Lords Sitting of 20 April 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. 1a Vexatious Actions, Protection against; Insolvent Debtors Act Amendment.
2a Fever (Ireland).
Reported.—Troops during Elections.
3° and passed:—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Indemnity; Exchequer Bills.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Guardians of the penkridge Union, for the Adoption of Measures for the more effectual Prevention of Vagrancy.—By Earl Fitzhardinge, from Clifton, for the Repeal of the Poor Removal Act.—By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from Dissenters of Bristol, and several other places, against, and from Liverpool and other places, in favour, of the proposed Government Plan of Education.—From Gloucester and other places, for the Re-introduction of the Bill of last Session relating to Tidal Harbours.

PUNISHMENT BY TRANSPORTATION.
EARL GREYmoved that the Mutiny Bill be read a third time.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHwas desirous of asking the noble Earl a question. Transportation was the punishment for certain offences under this Bill. Now, I the noble Earl by an Order in Council had suspended the punishment of transportation; but by this Bill no provision was made for substituting imprisonment in the case of soldier convicts in India. In Europe such a provision existed; but if it were intended to make the same alteration with regard to soldier convicts in India, it would be necessary to take into consideration the greater degree of severity which imprisonment in that country would inflict beyond what was endured by imprisonment in Europe, and therefore to shorten the term.
EARL GREYsaid, that the answer he had to make to the noble Earl was very simple. No change whatever was made, or intended to be made, in the law of transportation with regard to soldiers in India. The only difference even in regard to England was this:—Under the existing law, persons convicted of certain offences would be subject to the sentence of transportation. That sentence would still be passed; but the convicts would not at present, at all events, be sent to the convict colonies, but would be kept at home. With respect, however, to the punishment of transportation in India, no Order in Council had been issued to interfere with the existing practice of removing the convicts from that country to Van Diemen's Land. It was intended, no doubt, that the system of sending convicts from this country to Van Diemen's Land should in future be suspended; but with respect to convicts in India no order had been issued, nor was it
1034
in contemplation by the Government to make any interference with the existing practice of removing those convicts to Van Diemen's Land.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that he wished to take the earliest opportunity of entering his protest against the new doctrine which had for the first time been promulgated by the present Government, that it was in the power of any Secretary of State, or of the Crown, or of an Order in Council, to alter the criminal law of this land. The law of this country declared, that for certain offences the Judge should inflict the punishment of imprisonment or of transportation. The punishment of transportation was by law intrusted to the Judge; and if the Judge sentenced the convict to transportation, that was the sentence to be carried into execution by the Crown. Such was the law; if, however, any doubt existed upon the subject, their Lordships had the power to apply to the learned Judges and consult them upon it; and if they did so, he (Lord Brougham) happened to have very good reason to conclude what their answer would be. The Judge had the option in certain offences, either to sentence the convict to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years, or of transportation for a term not exceeding fourteen years; and he should like to know whether, if the Judge should exceed the period of imprisonment by one day, or by one hour, any of their Lordships would tell him that that would not be an illegal sentence; and that upon a writ of error being brought upon that sentence, whether, as a matter of course, the sentence of imprisonment would not go for nothing? That was clear and undoubted. Was it then to be endured that, when the law prohibited the Judge from committing a convict for any period beyond two years, although he might transport the convict for fourteen, years, the Crown should, without the consent of Parliament, convert the period of transportation into a period of imprisonment, and thus imprison for fourteen years a party whom the Judge had not the power to imprison for more than two years? It was monstrous; too monstrous for argument. But, if there should be any doubt entertained upon that subject, for God's sake let them set it at rest by appealing at once to the Judges. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, had no doubt considered the matter; and if he had the slightest doubt upon the subject, let

1035
them at once appeal to the proper quarter. He, however, was none of those who held that the law of the land was to be altered by the Crown without the assent of the other two estates of Parliament. He had objected to the same assumption of power in the case of the Education Committee of the Privy Council; and his experience confirmed him in the belief that he had good cause to lament that the more constitutional course was not taken with respect to the education question; but here they were dealing with a far more important subject. The liege subjects of the Crown—the people of this kingdom—were to look to know what their duties were, what their rights were, and what the penalties were to which they were liable, not to Orders in Council, not to Secretaries of State, not to speeches in Parliament—no, they were to look at the statute law of the land; and the Judges were to look at the statute law of the land, and to pass the sentence which the law required. Were the people of this country to be told, when the law said one thing, and the Judges said the same thing, that the Crown had the power to say another and quite a contrary thing?—that the Crown should say that a sentence of transportation by Act of Parliament, and a sentence of transportation by a criminal court of record, meant not transportation, but a totally different thing, because it had pleased the Crown, upon some theory of some persons, to determine that transportation should be suspended? But transportation could not be suspended except by Act of Parliament. He (Lord Brougham) should very soon have to present to their Lordships the report of a Committee on one of the most important inquiries which, within his Parliamentary experience, had ever been undertaken—he meant the report of the Criminal Law Committee. Their Lordships would by that report see that the thirty-four Judges of England, Scotland, and Ireland were unanimous upon the subject of transportation. They would there see the opinion of all the recorders who had been examined—of all the governors of gaols who had been examined—of all the chaplains who had been examined—and of all persons who were most qualified by their talents, their office, their experience, and their profession to cast light upon this important subject. And, after presenting that report, and the evidence upon which it was founded, it would be his duty to bring the whole subject
1036
before their Lordships; and a more important subject, and one that more seriously concerned both the law and the policy of the country, or more nearly affected the constitutional privileges of the two Houses of Parliament, was never mooted before their Lordships.
EARL GREYsaid, that the noble and learned Lord had raised a most visionary and fantastical chimera, and had presented to their Lorships a picture of a very alarming character of something which the Government were about to do contrary to their sworn duty. Unfortunately for the credit of the noble and learned Lord, the alarm which he had sought to create was the mere effect of his imagination; for it so happened that there was not any foundation in fact for a single word that the noble and learned Lord had uttered. The noble and learned Lord had told them that he would not sit in their Lordships' House for one moment without protesting against the notion that the criminal law of this country could be altered by an Order in Council. Why, who ever proposed it? He (Earl Grey), for one, never made such a statement. What he (Earl Grey) stated was this, that by virtue of a power conferred by a certain Act of Parliament, Her Majesty's Government had appointed the Cape of Good Hope as the colony in which the punishment of transportation imposed by court-martial should be inflicted on soldier convicts coming from the Island of Mauritius, instead of their being sent to Van Diemen's Land. The Act was framed for the express purpose of giving to the Crown the power of appointing places for the reception of convicts. That power had been exercised, the Cape of Good Hope being considered a proper place to which to send soldier convicts from the Mauritius. So much for creating an Act of Parliament, and repealing the criminal law by an Order in Council. But the noble and learned Lord went on beyond the subject of transportation connected with military convicts, and opened to their Lordships his own very peculiar views upon the general subject of transportation. Now, he (Earl Grey) could not help thinking, since the noble and learned Lord had himself told their Lordships that he had been intrusted with the report of the Committee on the Criminal Law, and that such report was founded upon a great mass of important evidence which the noble and learned Lord was in possession of, but of which

1037
their Lordships were not, that it would have been advisable if the noble and learned Lord had abtained from all remark until that report and evidence were brought before them. He (Earl Grey) must beg leave to decline forming his own judgment and opinion respecting that report from the mere statement of the noble and learned Lord, of the nature of which, at the present moment, all their Lordships must necessarily be ignorant; and yet, although the noble and learned Lord knew this, he nevertheless thought it competent, when the question before their Lordships had not the remotest connexion with the subject of that report, but regarded only the Mutiny Act, for him to originate a general discussion upon transportation, not applicable merely to military convicts, but to convicts generally. The noble and learned Lord's remarks upon the general question, it must be obvious to every one, had no reference whatever to the Bill before their Lordships; and he (Earl Grey) could account for the noble and learned Lord's speech from no other reason but from the extreme anxiety of the noble and learned Lord, in season and out of season, with reason or without reason, whether worth their Lordships' attention or not worth it, under all circumstances and on all occasions, to hear his own voice in that House. He (Earl Grey) could conceive no other motive for such a discussion at this time. Though he (Earl Grey) thought he was furnished with a good answer to the noble and learned Lord upon the general subject of transportation, yet he would prefer submitting to any prejudice which his silence might create, rather than anticipate the discussion until the question came regularly before their Lordships. When the noble and learned Lord should redeem the pledge he had given, and should bring the subject forward, he (Earl Grey) should be prepared to maintain and justify the course which the Government had taken, but for the present he should decline entering upon the subject.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that if he had any very vain desire to do that which the noble Earl had, with his peculiar felicity of manner, and with such extraordinary good taste, alleged he was desirous of doing—that of hearing his own voice, he certainly should labour under one great mortification, namely, that he was now speaking in a place where it was not very easy to hear either his own or any one else's voice.
The EARL of SUFFOLKrose to order.
1038
The noble and learned Lord had already made one speech.
LORD BROUGHAMobserved, that if the noble Earl attended more to the course of their Lordships' proceedings he would have found that there was no one thing which was so little attended to as that of order in their Lordships' House. He (Lord Brougham) would teach the noble Earl a short lesson, which would be of use to him, and save him the trouble of calling any noble Lord to order again. He would tell the noble Earl, that, according to the Orders of the House, nothing was more clear than this, that no Peer should speak when there was no question before the House; but there was no one thing more certain than this, that the constant course pursued by all noble Lords was that of speaking, not only once, but half a dozen times, when there was no question before the House — he himself, of course, not excepted. He begged to inform the noble Earl who spoke last (Earl Grey), that he would discharge his duty as long as he had the faculty of making himself heard, and that when their Lordships should cease to lend him their attention, he should then know that it was time for him to cease to address himself to them upon any subject. He had sat in their Lordships' House for fifteen or sixteen years and upwards, and he had never yet learned, he had never till that moment been told, and that by a sneer—no, he would not term it a sneer—a sneer implied something pointed, something clever, something that sank deep, and embalmed itself in the memory, by having an epigrammatic sting attached to it; but he had been told by the noble Earl, and that in a manner which he should treat with the most perfect complacency, that, he (Lord Brougham) had totally misunderstood the object and intention of the Government on the subject of transportation—a subject which, early and late, had engaged his attention for more years than he had been a Member of their Lordships' House. He (Lord Brougham) had never said that the law of transportation was altered by an Order in Council. What he did say was, that the execution of the law was altered; that the law continued as it was before, but that the Government had said that they would not put it in force. He did not mean to argue this point at present, because their Lordships were now upon the Mutiny Bill; but he protested against the expression which had been used in his presence—namely, that

1039
the Government had suspended transportation, or that Government could suspend it, without the authority of an Act of Parliament.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

WASTE TO LANDS, &c., (IRELAND) BILL.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHthen moved the second reading of the Bill which had been introduced by him, the object of which was to prevent waste of land in Ireland, and to prevent the commission of those acts which were at present unlawful, but which, in consequence of the excessive difficulty which was experienced in applying to the Court of Chancery to prevent them, were suffered to be inflicted on estates in Ireland almost with impunity. He had endeavoured to frame the Bill in such a shape as to meet any possible objection that might be raised against it; in fact, this Bill was neither more nor less than a copy, word for word, of the 9th George IV., c. 56, which had been passed with the view of affording protection to landed property in Great Britain. He was most anxious to have the principle of that law applied to the soil of Ireland. Everybody who was conversant with the proceedings in the Court of Chancery was aware that where any waste to landed property was suspected, the party likely to be injured might apply to that court, and obtain what was called the common injunction on his making out his case to the satisfaction of the court. In Scotland, if any injury to land were apprehended, a remedy was easily to be obtained by application to the sheriff, who immediately restrained the party suspected to be about to effect the injury. But when their Lordships would consider the peculiar circumstances in which Ireland was placed, he thought it would hardly be necessary for him to say more than that the greatest sufferings were now endured in all parts of Ireland, in consequence of the subdivision of land. The only objection which could be raised against this Bill was, that it was calculated to reduce the fees of some of the officers of the Court of Chancery in Ireland; but he did not apprehend that any noble Lord who was connected with the law would rise in that House and oppose the Bill on that ground. At the present time the landlords of Ireland were almost gibbeted by the public odium, on account of their attempts to clear their estates from a number of those incumbrances which had settled upon their estates without
1040
their permission or knowledge. Such attempts subjected them to imputations of want of charity, want of intelligence, want of energy, and, in fact, of all the duties which they were bound to discharge towards their tenants. A meeting was held in Dublin in the month of January last, which was attended by the majority of the landed proprietors of Ireland, the object of which was to take into consideration the state of the country. A resolution was passed, against which there was not a dissentient voice; indeed there was not a dissentient voice against any of the resolutions adopted. Men of all politics and creeds in Ireland were present at that meeting; but everything which could cause dissension was forgotten, and their only object appeared to be to relieve Ireland, as far as they possibly could, from the wreck which had befallen her. The resolution to which he referred was proposed by Sir George Hodgson, and seconded by Charles Tottenham, Esq., high sheriff of Wicklow, and was as follows:—
"That amongst the most prominent evils of the present land system, is a want of a cheap and simple mode of checking waste, and therefore we are of opinion that measures should be taken to remedy this evil."
He did not blame Her Majesty's Government in the least for not having taken up seriatim all the suggestions which might have come from any meeting of that nature; but he would say this, that if an individual Member of Parliament came from Ireland conversant as he was, and had been for nearly forty years, with the mode of occupying land there, he did think that nothing but valid reasons should induce Her Majesty's Government to oppose any plan which he might deem it his duty to propose for the remedy of the evils of that system. He had stated in that House, many years ago, the evils which were then in progress in Ireland in connexion with the land system; and this was not the first time that attempts had been made to remove those evils. He held in his hand a Bill which was introduced in the House of Commons in the year 1835, by the late Mr. Lynch, one of the Masters in Chancery, and Mr. M. J. O'Connell, which was very similar to that on which he had now the honour of addressing their Lordships; the object of both being to enable assistant barristers to remedy the grievance, upon application being made to them. That, however, would have been insufficient, because the assistant barristers

1041
held their sittings in their several localities only every three months. Now, let them take the case of old grazing land. Every one knew that once the plough was run through a rich old pasture, there was an end of it for many years. It could hardly be restored to what it had been before within the life of a man. How then could the Court of Chancery be able to interfere to prevent such a waste? The mischief would be done before the very application to the court to prevent it could be made. Under such a system, property might be made ducks and drakes of before the landlord could interfere. The rule appeared to be—"law enough, if you please, in Ireland, but no justice." If such a measure were necessary in England, it would be passed through Parliament in five minutes. He could not believe, and he did not believe, that any opposition upon reasonable grounds could be given to the Bill. He rested upon their Lordships' good sense, and begged to move that it be read a second time.
The LORD CHANCELLORhoped that the noble Marquess would not persist in pressing his Motion. He had stated that the provisions of the Bill were taken verbatim from an English Act of Parliament, and he had grounded upon that fact one of his arguments in its favour. But he (the Lord Chancellor) found upon referring to the Act, that its provisions were enacted to be confined to Ireland, and not to be extended to England or Scotland. [The Marquess of WESTMEATH inquired to what Act the noble and learned Lord referred?] To the Act 9th Geo. IV., c. 56. He would read the preamble of that Act to the House, and their Lordships could judge, His Lordship accordingly read the preamble, and also the clause providing that anything contained in the Act should be construed as extending to Ireland only, and not to England or Scotland. Now, that Act contained provisions for preventing the waste of property by the pulling down of houses. But the noble Marquess thought it an excellent precedent for passing an Act against the building of houses. The former Act provided that if there should be reason to suppose the parties intended to demolish houses, an inquiry should be instituted in order to prevent the committal of a waste which could not be easily remedied. But the noble Marquess would have a sufficient remedy as the law stood for the building of a house, because he would only have to order it to be pulled
1042
down again. But there was another provision in the Bill to prevent the letting of land to what are called "cottier tenants." Now, it might be very reasonable and proper to prevent the subdividing of property, and the letting it go into the hands of persons of very small means, and with very small occupations. He did not think, however, that the Bill was calculated for such a purpose, but that it was rather directed to the interests of the landlords. He had every desire to see the landlords of Ireland, or any others, protected in their rights; but he thought it very extraordinary that the noble Marquess should extend the provisions of his Bill to those persons who least of all required to be legislated against—he meant the tenants from year to year, and tenants at will. What necessity could there be for making special provisions against such persons, when there was nothing to be done by the landlord but to determine the tenancy? Now, the Bill proposed to prevent not only persons so circumstanced from building, but to prevent any person from letting off any portion of their land to "cottiers." Here a term was used unknown in this country. The Imperial Parliament legislated always in words that were common to the three kingdoms; and it would be necessary they should know what was the meaning attached to the word "cottier." If the noble Marquess could make any other suggestion by which the object of the Bill could be obtained, without injustice, there would be no objection to its adoption; but it was impossible to assent to the present measure.
LORD BEAUMONTagreed with the noble and learned Lord that the great evil with which they now sought to deal would not be met by this Bill; its provisions were too loose and its application too undefined; but the House ought not, on that account, to lose sight of the object the proposed measure professed to have in view. The question now mooted lay at the very root of the misery which overwhelmed Ireland. Unless some steps were taken to place on a sound footing the relations between landlord and tenant, he despaired of any permanent good result from any attempt to legislate for that unfortunate country. They could not plead ignorance of the subject, for the most minute details respecting the management of certain estates were now open to their inspection. They might now see how the most powerful landlord in Ireland, assisted by the most powerful

1043
agents, and employing the most able stewards, managed his property and dealt with the tenantry on it. He had long known the little influence the owner exercised in the distribution of his farms; but he had thought that the cause was, partly at least, want of energy in his agents. He had heard much about hard landlords and ejected tenants; but he now knew who were meant by the former, and what were the merits of the latter. He had only become thoroughly acquainted during the last few days with the manner in which the landlords did their duty in that country. His information was derived from the papers which had been laid before their Lordships; and he would ask, if such a landlord as he to whom those documents referred, with such agents at his disposal, could not effect more good in the management of his land than was detailed, what could they expect from the individual man, possessed of but ordinary means, and whose every step in the maintenance of his position was attended with risk and danger to his life? The landlord to whom he alluded was the Crown; the agents to whom he alluded were the Board of Woods and Forests. He would briefly relate how they had managed their land, and enumerate the difficulties to which they had been exposed, and their Lordships might then indeed despair of succeeding in any effort to effect a good understanding between landlord and tenant. The Crown was the proprietor of land in Ballykilcline, in the county of Roscommon, consisting of 602 acres, the whole of which was managed by the Board of Woods and Forests, as part of the Crown property. The tenants were all tenants at will, and the aggregate rent of this land was set down at 411 l. In 1835, there were seventy-four distinct tenancies, but none holding under any lease. In 1836, there was experienced great difficulty in collecting the rents, and in consequence the Board determined to serve notices to quit on every tenant. They did so in 1837, and the result was curious. Fifty-two of the tenants agreed to give up possession, and they became, with the consent of the Crown, caretakers of the property. The remaining tenants refused to quit, to enter into any compromise, or to pay one sixpence of the rent. The caretakers were subsequently asked to give up possession; but, though by the arrangement into which they had entered, they had admitted the right of the Crown and their own defalcation, they also held out,
1044
and would not leave the premises, nor, on the other hand, pay a farthing of rent. They said they were determined to remain there in spite of the Crown; and so they did. The Board then sent an agent over to try if he could get some portion of rent; the agent called the police in; but the police were not strong enough, and not one farthing was obtained. Some time after, in 1842, the cleric of quit rents, by the direction of the Board, visited the estate; he found 463 subdivisions, he served notices on all the tenants to meet him on a certain day: two only came. He investigated the case of some of the defaulters; one (Fitzmaurice) had sold his interest, in the holding of which he was only tenant-at-will, for a considerable sum of money, and had gone to America without paying a sixpence rent: many were in good circumstances, and had money, but refused either to pay rent or quit. Processes were served, but not without great difficulty, against eight occupiers, against whom an information of intrusion had been filed, while the rents due from the other tenants were put in charge of the collector of exise. He, however, collected none. The eight never appeared to the writs. Attachments were issued for non-appearance. They could not be executed; the process-server was attacked; a squadron of cavalry was called into requisition, but all to no purpose. The Board then commenced proceedings against the sheriff for not having done his duty in enforcing the processes. The unfortunate sheriff was in great distress; he redoubled his exertions; and having stayed out for several nights, at last was so far successful as to take two out of a great number of tenants into custody. In 1844, by means of cavalry, infantry, and police, possession of four tenancies was taken by the sheriff; but those who had been ejected went back again, broke the bolts, and retook possession. A gentleman of the name of Knox was then appointed to the situation of bailiff, and he declared that he could not discharge his functions without a police station in the near neighbourhood. He proceeded against three of the parties who had unlawfully taken possession, and, in consequence, was assaulted. His bailiffs were nearly murdered, and he himself threatened, and his property destroyed. He, however, resolutely instituted proceedings against the parties for an assault, and for recovery of possession. Here occurred a tragic scene in this strange and eventful drama. One of the witnesses who

1045
was subpœnaed was barbarously murdered, and when the trials came on, there was an acquittal in the case of the assault, and a verdict was returned for the defendants in the case of the men who had been ejected and had afterwards returned. The Board then no longer thought of obtaining justice in the ordinary way. They, therefore, next adopted proceedings by information in equity, and in 1846 a decree in favour of the Crown was obtained. The tenants, however, were not to be beaten so easily. They kept a paid attorney, who was to propose terms to the Crown. A memorial was forwarded from the tenants; an arrangement for a decision of the dispute was then negotiated; a day was fixed when the agent of the Board and a deputation from the tenants should meet; and not one of them kept the appointment. Delay was their object, and that object they gained. Not one sixpence had been received in the way of rent by the Crown from 1837 to this day. The tenants were still there, free of rent and fear. They had multiplied on the land and subdivided, and they now lived in security. They had beaten the police, the cavalry, the infantry, the bailiff, and the Woods and Forests, and they enjoyed their triumph. The Crown had incurred heavy expenses in endeavouring to assert its right. Its law expenses alone were 468 l. All it had gained, therefore, was, as he might say, a loss. And if this was the manner in which the Crown was set at defiance, when in the capacity of landlord in Ireland, what could they expect from the ordinary proprietor? Let them hear no more of the landlords not doing their duty. They could not do their duty if they were not allowed their rights; the fulfilment of their duties in many cases depended on the exorcise of their rights. The landlords could no more be charged, as if it were a crime, with ejecting their tenants; it was now proved that, with all its power, the Board of Woods and Forests had been compelled, as a last resourse, to adopt the system. Let the House consider the manner in which the two juries had been intimidated; the dangers both the agent and the sheriff were exposed to, as well as the arguments in favour of the lawless occupiers used by their attorney; and they would see the necessity of some more stringent law. There was a large surplus population, which would be better relieved by a poor law, than by being absorbed into the mass of the labouring classes. In either case it would fall on the land; but
1046
in one the relief would be arranged upon some system, in the other it would depend on accidental circumstances. It was useless, however, to legislate either for relieving the poor by rates, or finding them labour by loans to the landlords, if the land was not brought under the more direct control of the rightful owners. He hoped that the Government would introduce some measure that would enable the landlords to exercise their rights; and when that was done, he would be as strong as any of their Lordships in condemning those landlords who should, at the same time, neglect to fulfil their duties.
LORD CAMPBELLthought the measure calculated to aggravate all the evils it professed to remedy; if the noble Marquess intended to withdraw the Bill, he would not make any observations upon it.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHwould not concede that the noble and learned Lord knew more of the state of Ireland than he did.
LORD CAMPBELLdid not question the right of the noble Marquess to bring forward the Bill, and imagined all that was necessary to form an opinion of it was a little plain common sense. The noble Marquess was wholly mistaken in supposing there was any such law as this in England or Scotland. He would give every justice of the peace in Ireland, both county and borough justices, the power of issuing an injunction for erecting and taking down buildings. If such a power were given to magistrates in England, it would cause the greatest possible mischief. The law was entirely new, and it was proposed to introduce it for the first time in Ireland. Most of the evils of Ireland arose from the continued parcelment of the land, by which a population was created without employment or sufficient food. That was a tremendous evil; but the measure of the noble Marquess did not meet it. The inconveniences and evils of Chancery administration were complained of in England; but the noble Marquess proposed to open 500 courts of chancery in Ireland. Giving the noble Marquess credit for excellent intentions in bringing the measure forward, he thought he had mistaken the course. If the Bill were not withdrawn, he should feel it his duty to move that it be read a second time that day six months.
LORD MONTEAGLEurged the noble Marquess not to press his Bill to a division; he objected to it that the individuals who would be invested with its powers must be,

1047
in their own persons or by the class to which they belonged, parties as well as judges in the case. Still, the question involved was one of the most pressing necessity; the operation of the law had been impeded, even when it was enforced on behalf of the Crown by the Board of Woods and Forests. The noble Marquess deserved credit for bringing in the Bill; he should be sorry to see it prejudiced by forcing it to a division; but if it were rejected, the Government were bound to provide a remedy. Much was said of the harsh conduct of the landlords; the law should protect the landlords against the acts of their tenants, and make such harsh conduct unnecessary. There were circumstances connected with the land in Ireland, even under the very best management, which exposed individuals to unmerited obloquy.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHsaid, that the purport of his Bill had been entirely misunderstood. He regretted that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had used so puerile and miserable a weapon as ridicule against a Bill brought forward with an honest intention of remedying the difficulty Irish landlords laboured under. And then, when, bowed down by their obligations and the chains that fettered them, they came to Parliament for a measure to rid themselves of the disadvantages which obsolete laws and modern blunders had placed them under, they were held up to ridicule by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, instead of his saying, honestly and justly, "The Bill will not work; but I will frame a measure on the subject, if you will supply me with facts." The sheriffs in Scotland had an equitable jurisdiction in such cases; and it was the defect in Ireland that the assistant barristers had no such powers. If a tenant was about to do an act that would be manifestly injurious to the land, they were obliged to apply to a Court of Chancery, perhaps two hundred miles off. He should withdraw the Bill; and, though it was done ungenerously, yet the noble and learned Lords who opposed it had acknowledged the evil, and he considered them bound to provide the remedy.
Bill withdrawn.
House adjourned.