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

PETITIONS.

An Hole. MEMBER presented a petition in favour of
international arbitration.
Sir C. MACNAGHTEN presented a petition from
Antrim against the rate in aid.
Mr. THORNELY presented two petitions from places
in Lancashire, complaining of the county rate expen-
diture.
Mr. BROWN presented similar petitions from other
places in the same county.
Lord HOTHAM presented a petition from a place in
the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying the House to
take into consideration the present distressed state of the
. agricultural interest, with the view of removing the
special burdens which pressed upon it.
Mr. CHRIsToPHER and Mr. MOODY presented peti-
tions 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. H. 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•
. tion in Dursetshire, 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. HERRIES presented a second petition from
Liverpool, signed by 16,000 persons, against the repeal
• of the navigation laws.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a-petition 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 PATTI4eN 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 motiiin of Mr. LOCKE KING leave of absence
was given to Mr. Alcock till after 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
/1,1113 e. 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 he 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, on Friday
next, ho should move by way of amendment, 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 opplied to
cases where no such evils as those it was intended to care
existed. A perfect and cordial understanding existed
between himself (Colonel Sibthorp) and his tenants; but
if this Bill were passed, he confidently believed a fatal
blow would be struck to that mutual confidence which
• had so long existed between the generality of
landlords and tenants. If the practice of in-
troducing Bills to meet partial evils were
permitted, he 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. Elow 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 He 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 understood 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 H. 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 taken a
course which had prevented the farmers of this country
having leases, and by introducing the 50th (tenant-at-
will) clause 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, hesr.)
Mr. CHRISTOYHER 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 p er-
lectly 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.) Ha was, however, opposed to this
131.1, because he was against all interference whatever
with landlord and tenant. It appeared to him that the
object of thu Bill WAs not to give powers to grant a
lease, but to give power to the persons who were tenants
for lire of an estate to make an agreement, under certain
circumstances, the incoLoing tenant, that if he
should happen to ee di.sp!..^ced he should receive a com-
pensation for the tint xtnusted improvements on his
land. Now, his upiniva 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 partioular locality. without the intervention of any
compulsory or legislative Act. All legislative inter-
ference was unnecessary; and having objected on those
grounds hitherto to all interference between landlord
and tenant, he thought still that they might be left to
arrange their own affeirs. 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 bad 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
heon
. n a
would continue in its occupation so long as he went
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( Mr:Palmer) was per-
fectly well aware that. whew. thenEe farmeri took a lease
he was perfectly 0 a
his own affairs with his landlord,to arrange
but at the
same time, looking at the cireumstances,he really thought
if a tenant under a lease had a knowledge that he would
not, on the expiration of the lease, have arightto receive
a fair compensation for hie uinexhausted 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. PACKE 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 property fell into the hands of the creditors—
(Hear, hear)—and no mercy was then shown to the old
set 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 erections 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 to ascertain where
the right of property of the one ended and where that
of the other begun. Yet the Bill, though liable to much
objection, might, in his opinion, be very easily mended
in Committee, and he at least would give it his hearty
support.
Mr. IiENLEY said that if this Bill were intended to
interfere between landlord and tenant, he should most
decidedly be one of the last to give it any support, but,
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 bad 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 only by
custom that they were in some places en-
abled to get anything, and where the zecompense
was not granted it would take more than
twenty years to establish the custom. The Bill a ould, in
his opinion, also tend to encourage the tenants holding
under will; for it was an impression of his, that the
tenants under lease were much more likely to run the
land out, than those occupiers were whose tenancy was
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 some protection for the expenditure of their
capital; and he should therefore give the Bill his most
cordial support. With respect to leases, the Bill would
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.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT 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 Bill
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 four, in the
dining-room of the Hon. 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—he 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. NEWDEG ATE 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
Hon. Gentleman who bad 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 si-ssion upon this subject. The Honourable
Gentleman bad 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 those,difficulties. Whatever
legislation they might adopt the subjects involved in
the Bill would bo 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 it ... -136
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. HEADLAM this Bill was read
a second time, and ordered to be committed.