HC Deb 21 March 1849 vol 103 cc1071-2
MR. PUSEY

said, that since the Second Reading of this Bill, he had endeavoured to meet the difficulties made by the hon. Member for Cirencester, and, acting under legal advice, he had made several amendments in the Bill, upon which he hoped that the House would now go into Committee pro formâ.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

did not know that he should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Berkshire, but from communications which he had received from several high authorities, land agents and others, he was satisfied that they told him the truth when they said that the Bill was not required at all, and that it was better to let landlord and tenant alone. Whatever amendments might be made in the Bill, he objected so strongly to its principle, that he should oppose it in every stage.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

thought that the Bill was a valuable measure, and as it was applicable to the circumstances of Ireland, he hoped that the hon. Member for Berkshire would consider the propriety of extending it to that country. It might be objected that the relations of landlord and tenant were so complicated in Ireland, that it would be impracticable to carry its provisions into execution; but though the Bill would not meet all the difficulties which existed on the subject, he was convinced that its extension to Ireland would be productive of great advantage.

SIR G. STRICKLAND

understood that the Motion of the hon. Member for Berkshire was only to go into Committee pro formâ, and consequently that no discussion would take place now on the amendments which were to be inserted. He had read the Bill with every disposition to find something good it, but he was sorry to say that, though it would be useful to the lawyers, it would be very injurious to the tenant farmers. The want of clear definitions in the Bill would create great differences of opinion as to the rights of tenants, though at present no such difficulties existed.

The House then went into Committee, Mr. BERNAL in the chair, and certain amendments having been inserted in the Bill, and ordered to be printed, the House resumed.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Berkshire would allow ample time for the new Bill to be circulated through the country before he proceeded with it again.

MR. PUSEY

observed that the changes in general were merely technical, and did not affect the provisions of the Bill in the slightest degree. There was nothing to diminish the opposition of the hon. and gallant Member, or to increase it.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

hoped that, at all events, the hon. Member would not proceed with the Bill on Wednesdays.

MR. PUSEY

believed that Wednesday was the proper day for the discussion of measures brought in by individual Members of Parliament. He remembered that when he brought the Bill in on a Friday, he was told that he was smuggling it in.

The Bill was then recommitted for Wednesday 28th instant.