The Express.
London, England, 1853-07-08 00:00:00

c(3Sii;ARV-BIU:

This Hll was read a second time.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, resuming its
msideration at clause 7.

&vont SHEE took some exception to the clause, which
gave rue to an inanimate discussion. The Imbed gentle-
man moved an amendment, declaring the occupiers of cot-
tages, as agricultural labourers or hired servants, entitled
to a month's notice ; but afterwards withdrew it.

Mr. M'?IAIION moved the omission of the clause.
The committee divided:
For the clause 5l
Against it l3-39
Clauses 7 and 8 were then agreed to.
Mr. BI'MAIION moved that clause 9, relating to the
concern system, should be expunged.
After a conversation,

The amendment was withdrawn and the clause agreed to.
On clause 10,
Colonel GREVILLE suggested that there should be a
power of appeal from the decisions of the magistrate in
cues of dispute between the landlord and the tenant.
Mr. NAPIER said he should have no objcctiou to intro-
duce a clause to that effect.

Captain SCOBELL objected to that part of the clause
which gave to a single magistrate the power of deciding
disputes under this bill. Such a power was unknown in
England where two magistrates were required, and why
should a different rule be applied to Ireland i
Mr. F. SCULLY concurred very much with tho hon.
member for Bath, but ho thought the objection might be
removed by omitting the words "one of the," and thus
leave the decision to the magistrates assembled in petty
&micros.

Sir J. YOUNG avid the presence of a second magistrate
could not always he obtained in many parts of Ireland, and,
consequently, if the suggestion just made were adopted,
parties would often be lett without redress.
Captain SCOIIELL said in that ease other magistrates
ought to be placed in commission.
Mr. V. SCULLY moved that the power of adjudication
should be vested in " two or more justices of the peace,"
which would obviate the necsasity of an appeal afterwards.

Mr. H. HERBERT said, in a distrietii Kerry, extend-
ing over more than 25 miles, there was only one magistrate
to be found ; and ae believed, from the difficulty of finding
qualified persons to fill the office, that state of things pre-
vailed in many other parts of the country.
Mr. LUCAS would rather that the decision was left to
the resident magistrate, or failing him to two or more jus-
tices of the peace.
After some further discussion, the committee divided,
when there appeared—
Fur the amendment
Against it

Mr. R. M. FOX moved the insertion of words in the
clause, to prevent the appeal in cues of dispute being to
the landlord or agent of the estate, or to any other party
interested in it.

Sir J. YOUNG resisted the amendment, and after a
brief conversation the committee again divided, when there
appeared—
For the amendment
Against it 6l-3 1

The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses up to 24.
On clause 21, the Litter part of which empowers the land-
lord, in the case of a lessee dying intestate, to select one
of the children of the deceased, or amongst the next of kin,
as the succeeding tenant,
Mr. M'MAIION objected to this part of the clause, as
giving an unwarrantable and unprecedented power to the
landlord, and one heretofore unknown to the law of this
country.
Mr. Keogh, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Serjcant Shee, Mr. Conelly,
and other members also objected to the clause.
Sir J. YOUNG hoped that the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Napier) would consider the objection, with a view if pos-
sible to a modification of the clause.

Mr. NAPIER said he would do so.
Mr. LUCAS said that it would be impossible to devise
any words which would make the clause palatable, whilst
it conferred on the landlord the power of selecting amongst
the family of the intestate the future tenant to the preju-
dice,
it might be, of the other children. lie hoped, there-
fore, that if the right hon. gentleman took time to consider
the clause, it would be with a view to negativing it alto-
gether,
Mr. MMAHON would divide on the amendment.
The committee then divided—
For the amendment 4B
Against it
Mr. MAGUIRE said if the clause were pressed in its
present form he should divide against it.
Sir J. YOUNG hoped the hon. and learned gentleman
(Mr. Napier) would consent to re-consider it.
Mr. S. HERBERT concurred in this suggestion.
The claw was then agreed to, with the understanding
that it should be re-considered before the third reading.
Clauses 26 to 31 were severally agreed to.
On clause 32, which gave the landlord power, in the case
of leases for lives renewable for ever, to recover for waste
" under any lease or gnat made after the let of January,
18.54," excepting all perpetuities held under leases before
that time,
Sir D. NORREYS objected to the provision on the
ground that it had not been made retrospective. He knew
an instance in which a property was leased for 9,999 years.
(Laughter.) In such cases improvements ought not to be
impeded by an ideas reversion. (Hear, hear)
Mr. WHITESIDE saia what the hon. baronet (Sir D.
Norreys) appeared to desire would have the effect of con-
fiscation. (Hear.)
Mr. V. SCULLY said, anxious as be was to secure the
interest of the tenant, he could not consent to hand over to
him the landlord's property in mines and royalties. He was
cognisant of eases in which land leased for lives renewable
fur aver had been sold fur thirty or forty years' purchase
more than it would have done in consequence of the exist-
, ewe of mines.

Mr. E. BALL suggested that the clause should be made
retrospective, except in cases in which len.llords had already
exercised their rights over mines and royalties.
Mr. CONOLLY thought the clause would create great
contusion.

The clause was then agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to
sit again at twelve o'clock to-morrow (this day).
Four o'clock having arrived,
The house adjourned till 6.
The house resumed at six o'clock.
RUSSIA AND TURKEY.—BM. LAYARD'S
MOTION.

Mr. LAYARD said—l wish to state the termaof the motion
of which I have given notice for to-morrow. They are as
follows —" That an humble address be presented to her
Majesty, humbly to submit to her Majesty that this house
has heard with deep concern that the Emperor of Russia
has announced a policy, and adopted measures which
threaten the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and praying
her Majesty that she will be pleased to direct that the
fullest information on the subject be laid before this
house as soon as is consistent with the public service."
I wish to say a few words on a matter personal
to myself. The motion of which I have given
notice was fixed for to-morrow. I received • note yester-
day afternoon from the noble lord the member for London,
asking me to put it off until Monday. I was not able to
return an answer until this morning. To my surprise, I
was in the house yesterday without my knowledge, for I
find it stated in the votes " that Mr. Layard's motion was

deferred tilt Monday, the 11th." L'alesssome good reason
is shown for deferring my motion, 1 shall go on with it on
the day which has been assigned far it by her Majesty's go-
vernment. I must say it seems to me scarcely fair that an
independent member should be treated in this way.
Tfit, CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUEn—With re-
forma to what has talks from the Los. gentleman, I hays