§ SIR G. GREY, seeing the hon. Member for the University of Dublin in his place, begged to ask him whether, after what had been stated in the course of the preceding debate, with regard to the inexpediency of proceeding with his Bill, it was his intention to go further with it?
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he was not in this House when the observations referred to had been made, but he had been informed of their tenor. If the House would indulge him for a few minutes, he would state the position in which he felt himself placed in consequence of the intimation which the right hon. Secretary had just given. In the first place, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the stringency of the clauses for 945 preventing the fraudulent cutting of crops at night to evade distress, he (Mr. Hamilton) felt it necessary to say that the clauses had been taken verbatim from a Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government early in the Session; and, therefore, if that were a matter of complaint, he submitted that the blame should rest, not with him, but with those by whom the clauses had been originally framed. He had taken up the Bill because he believed it a necessary Bill, both to protect the just rights of the landlord, and for the interests of the tenants also. [Derisive cheers.] He would repeat it, for he could not believe that the fraudulent cutting and carrying away of crops at night, could be otherwise than injurious to the tenant class. But it was obviously impossible for a private Member, at so advanced a period of the Session, to carry a Bill of this kind, unless actively supported by Government; but he would tell the House what he believed would be the consequences of its rejection. The practice of fraudulently carrying away of crops at night would increase; collisions and ill-will between landlord and tenant would be the consequence; landlords, at November, would serve their tenants-at-will with notice to quit, in order to have them in their power next year. Many landlords, he was aware, had processed their tenants in the civil-bill courts, and obtained executions, under which they had the power of seizing their growing crops. This would be a disastrous state of things, and it would be prevented by the passing of the Bill. If, however, it was the intention of the Government to oppose it, or not to support it, as they had done for so far, it was useless for him to proceed further. He would only say that upon Government, and upon them alone, must the responsibility of the consequences rest.
§ SIR G. GREYasked, whether the hon. Member would consent to withdraw the Bill?
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONwould be no party to withdrawing a Bill which he continued to think necessary; but if any one else chose to move that the Order be discharged, he would not resist it.
§ MR. REYNOLDSthen moved that the Order of the Day for going into Committee be read, for the purpose of being discharged; which was agreed to without opposition.
§ Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on going into Committee [6th August] read, and discharged.
§ Bill withdrawn.