Mr. Davenport Bromley scarcely got any further. He seems to
have said, as he himself explains himself in a letter to the Times— and so far he said wisely—that the relations between landlord and tenant in England and Ireland, were, on the whole, so different, that it was impossible to reason from what might be desirable in one country to what might be desirable in the other. He declared that if the Legislature could improve the relations between them without wronging either— and here he seems to be referring to England—he should " be glad to entertain the question,"—which is not saying much. " But if it was intended to introduce in England the wild schemes which he had seen proposed in Ireland, to take the property from a person to whom it does belong, and give it to another person to whom it does not belong, then he would only entertain the question if society were prepared to entertain the watch question, the purse question, the coat question, and the general-property question, meaning thereby the re-arrangement of the whole law of imeum ' and ' tuum.' " Not so solemn, Mr. Bromley, but quite as vague, as Mr. Newdegate. Did you never consent to a railway bill which takes land from a person to whom it does belong, and gives it to persons to whom it does not belong, except on condition of raising the watch question, purse ques- tion, coat question, and that greater question to which you so facetiously referred ?
Previous page
