The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-09 00:00:00

BILL.

Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the Cor•
poration of the city of London, praying that the pro-
perty they possessed in Ireland uisy be exempted from
the operation of the Bill. The petitioners were of
opinion that the measure would interfere injurilusly
with the interests of lessf,rs and lessees in that country.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought that the principle
of the Bill should be adopted. But if the amendment of
the Noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Lucan) with re-
spect to altering the compulsory provisions, and making
the powers of leasing optional, was pressed, it should
have his support.

Lord CA::IPBELL thought that after Is hat had just
been said by his Noble Friends with regard to this
measure he would best consult the convenience of their
Lordships by moving the third reading of the Bib at
once. It was provided that no lease should be rent-wed
unless the agreement entered into between the parties
was duly acted up to. The Noble Earl (Lucas) had
made a suggestion which he thought was a valuable one,
to the effect that in all cases wherein the sum in dispute
was under 50/. the matter should be referred to the
arbitration of the as,istant barristers of the district if
they occured in the coentry, and to the recorders if they
occurred in towns. He trusted that the Noble Ear 1
opposite would see no reason why an exception should be
inside in favour of the Irish Society more than any other
party. This Bill had been introduced by the Lord
Chancellor, who bestowed considerable pains upon it. It
was thought but just and reasonable that an exception
should be made in respect to the case of a noble indivi-
vidual who had previously a private Act passed in re-
spect to his property. He hoped that this Bill would
now be read a third time, when it was his intention to
propose the insertion of a clause to meet the case referred
to by the Noble Earl opposite.
Lord MONTEAGLE said that since this Bill had
been reprinted, he perceived an amendment in it to which
he begged to call their Lordship.' attention. They
would find that the marginal note to the second clause,
which was not in the original Bill, differed materially
from the clause itself. The marginal note was to this
effect, "no grant required to be made under this
Act when the owners have converted leases for life
into estates in fee by a private arrangement." He
saw no objection to the original principle of the
Bill ; but if it was to give a benefit to any one
person he would not be disposed to support it. He would
remind them of the opinion of the Lord Chancellor
upon this subject, when he stated that he would resist
thewha
tpd r oposi
The exception made was one, above all others, tow
of because
the
b Bill.c ith
affectti otnh e f ovreruly a objectkin g
aann de principle
h
rat er make an exception in the case of the Irish
that the
he looked with the greatest suspicion. He would much
Society. He thoughtY ought to be very careful
against furnishing any grounds for the opinion that the
Members of that House determined to exempt themselves
from the operation of all such measures, which were sup•
posed to affect public property generally.
thesp e Bill p
of
fr wast
ou one
ie t)
m , first
ofa o
remarking
n introduced
nd gave
itithn
to
o into
tt the
House
hhee
- Lord BEAUMONT had introduced the clause referred
to, and was prepared to take the whole responsibility
,19134fiallieta.toA()ik e
htWthohtueoentokpt anyohri remuneration. It took the property
of the lessor and gave it to the lessee. The principle of
substituting a good tenure for the imperfect one that
then existed, was, no doubt, a good one ; but they
ought to take care that they did no wrong or injury on
the one party in their endeavour to confer a benefit upon
the other. The lesser at present received certain fines
on the renewal of these leases, and had the means of en-
forcing them. '1 hey said that they would commute
these fines into a fee-farm rent, but they gave him no
retain whet Bever for the value of the revertion. The
Noble and Learned Lord had admitted that there were
sum" grounds for his objections, and said that if he would
propose a clause to meet the case elluled to, he would
~e wining to accede to it. That clause wes the 6th, as
the Bill stood ; and the compensation proposed was
to be given for the value of ;he reversien. He then
found that the Bill did not give compensation to a
certain party who bad already obtained a private
Act—Parliament had considered that Bill, and had
entered into au agreement with this particular individual
that he should have the power of converting leasehold
i
property into fee-simple on certain conditions between
the parties. Oa the faith of Parliament that individual
had dealt with his property, and until this Bill was
thought of, very considerable offers were made for his
land. The moment this Bill was introduced down fell those
off rs. Se far then a gross breach of a bargain entered into
between Parliament and an individual had never been
talked of Gimounism and Socialism,
-of M. Prudhon's works he did not
shuhgtgtenstetdh. e
whale -of
think that they could find any Sentiment involving so
great a violation of the right' of property to tbL Bel 1