The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-14 00:00:00

ITALY.

RENEWAL. OF HOSTILITIES BETWEEN
THE PIEDMONTESE AND AUSTRIAN S.
The French Government, it is said, received yes-
terday a telegraphic dispatch from Turin, announcing
the renewal of hostilities between CHARLES ALBERT
and the .Austrians. CHARLES ALBERT, it appears,
had appointed Signor CABELLA, who had drawn up
the Address of the Chamber of Deputies in favour of
the immediate resumption of hostilities, to the office
of Minister of Public Instruction. This appointment
was received with great favour by the inhabitants of
Turin, who paraded the streets shouting " War !
war ! Lead us against the Austrians." Orders were
immediately given for the resumption of hostilities.
On this subject we find the following in the
Courrier Francais:—
" A telegraphic dispatch, which arrived yesterday
from Piedmont, confirms the fears which we expressed a
few days back, when we foresaw that an engagement
must speedily take place between the Austrians and the
troops of the King of Sardibia. The Minister Colli,
the successor and continuer of M. Gioberti, has been
obliged to resign, thus leaving the field open to the
Radical party of Piedmont, which is going, in accord
with the Provisional Governments of Rome and Florence,
to engage in an armed struggle with Radetzky. Alea
jacta est."

Modena has been declared in a state of siege by
the DUKE, who is engaged in fortifying his capital.
It is said that the Sicilians have rejected the pro-
posed ultimatum. This rumour must, however, be
considered as at least premature, inasmuch as suffi-
cient time cannot have elapsed for the arrival of the
answer from Palermo. The King of NAPLES, how-
ever, is in no condition to undertake the subjugation
of that island, as the withdrawal of the troops neces-
sary to form the Roman expedition will probably be
followed by an insurrection in the Neapolitan pro-
vinces.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR sat in bis Court in the Old
Hall, Lincoln's Inn, to-day.
Mr. James Robert Hope, HQuoEpE9B COUNSEL.e,Nthe
eminent Parliamentary
Committee Counsel, having had conferred upon him by
her Majesty a patent of precedence, was at the sitting. of
the Court called within the bar by the Lord Chancellor.

THE QUEEN V. PROSSER.
This case, which stood in the paper to-day to be
spoken to, on the question of costs, was postponed till
the next motion day, in consequence of the absence of
Mr. 111. D. Hill.

The LORD CHANcELLon having disposed of the case of
Norton v. Rep Worth, the only queston on which was a
point of practice, proc...eodPd to hear appeal motions.
The Master of the Kills and the Vice• Chancellor of
England were occupied the whole morning with motions,
none of which called for a special report.

VICE-CHANCERY.--(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
WOOD V. NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. PARKER said he had to move for an injunction to
restrain the North Staffordshire Railway Company from
issuing any warrant to the Sheriff of Chester for assess-
ing any compensation to be paid to the plaintiffs for in-
tersecting two pieces, of land mentioned in the bill of
complaint. It appeared that the plaintiffs being possessed
of land which the rail Nay company required for the purpose
of their Act, they gave the usual notice to the plaintiffs in
December, 1846, and January, 1847, specifying the laud
which had been mentioned in their Act, and which they
required to take from the plaintiffs. At the same time,
in compliance with the 93d section of the Land Clauses
Consolidation Act, they required the plaintiff to set out
the particulars of any land, less than an acre, which had
been intersected by the railway company. There were
two pieces of land intersected by the railway, less than
an acre, and the plaintiffs served them with a notice of
the particulars of those two pieces of land. A negotiation
took place, which was subsequently referred to arbitra-
tion, and the umpire made his award, which included the
value not only of the land required by the defendants to
be taken by themsslves for th© purpose of the railway,
but also the two pieces of land in question. The com-
pany were not very desirous of fulfilling the award and
they said that it was not within the province of the
arbitrator to make that award with respect to those two
pieces of land according to the terms of the submission to
arbitration, and that he had only to deal with the land
of which they
theyhad givenapplied
enoticed
for oafn tdh e
obtained
rb
ti
an
ne
en
dt i oan r tuol
et anki
se
i.
iSnutbliseeciCtioeunrttlyof Exchequer to set aside the award, but
when it CAIRO to be argued the rule was discharged,
without costs. The award, therefore, stood at the pre-
sent moment unimpeached, and the plaintiff came before
the Court to ask that the company may be compelled to
perform the award.
Mr. MALINS, on the part of the defendants, contended
that as the arbitrator had included in his award two
pieces of land which were not the subjects of the refer-
ence. the whole award Was vitiated.
(The case was proceeding when our reporter left.):
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
This being what is technically called the third seal
day, his Honour was occupied during the morning in
hearing short motions of no public interest.

THIS DAY.)
Secondary JAMES.)
TRADERS AND ANOTHER V. DAVIDSON.
SECO
This was an action to recover the sum of U. ] 45., the
(NullefoAreß mirt,:ss ,ec
amount of a tailor's bill. A witness proved, that an
order for the articles was given, and that he delivered
the goods as directed, and enquired whether Mr. David-
son lived at the place. Witness, however, did not know
the defendant.
The Learned SECONDARY said, he had some doubts on
the point as to whether there was any identity of the de-
fendant; but at the same time, he did not see that any
injustice would be done by giving a verdict against the
defendant, it was however entirely a question for the

Bank. The
fenTahanetpliasinati
Jury.
The Jury, after a short consultation, gave a verdict
for the amount claimed.
THOMPSON V. BOWMAN.
Baacrttihonoloismeawn
.7aatntoer,ney, and de-
(mien was brought by plaintiff as indorser against de-
bffroiknerthints
fendant as acceptor of a bill of exchange for 171. 10s.
The defendant pleaded that there had been no con-
sideration paid by plaintiff for the bill.
Evidence was adduced to prove the acceptance was in
the handwriting of defendant.
Mr. THOMAS for the defendant complained that the
action should have been brought in this Court, but said
the plaintiff being an attorney, was privileged to do so.
He however would show that no consideration had passed.
Fitzgerald, the drawer of the bill, was called, and ad.
mitted that he had only received a tew shillings, per-
haps 1/., from Thompson, but he had given the bill to a
person named Williamson to get discounted. The wit-
ness went into a rambling explanation as to his trans-
actions with defendant, who alleged that it was au ac-
cornodation bill.
The Learned SECONDARY did not consider that had
anything to do with the matter, the question was had
plaintiff given consideration for the bill or did he hold it
for Fitzgerald, to sue upon.
The Jury immediately gave a verdict for defendant.

SERIOUS ACCIDENT TO A RAILWAY GUARD,
of h
Robert Jestis, an under-guard upon the Parliamentary
up-train. on the Colchester line, on Wedcesday evening,
fell from
his seat at Widford, and on the arrival of the
train at Ingatestone, Davis, a porter, was sent in search
im.
The unfortunate man was found at the Widlord
cutting, and conveyed on a pilot engine to Ingatestone,
where he was examined by Mr. Edwards, surgeon, who
ascertained that his left arm was broken in two places,
and the scalp of his skull was completely torn from the
bone. It is supposed that Jestis, when wrapping round
his apron, overbalanced himself and fell. He now
lies at Ingatestone, in a very dangerous state.—Essex
Herald.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

(THIS DAY).

IIOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly aher Twelve
o'clock.

CENTRAL GAS CONSUMERS BILL.
On flit; motion of Mr. K. SEYMER, it was ordered
that Mr. Masterwan be a&ed to the Committee on the
Great Central Gas Consumers Bill.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from Sal-
ford for the repeal of the navigation-laws, and One
trom Brotherton, in the county of Lancaster, for the
establishment of a county board of reduction of ex-
penditure.

PETITIONS.

An Hoer. MEMBER presented a petition in favour of
ti'ernational arbitration.
Sir 0. MACNAGHTEN presented a petition from
Antrim Lgaitist the tate in aid.
Mr. THORN ELY presented two petitions from places
Lanc,shtre, c •ruplAining of the county rate expen-
diture.
Mr. BROWN presented similar petitions from other
places in the s7:ine county.
Lord HOTHAM presented a petition from a place in
the We st Riding ot Yorkshire, praying the House to
take into considerat ion the present distri ssed state ot the
agricultural interest, with the view of removing the
special burdens which pressed upon it.
Mr. CIMISTOPIIER and Mr. MOODY presented pea-
Lions against any alteration in the marriage law.
Lord G. MANNERS presented a petition to the same
effect from Cambridgeshire.
Mr. BOURKE presented several petitions against the
rate in aid.
Colonel TAYLOR and Colonel DUNNE presented similar
petitions.
Mr. 11. DRUMMOND presented petitions from
places in Surrey against any alteration in the mar-
riage laws.
Mr. TRELAWNY presented a petition against
church-rates.
Mr. COWAN presented a petition from Edinburgh
in favour of the repeal of the navigation-laws ; also a
petition from the same place, numerously and respec-
tably signed, praying for the abolition of the duty on
paper.
Mr. R PALMER presented a petition in favour of
international arbitration.
Mr. BANKES presented a petition from a congrega-
don in I)orsetsbire, praying the House to sanction no
commercial relations with Spain or Brazil until those
countries consented to put down the' slave trade; also a
petition in favour of international arbitration.
Mr. HERMES presented a second petition from
Liverpool, signed by 16,000 persons, against the repeal
of the navieatiotelaws.
Mr. BRIGHT presented apatition from Bangor, com-
plaining of the misappropriation- of the funds of the
Bangor Friars School; also, a petition from a meeting of
Unitarians at Poole, praying the House to admit Jews
into Parliament; and a petition from a place in Kent,
in favour of the abolishment of church-rates.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented a petition from
Chorley and other places, in Lancashire, in favour of a
more equitable apportionment of the county rates.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
On the motion of Mr. LOCKE KING leave of absence
was given to Mr. Alcock till utter Easter, on account of
his health.
THE "COUNT OUT" LAST NIGHT.
Mr. ANSTEY complained of the uncourteous man-
ner in which advantage had been taken last night of that
very inviduous rule which enabled Members to have a
" count out " when an important matter was before the
House. He did not complain of the Hon. Member who
made the motion on that occasion, nor of the Govern-
ment, who he believed were as anxious as he was that
the matter should be proceeded with; but he complained
of the conduct of some of the officers of the House,
whose business it was to ring the bell when divisions
took place. He was informed by an Hon. Member on
the Ministerial benches that the bell was rung in the
smoking-room—(A laugh)—and by the Honourable
Member for Portarlington that it was not rung
in the library, and he believed that it had
not been rung in any of the rooms adjoining the House.
The consequence was, that about twenty or thirty Mem-
bers knew nothing about the division, and were pre-
vented from coming into the House. He drew the at-
tention of the House to this matter, in order that for the
future it might not be left to the discretion of any offi-
cers of the House whether a Member should or should
not be able to keep a House.
After some returns had been moved for and agreed
to respecting Ireland,
Mr. ANSTEY again rose and gave notice, that when
the House went into a Committee of Supply, oa Friday
next, he should move by way of atnendmeut, if he could
not get a more convenient day, the dropped order of
yesterday which stood in his name.
LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.
Mr. PUSEY moved the second reading of this Bill,
which, he said, was in strict conformity with the reports
of the Committee which sat on the subject last year, and
which would be the means of effecting considerable
improvement in the existing law.
Colonel SIBTHORP moved, as an amendment, that it
be read a second time that day six months. He
was quite at a loss to understand the reason for
which the Hon. Gentleman had introduced the Bill.
Perhaps he was not on good terms with his tenants,
though he did not mean to impute that such was the
case. He saw no reason why a general measure of this
kind should be introduced to meet a partial evil, and
which would, as a natural consequence, be applied to
cases where no :etch evils as those it was intended to cure
existed. A perfect end cordial understanding existed
between himself (Colonel Sibthorp) and his tenants; but
it this Bill were passed, he confidently believed a fatal
blow would be struck to thut mutual confidence which
hail so long existed between the generality of
landlords and tenants. If the practice of in-
troducing Bills to meet partial evils were
permitted, ho saw no reason why some Honourable
Member might not bring in a Bill to arrange between
a gentleman and his butler, and to provide for what they
should do and what they should eat.—(Laughter.)
Then different customs prevailed between landlords and
tenants in different counties. How then, he should like
to know, could a general Bill have any other than an in-
jurious effect upon many parties living in different dis-
tricts. It would create jealousies and dissatisfaction
which did not exist under the present system, and he felt
it his duty, therefore, to take the sense of the House
upon his amendment, that this Bill be read a second time
this day six months.
Sir 11. VERNER rose with great respect to second
the amendment of the Gallant Colonel, for he could not
forget that the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Berk-
shire, had conferred greater benefits upon agriculturists
generally—upon the farmers of this country—than,
perhaps, almost any other Hon. Member.—(Hear, hear.)
From what he knew of that Hon. Gentleman he was pre-
pared to state, that in his relations with his tenants no
one deserved a higher character.—(Hear, hear.) He
was, therefore, at 'a loss to understand why the Gallant
Colonel had indulged in the statement that his relations
with his tenants were of a most unsatisfactory nature.
Colonel SIBTHORP explained that he did not im-
pute anything of the kind.
Sir if. VERNER said the tenant-farmers had the cure
of the evil of which they complained, and which this
Bill was introduced to obviate, in their own hands, since,
by obtaining leases, they would be in a position to re-
medy them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had i;aken a
course which had prevented the farmers of this country
having leases, and by introducing the 50th (tenant-at-
will) clatise into the Reform Bill they had done more
damage to the agricultural interest of this country than
any other proposition which had come before the
House.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CHRISTOPHER would not enter into a discussion
whether those Members on this or that side of the House
were the best friends of the tenant-farmer; he was per-
fectly satisfied to leave that to be settled by the tenant-
farmers themselves. He considered this Bill, as far as it
went, a very great improvement on all former ones.—
(Loud cheers.) He was, however, opposed to this
Bill, because he was against all interference whatever
with landlord and tenant. It appeared to him that the
object of the Bill was not to give powers to grant a
lease, but to give power to the persons who were tenants
for life of an estate to make an agreement, under certain
circumstances, with the incoming tenant, that if he
should happen to be displaced he should receive a com-
pensation for the unexhausted improvements on his
land. Now, his opinion was, with reference to
this measure, that it' it was only a permissive mea-
sure, as he understood it was, he thought generally that
the landlord and tenant could arrange their affairs in
each particular locality, without the intervention of any
compulsory or legislative Act. All legislative inter,

ference was unnecessary; and having obje-cted on those
grounds hitherto to all interference between landlord
and tenant, he thought still that they might be left to
arrange their own of sirs. Although he thought this Bill
a very great improvement on the first and second Bills,
still, he objected decidedly to all interference whatever
between landlord and tenant. Under those circum-
stances, he was willing to support the amendment of his
lion. Friend the Member for Lincoln.
Mr. ROBERT PALMER said, the object' which his
lion. Friend had in view in this Bill was nothing more
than what both he and his Hon. Friend considered a
measure of justice to occupying tenants. If a tenant-
farmer occupied a farm as tenant at will, he was liable to
be removed at six months' notice; and if the tenant laid
out his capital upon the soil under the impression that
he would continue in its occupation so long as he went
on in a course of improvement and good management, but
was ejected, nevertheless, it was only an act of justice that
the landlord should make him some compensation for his
unexhausted improvements. He (Mr. Palmer) was per-
fectly well aware that when the farmer took a lease
he was perk ctly well able to arrange
his own affairs with his landlord, but at the
same time, looking at the circumstances,he really thought
if a tenant under a lease had a knowledge that he would
not, on the expiration of the lease, have aright to reeeive
a fair compensation for his unexhausted improvements,
he would be deprived of much of the stimulus to set on
foot those improvements which he would otherwise
have, and it would be most undoubtedly attended with
injustice to him. Therefore he (Mr. Palmer) had no
hesitation in supporting the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. PACKS thought. the principle of the Bill seemed
to be to remedy a serious evil as regards the tenant-
farmer; but it fell particularly hard in many instances,
such as he knew, of a landlord who became insolvent,
when the prope-ty fell into the hands of the creditors--
(Hear, hear)—and no mercy was then shown to the old
&I of tenantry, who had laid out all their capi-
tal on the land, and their ancestors before them.
He would give power certainly as definitely as he could
to the landlord to grant the tenant compensation for the
capital which he had sunk upon the farm. But there
were great difficulties in the way of giving him any au-
thority to allow the tenant to remove the erntien3 which

he had put up. That was especially great in the case
where old buildings had been repaired, for it had often
occurred that the landlord had found the materials and
the tenant the workmanship, and it was impossible to
discriminate between the two, so as t;* ascertain where
the right of property of the one Hide] and where that
of the other begun. Yet the Bill, though liable to much
objection, might, in his opinion, be very easily tern ded
in Committee, and he at least would give it his hearty
support.
Mr. HENLEY said that if this Bill were intended to
interfere between landlord and tenant he should most
decidedly be one of the last to gave it any support, hot,
looking upon it as what it really was, an aiding Bill.
he should most readily vote for the second reading.—
(Hear, hear.) It would, in fact, enable the landlords to
do for their tenants what they had long been desirous of
doing. He knew that many farmers had great objections
to take long leases, and he thought that this alteration
would do much towards alleviating their apprehensions
of the loss of their invested capital. It was oaly
custom that they were in some places en
ogled to get an) thing, and where the r ecompense
aas not granted it would take more than
twenty years to establish the custom. The Bill could, in
his opinion, also tend to erscourage the tenants holeins
under will; for it was an impression of his, that :he
tenants under lease were much more likely to rem the
land out, than those occupiers were whose tenancy wa,
under will. Many of the clauses of the Bill would
want alteration, but the two principles were
such as he greatly admired and believed, would
prove eminently useful. The first of these was
that which would enable persons who had only a limited
interest to charge the property in their hands with the
several amounts which had been expended in its im-
provement, and the other was, that in consequence of
the existence of this first principle, tenants, whether
under lease or from year to year, would see that they
had come protection for the expenditure of their
capital; and he should therefore give the Bill his most
cordial support. With respect to leases, the Bill wouLi
neither induce or prevent any inducement to take leases,
and if any proposition was made for a Committee up
stairs after the second reading he should support it.
Mrs SIDNEY HERBER r was particularly rejoiced
that the matter had been brought under the considera-
tion of the House, although he thought that it was
rather inadvisable at this juncture to refer the Bib
to a Committee up stairs, for if it were to be carried
into effect hardly a landlord would be found that
would be inclined to grant a lease—(" Hear, hear,"
and counter ironical cheers)—especially as there was just
now a disturbance in the agricultural mind—(Cheers,
and great laughter)—when there was a panic, or a
species of panic, prevailing among the farmers—('. Hear,
hear," cheers, and counter cheers)—as to what shall be
the result of the operat ion of that freedom of commerce
which had so lately ensued in the trade in grain.—
(Hear.) If the landlord was disinclined to grant, so
unquestionably the tenant farmers would be disinclined
to take leases. He had a great desire to further
this Bill, but he had a great objection to Committees up-
stairs, and he thought that a better plan would be to
summon a select Committee, say of three or tour, in the
dining-romn of the Hun. Member for Berkshire—
(Great laughter)—three or four gentlemen who did
really take an interest in the question—(Great laughter)
—and if he might suggest, the Hon. Member for Ox.
fordshire might take the chair.—(Laughter.) - The
matter would then be properly discussed, and they would
be enabled to go on with a better start. Committees
up stairs—ha was very sorry to say it—but Committees
up stairs were very apt to shelf whatever they were left
to consider; and in his opinion the sooner this was set-
tled the better.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that in justice to the
farmers this matter ought not to be treated so lightly.
He (Mr. Newdegate) could not at all agree with the
Hun. Gentleman who had just sat down in the tone
of pleasantry with which he had alluded to the great
change which had just taken place in the commercial
relations of agricultural produce. For his own part,
he viewed that change with grave and very serious ap-
prehensions, and in alluding to it he might remind the
Hon. Gentleman of the expression which he had used
in a former session upon this subject. The Honourable
Gentleman had said that the farmers had come
" whining" to that House with their complaints. He
(Mr. Newdegate) would wish to tell him that the next
time they had to complain, the more proper appellation
to be given to their expression would be a "growl."
Mr. MULLINGS thought the Bill would lead in
many instances to great injustice, and that there would
be the greatest difficulty in carrying out many of
its provisions. He wished to call the attention
of the Attorney-General to thoseslifficulties. Whatever
legislation they might adopt the subjects involved in
the Bill would be matter of contract between the
parties concerned. They ought to have a preli-
minary Act of Parliament enabling tenants for
lire to grant leases before passing a measure
like this. He should oppose the second reading of the
Bill in the most determined manner.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL admitted the force of
the argument of the Hon. Member as to the details of
the Bill, but thought that was no ground for opposing
its second reading.
Mr. HERBERT would support the second reading of
the Bill, although he should feel bound to propose
amendments to many of its provisions in Committee.
After some observations from Mr. BASS,
Mr. PUSEY replied.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading .. ... 147
Against it ...
••• 11
Majority in favour of itl36
The Bill was accordingly read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed this day week.
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY CONVEY-
ANCE BILL.
On the motion of Mr. HEADLANT this Bill was read
a second time, and ordered to he committed.
CLERGY RELIEF BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. LACY rose to move as an amendment, that it
be read a second time this day six months, because he
thought the Bill held out a premium to persons in holy
orders to act with insincerity. There were many men
in the Church of England who would avail themselves
of the provisions of this Bill in the event of the
death of a relative, or any other accidental cir-
cumstance, affording them an opportunity of de-
voting their attention to a more profitable em-
ployment than officiating as clergymen, which
might induce them to come forward and make a solemn
declaration, as the Bill provided, if they dissented
from the United Church of England and Ireland.—
(Hear.) Why did not the Bill go the length of pro-
viding that any clergyman of the Church of England
might become a layman again? Why should he be
rather allowed to become a Dissenting lay-
man and not a Church layman?--(dear, hear.)
In his opinion that mode of legislation would
have been much more politic
,than the present, which
held out an inducement for clergymen to leave the
Church under false pretences.—(Hear.) He had there-
fore felt it tnbe his duty to himself and the country to
move the amendment, in the hope that it would have the
effect of inducing some alterations in the provisions of
the Bill, and making it less susceptible of in-
ducing parties to make solemn declarations for
sordid and sinister ends.—(Cries of "Hear, hear,")
He would much rather give his assent to a Bill which
allowed a clergyman to leave the Church without making
any declaration, than to such a measure as that, which
he considered held out a premium to insincerity. He
did not think that the great bulk of the Church would
take advantage of the Bill, but he believed there were
some who would avail themselves of it without con

scientiously holding the opinions of Dissenters. Upon
these grounds he begged to move that it be read a second

ime that day six months.
Mr. FORBES seconded the amendment.

Mr. BOUVERIE said, whe❑ he introduced the Bill,
he stated its general purport and object, and he did not
now think it necessary to trouble the House with a re-
petition of the statement. The law which prevented a
clergyman relieving himself from the vows Which he had
once taken, and which subjected him to fines and
imprisonment if he attempted to do so, was so unreason-
able that he thought few in the Rouse would refuse to
give their assent to a measure which proposed to abolish
such an oppressive enactment.