to serve on it. He had already expressed his opinion very decidedly on this measure, and maintained, that if the compulsory clause were omitted it would be a dead letter; if inserted, it would be the means of interfering between landlord and tenant Lord Brougham concurred with his in a manner prejudicial in the highest denoble Friend opposite, that it was of ex-gree, especially in that part of Ireland with treme importance that the new Bill should which he was connected. plainly state the law. Time should be taken to draw the Act, and it should be prepared during the long vacation.

leagues by no means pledged themselves to such a step. "Who are the supporters of this measure? Remember that one great argument against your legislation made use of by the Repealers is, that you constantly pass laws, not in opposition to one but to all classes in that country. And I say that is a most dangerous state of feeling. Some years ago I had a conversation on this subject with an hon. Gentleman, who has since become a distinguished member of the Repeal Association, but who was then opposed to Repeal. He said to me, 'I have been many years a Member of the British House of Commons, and I have found that on all questions, except those relating to Ireland, I am listened to with attention; but I have often felt that the very fact of my being an Irish Member, lessens my influence on Irish subjects. I am not a Repealer, he said, for I see many objections to such a measure; but if the Legislature proceed in the same course, I do not see what good I can do in a British House of Commons, and must support the proposal of an Irish Parliament for Irish affairs.' I tell your Lordships that is a feeling widely spreading in Ireland. They tell you in their petitions that matters re

who had seven or fourteen years of a lease to run would find the occupation infinitely more profitable than any award that might be granted by the Dublin Commissioner. As for the tenant at will, the notice of appeal would be a notice to quit. But it was said that it would be a great thing for the widow, who was often turned out on the death of her husband, if she had an allow ance for any improvements that were made. Did or could the landlord turn out a person so situated at present? Take care, however, that if this Bill passed, it would not give a sanction to so harsh an act, and almost compel the landlord to pick and choose from those who would, in such circumstances, stand in a position equally indifferent to him. But there was another unfair provision in the law: it proceeded on the principle that there was to be no change in the value of agricultural produce. Now it was imagined that protec tion to agriculture in this country increased the value of the land. It was true the price of agricultural produce could never be kept up to the degree calculated upon; for the price, which it was thought protection would ensure, instead of being 63s. or 56s. per quarter, for corn, was now but 47s. But how did this Bill pro-lating to the internal state of the country pose to deal with the fluctuations in the are not attended to, and that the views value of land? Why, by declaring the and votes of those connected with the landlord should never raise his rent until country are overruled by those not acthe whole value of the improvements was quainted with it. Now, I maintain this paid; and this, though the value of the Bill justifies that description. There was land by a rise in the price of produce might a petition respectfully, firmly, and calmly be greatly increased. It acted as a bar to drawn up, and signed by a number of noble the landlord and tenant coming to a fair Lords, supporters of the Government. agreement as to the value of the land. These are men, to whom the Government, These were tenants' and not landlords' ar- having no Irishman in the Cabinet, may guments against the Bill. But the great be naturally supposed to look for advice; argument against it was, that it would ex- but they reject their advice, they despise cite bad blood between landlord and te- their guidance, and force on Parliament a nant. The tenant was the weaker party, measure opposed to the wishes of every and if tempted to a struggle he must come one who understands the subject; for my off worse. This measure was opposed by noble Friends near me (the Marquess of every party in Ireland. He had not read Lansdowne and Marquess of Normanby), the whole of the evidence taken before the though they voted for the second reading, Commission. He doubted whether any can hardly be reckoned upon as strenuous noble Lord had; but in what he saw of it, supporters of the measure. All the authohe found nothing new. The facts deposed rities out of the House-all the organs of to were brought out over and over again; all parties in Ireland, are opposed to this and he could not help thinking that if, in- measure. Everybody is favourable to the stead of issuing this Commission, they had consideration of the principle which it proa year ago referred the whole subject to a fesses to carry out; but you (the GovernCommittee up-stairs, there would now be ment) say you will not go into that queseffected a solid improvement in the law. tion, except on an understanding that The only authority for the present measure it is a violation of the rights of prowas the noble Earl at the head of the Com-perty, and which will never be admitted mission, as he understood that his Col- in any part of Great Britain. I move,

as an Amendment, that my name be omitted."

The Marquess of Londonderry: I rise to correct a mistake into which the noble Marquess has fallen. He says there is no Irishman in the Cabinet. Now, there is the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) at the head of the Government. Besides, there are two distinguished men, who, though not Irishmen, have filled the office of Secretary in Ireland, and to whose opinions in general I should readily bow, though I conscientiously differ from them on this occasion.

deeply interested in its results. Out of twenty-one names forming the list, no less than fourteen were directly interested and personally connected by property with Ireland, and out of this number no less than seven were constant residents in Ireland. He had taken names from both sides of the House indiscriminately; his only wish was to submit the question to an impartial consideration, and his only aim, not to select parties merely because they were favourable to Government. In fact, he believed the majority of them on the list had expressed themselves doubtfully with respect to portions of the measure. He repeated, his sole and single view in forming the Committee was to obtain the best and most impartial tribunal to which to submit the question; and this being so, though he should regret the absence of the noble Lords, still he could not press them to let their names remain on the list. The two noble Marquesses opposite were both op ponents of the measure. The removal of their names would reduce the number to nineteen; but if their Lordships should wish to substitute for them the names of any two other noble Lords known to be opposed to the Bill, he could only say he would readily accede to their nomination, or that of any other noble Lords who might be offered as substitutes.

Lord Stanley considered it was a singular proceeding on the part of the noble Marquess-on a Motion for appointing a Select Committee-that he should have taken such an opportunity of entering into a full discussion of the merits of a Bill which had already been fully discussed at the proper stages. He hoped the noble Marquess would acquit him of disrespect and discourtesy if he declined to follow him into any arguments he had brought forward. With respect to the objections raised to acting on the Committee, he believed there were precedents for noble Lords serving on Committees against the object of which they had strong objections. He could not, however, but admit the validity of the objections of the noble Marquess; and though he should regret his absence, he should not press for his name as one of the Members. His object in forming this Committee had not been to place on it the names only of those who were supporters of the Bill, and on whom, therefore, Government might rely for a favourable verdict; his object had been to have the opinions and the decisions of noble Lords in this Committee most likely to carry the greatest weight with the public-be those opinions and decisions in favour or against the The Marquess of Normanby: The state measure-because the public would then of his health would not allow him to rebe satisfied that whichever way the verdict main more than a few days longer in that wrent, the question before the Committee House; but if he saw any prospect of comhad been tried fully and fairly. He could ing to a satisfactory conclusion as to this not have reconciled the proceeding to him- Bill, there was no amount of personal inself, had he omitted the names of noble convenience which he would not undergo Lords who had so great a stake in Ireland for the sake of arriving at such a result. as the noble Lords who had raised objec- He had waited for the second reading, not tions to serve on the Committee. The because he approved of the whole measure, noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanri- but because he was unwilling to take on carde) had stated there was a disadvantage himself the responsibility (seeing the divifelt by Irishmen, in Her Majesty's Govern- sion was a very close one) of refusing the ment legislating for Ireland. Now, he had Government an opportunity of stating been anxious respecting this Committee, to their case. He had since looked at the submit the question only to those who were Bill more attentively; and he was bound best acquainted with its bearings, and most to say he did not see the most remote pro

The Earl of Lucan said, the noble Lord took great credit to himself for the impartiality with which he had selected the Committee; whereas out of twenty-one noble Lords there were only five nominated who had voted against the second reading of the Bill, while the other sixteen had all voted for it, or were known to be supporters of it. He thought it his duty to call previous attention to the constitution of this unfair and prejudiced Committee.

bability of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion with it. He spoke as one unlearned in the law; but it struck him as one of the worst drawn-up Bill she had ever seen. He should move that his name be also omitted.

The Earl of Roden: After the statement made as to the composition of the Committee, he thought it would be fruitless for those opposed to the principle of the measure to serve on it. He must, therefore, move that his name be withdrawn.

behind him ought not to be the person to complain of strong expressions; for when he first rose he charged him (Lord Stanley) with having selected an unfair and partial Committee, and he now improved upon that language by calling it a packed Committee. He said, that sixteen of its Members were in favour of the Bill, and only five opposed to it. Now he (Lord Stanley) would come to names, and he thought that he could show the House that though it was certainly true that Lord Brougham must be allowed to say there was a majority of Peers proposed to that, however plausible the reasons given be placed on this Committee who had for declining to serve on this Committee, voted in favour of the second reading of they had, in his opinion, no validity what- the Bill, yet if they would examine the ever. Details were constantly discussed list with reference to one of the most main that House, when they differed on the terial principles of the measure, the comprinciple. If noble Lords failed in im- pulsory clause, they would find that there proving this measure, they could vote were certainly nine-he believed ten-of against it in Committee of the whole House, the twenty-one who had expressed themor on the Report; but they would do good selves adverse to that principle, and only service to their country if they improved eight-if, indeed, there were so manyin any way the relation between landlord who had spoken in its favour. Four Memand tenant, even though they might not bers of the Committee had expressed no succeed in altering this Bill as much as opinion on the subject; and upon his honthey desired. our as a gentleman, he had no idea of the The Earl of Wicklow said, that on look-view which they would be inclined to take ing over the names, his impression was directly the reverse of that of his noble Friend (Lord Lucan) as to a preponderance of Peers in favour of the Bill. He hoped his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) would persevere, seeing that he admitted the other night, that if every objection then urged to the Bill was acceded to, a good measure might still remain for their decision.

The Marquess of Londonderry observed, that as to the noble and learned Lord's (Lord Brougham's) dictation, given in so decided a manner, he could not submit to it. He could not sit on the Committee; for he was directly opposed to the principle of the Bill. He predicted, that in the course of a few weeks, petitions would be presented from all the tenantry of Ulster against this Bill.

The Earl of Lucan thought the propositions of the proposed Committee were unfair and unjust, consisting as they did of sixteen to five. The list only contained two names of the Peers who had signed the remonstrance against the Bill read the other night. Indeed, he could not help saying that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) deserved praise for the ingenuity with which, not to say it harshly, he had packed the Committee.

Lord Stanley said, that the noble Earl

of it. Now there voted against the second reading the Marquess of Hertford, the Earl of Roden, the Marquess of Clanricarde, the Earl of Rosse, the Marquess of Londonderry, and Lord Monteagle. All these voted against the principle of the Bill, and against its being read a second time. Again, the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Normanby, and the Marquess of Salisbury condemned in the strongest terms the compulsory clause. Therefore, in this so-called packed Committee, consisting of twenty-one Members, there were no less than nine (and he believed, although he was not certain of it, he might add to that number the name of a noble Duke upon the cross benches)-at all events, there were at least nine-who had declared themselves decidedly opposed to the compulsory clause of the Bill. Then there were favourable to that clause the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, the Earl of Devon, Earl Fortescue, the Earl of Wicklow, the Earl of St. Germans, the Earl of Besborough, and Lord Stanley-in all eight. Thus seventeen of the twentyone were accounted for. He did not know the opinions of the Duke of Cleveland, of Earl Fitzwilliam, the Earl of Chichester, or of Lord Ashburton. Thus there were four of the proposed Members of the Committee of whose opinions he was ignorant.