at the great regard he had paid to the feelings and

wishes of the people when called upon to exercise his church-patronage. Since the disruption, however, the Duke had refused to grant sites; and had not even condescended to reply to the remonstrances addressed to him on the subject; al- though one of the remonstrants was Dr. Chalmers, a clergyman whom the Duke at an early period of life had consulted as to the manner in which his right of presentation to churches should be exercised. The Duke of Richmond had acted

raore liberally: he had offered twelve sites; eleven of which had been at once ac- cepted, but the twelfth being at too great a distance from the congregation, and the surrounding population Roman Catholic, was declined, and the Duke refused to grant a more convenient one.

As showing the opinion of a distinguished foreign divine on the treatment ex- perienced by the Free Church from the landowners of Scotland, Mr. Mauls quoted the published opinion of Dr. Merle D'Aithigq, characterizing that treatment as the grossest intolerance and the fiercest religious persecution. As showing the important and influential status occupied by the Free Church in Scotland he adduced the following statistics. In the year 1843 it consisted of 470 ministers,

who seceded, with about 500 congregations in all. Since that period, it had in- creased to 831 congregations' regularly organized, with many churches and min-

isters; although possessed of no other means of supporting ministers than by the voluntary donations of the congregations themselves, and such of the congrega- tions as were not yet supplied with ministers ready to receive such as might be appointed over them. Since 1843, that poor country, by one-third of its popula- tion, had subscribed for ecclesiastical purposes a sum which would, if all were reckoned together, amount to 1,100,0001. They had already built six hundred churches, forty were in process of erection, and many more would be commenced

in the course of the present year. They had laid out 112,0001. for manses; of which they had built 191. They had established no fewer than 558 places of education.

They had engaged forty-four teachers, at 20/. a year salary; forty-one at 151.; they had 273 teachers at salaries of 101. a year, and 209 at no salary at all. .4nd he should observe, that they did-not give a sectarian education, but a moral, religious, and general good one, to all those who chose to come within their pale. They were also about to establish a college, which he hoped would be one of the public ornaments of the city of Edinburgh. To that undertaking twenty-one in- dividuals had subscribed the magnificent sum of 21,0001.; and it had been placed in the hands of one of the first architects in Scotland, Mr. Playfair. Such was the body for which he asked the interference of the House.

The House had not refused to grant compulsory power to take land for the purposes of roads and railways; and he did not see why a similar power should

be withheld as regarded sites for churches. He would be satisfied to place in the hands of a public officer powers similar to those given by Lord Roseberry's Act. He wished that the site for the church should be chosen, not within an inconve- nient distance of the Established Church; and instead of the power given under Lord Roseberry's Act to alienate the property, he merely sought to make the alienation compulsory. He begged the House to consider whether it would be better to give the power suggested by him to a public officer, who would be re sponsible with the Government and to the public, and to take the quarter of an acre, or half an acre, or at most two acres, which would be required for the site of a church, from a proprietor; or to accept as the other alternative, the engen- dering among the people of ill feeling and animosity, of hostility to the Govern- ment and to the landed proprietors. If the House did not meet the evil, and nip in the bud the cause of discontent, it would so extend as to place his country in the same position as a neighbouring country, and to make Scotland as discon- tented as Ireland.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM approached the subject this second time with very great pain—

He had no hesitation in saying, that he regarded the secession which took place in 1842 as a great national calamity. He would assert also, that persecution on the part of any Christian establishment is not only contrary to its interest, but disgraceful to it. Mr. Maule had quoted several instances in which sites for churches had been refused; but they were comparatively few in number. He had failed to make out a case of extreme necessity. He had admitted that there was a very general dis 'don on the part of landowners to wait and see whether the disruption which d taken place might not be but short in its duration, and

whether a reconciliation might not be hoped for; and Sir James would contend that the landed proprietors were not to blame for not considering those differences in the first instance as permanent ones. "But subsequent events have altered the face of things, and the right honourable gentleman himself has admitted that in many instances the opposition first given has been withdrawn." Mr. MAULE—" I said some' instances, notmany.: " Sir JAMES GRATIAM—" At all events, the result 18, that the opposition of many landed proprietors has been softened without the interposition of the law; and I have no doubt that with the progress of time their objections will become still fewer."

Mr. Mauls had made particular reference to the Duke of Buceleuch; and had admitted that the Duke had exercised his church patronage in a manner which showed that he was actuated by the sole desire of promotingthe spiritual welfare of the people. Mr. Mania had also told an anecdote of an interview which had taken place between the Duke and Dr. Chalmers on that very subject. "With

regard to Dr. Chalmers I never can hear his name mentioned without expressing the pride which I feel al enjoying his friendship and the veneration I feel for his character. My feelings towards him are those of warm respect and veneration." Now, when two such characters as the Duke of Bucclench and Dr. Chalmers met under such circumstances as those detailed, can it be believed that some peculiar cause did not exist—must there not, in fact, have been some cause at work to account for the Duke of Bueeleuch having left so long unanswered the letter of Dr. Chalmers? With pain he said, he believed there were two causes. The Free Church had exhibited feelings of implacable animosity to the Established

Church. "Their cry with regard to that church has been, 'Down with it., down with it 1' You must make some allowance for the feelings excited by such conduct. There is another reason: the ministers of the Free Church, in those localities in which the landed proprietors had chosen to exhibit their displea-

sure by refusing sites for churches, have given way. to their bitterest feelings, and have used their influence on public occasions otticiVailion to, and have

denounced in what I must call most unjustifiable ge, those pro -

prietors who have so refused them. It is but natural that this ill-feeling should act and react, and anger be thus mutually engendered. This is the true explanation why a man so kind, so generous, so disposed to con- ciliate the good wishes of those around him, should have so acted as the right honourable gentleman has described. But after all, the right honourable gentle- man has mentioned only eleven or twelve proprietors who -have refused to grant sites; and then we must bear in mind what the body for whom he speaks has done. He tells us that they have already built 600 churches, that 40 more are in of erection, and that they have raised funds to the amount of 1,100,0001. progress of only, I believe, about 1,100 parish-churches in all Scotland; so that already have the Seceders built more than half the number of parish-churches; whilst they. are progressing with others, and are possessed of ample funds num- bers of ministers, and large congregations. My own firm opinion is, that,' under all the circumstances, unless you interfere strongly and unnecessarily with the people religious peace will be shortly established, and all that can be desired will be effiscted." If such powers as the bill confers be granted, no reason can be shown why they should not be extended to England and Ireland. By the bill, however, a power is taken, restricted to the Presbyterian sect of Scotland, to take by force of law four acres and a half of land. If you take from the proprietors of the soil four acres and a half of land for one sect, why are you not, on the same principle, to allow the same power to other sects? "The Sheriff, according to the statement of my right honourable friend, is to decide upon the spot; and as it usually happens that the parish-church is in the most convenient and populous district, he will generally fix upon some four acres and a half contiguous to the parish-church. What, then, will you be doing by this bill? You will be raising and creating a sort of Babel of Dissent; bringing the whole, as it were, into it centre or focus of fierceness in order, as it seems to me, to discourage rather than to promote a spirit of Christian peace and good-will. I believe that the evils of religious strife would be both augmented and aggravated. I do not see why my right honourable friend should press us now to take this step, which he admits is without precedent, and for which he cannot find even any analogy in existing statutes." Sir James concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Sir ROBERT INGLIS rose to speak in defence of religious toleration and freedom of conscience— Why withhold the right of freedom of conscience from the proprietor of the soil ? Sir Robert would assert, that the refusals complained of had arisen from a high sense of conscientious duty. Conscience was as dear to those landowners who had declined to grant sites as it was to Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Candlish. If the claim demanded be conceded, it could not be refused to any other sect. He objected that the seceders from the Scotch Church had not gone into the dark places of the earth, where religious light was most needed and least afforded; but they had generally placed their temples as uear as possible in juxtaposition with the churches they had abandoned, as if for the purpose of drawing congregations from the old to the new church. The question was, whether Parliament would permit persons, on the ground of religious toleration as they asserted, but of religious in- tolerance as he maintained, to extort, under pretext of law, property from indi- viduals for the purpose of erecting buildings for the promulgation of doctrines to which those individuals were conscientiously opposed.

Mr. BANNERMAN, about half-past five o'clock, moved the adjournment of the debate.

Sir James GRAHAM hoped that it might now be concluded.

Mr. Fox MAUL& said that that was impossible: various Members wished to speak, and he could not allow to go unanswered some of the points and accusations of Sir James Graham. Five-and-twenty minutes could not be sufficient.

The debate was adjourned to Wednesday next.

THE DANISH CLAIMS.

On Wednesday, Mr. HAWES moved, " That, in terms of the motion agreed to on the 30th of April last, the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an address to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to advance to the claimants for losses sustained by the seizure of British Ship and cargoes by the Danish Government in 1807, the amount of their respective losses, as ascertained by the Commis- sioners appointed for the investigation of Danish claims, and reported upon the 12th day of May 1840; and assuring her Majesty that the House would make good the same."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought there were strong reasons why the House should not follow out its previous vote— Upon every successive occasion when the question had been brought before the House, there had been stated some new circumstances to which it was difficult at tha moment to give a reply, but which when fairly examined afterwards were always found to be void of any just foundation. He had found also, that the cases upon which the supporters of these claims had obtained the opinions of legal authorities, were stated in such a manner as was calculated to elicit the par- ticular opinion desired, and not a fair opinion on the general merits of the ques- tion. In opposing on former occasions these claims, the Government bad inva- riably setted upon the opinion of the Law-advisers of the Crown; and he was not now prepared to submit to having those opinions got rid of by a sort of side-wind in the House. Mr. Hawes's motion implied that there was to be an indemnifica- tion to one class of sufferers by war, and not to others. Whether the war was unjust or not, did not alter the case. It would be equally unjust to the tax- payers of this country, after they had cheerfully borne the whole expenses of the war, to be called upon now to pay no less than 250,0001. to indemnify certain merchants who had sustained loss in a venture at sea, in which, if they had suf- fered, they had suffered only according to the law of nations. It was also argued, that as this country had benefited to the extent of a large amount of Danish pro- perty, which was captured and confiscated to the Exchequer at the period in question, we ought not to object to a redaction of that amount to repay the losses sustained by our merchants from the enemy. This argument, however, whether well-founded or not as regarded the principle upon which it was based, did not proceed upon any authenticated statement of facts. There was not any accurate statement of the actual amount produced to this country on account of captions of Danish vessels. He believed, however, that as far as the calculation could be made, it would be found that there was no balance remaining in favour of this country in respect of which such an argument could be used. Mr. Goulburn con- cluded by moving that the House do go into Committee on that day six months. Mr. HAWES, in reply, stated special circumstances, and supported his view by general reasoning—

The House of Commons had recognized these claims five successive times. The Government had referred them to Commissioners, who called parties before them, and cut down the claims from 425,0001- to 225,0001. Lord Althorp had admitted that the claims were just; and Sir William Follett distinctly said that though not legal claims they were claims to be dealt with on principles of equity.

Mr. CARDWELL argued the Treasury brief— The opinion of Sir William Follett was an ex parte opinion given on the case as submitted to him; the statement having been presented in such a shape as to draw forth a favourable opinion. But why, asked Mr. Hawes, did the Treasury proceed to an adjudication in The casri? It was done merely to give the parties ten opportunity of ascertainiq the amount of their lostes, and was .entered on with Use express understanding that it gave no pledge of recommending Parliament to grant compensation. The claim had slept for nearly thirty years; it was mit &ought under the notice of the House of Commons till 1838, the occurrence hav- ing taken place in 1807; and the reason it was so kept backwas this—there were then other cases to maintain, to the success of which an identity with the present Claims would have beenlatal.

Colonel Surrisordes [treated the House with an analysis and a comsuen- taq the division of 1841—

ills own name would be found among the Ayes in support of the claims, as he trusted it always would be on the side of truth and justice. The Ayes were then 127, the Noes 96. Ile saw on that list the name of G. W. Hope; he was not now present—Fitzroy Kelly, Solicitor-General; he is not present—Sir Howard. Douglass not In his places-Lord Eliot, who had gone to another place, of which he hoped it was not disrespectful to speak, with the title of Earl St. Germans, was not pre- sent. (Loud laughter.) He supposed all these persons were ordered to stay away. If such were the terms on which men held places in an Administration, the Lord deliver him from holding office! (Laughter.) The House divided; when Mr. Hawes's motion was rejected, by 85 to '58: the vote of the 88th April is thus virtually rescinded.

Yrscoorer Hantemron Atm BARON BOROlfli f011ttITTlES Brits. The mode 'on these bills were postponed until Tuesday the 16th. Pooa REMOVAL En.e. On Wednesday, on the motion of Sir Jsestet GRA- 'nay, the Poor Removal Bill Went through a Committee pro forma. It Wes ordered that the bill should be printed as amended last week by the adoption of Mr. E. Denison's " instruction" sand that it should be recommitted-On Wednesday 'Sennight. 'ENLISTMENTS EN USE Altars. Mr. Snowy Fermata stated on Monday, that no change is to be made in the terms of enlistment. The Mutiny Act has from the beginning contained power to enlist men for limited periods; but that power is only to be united upon in cases of emergency.

BUSINESS ole THE 'Hausa. On Monday, it was agreed, that on Thursday the 18th, and on each succeeding Thursday, Orders of the Day shall take precedence of Motions.