The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-10 00:00:00

IRISH TITHES BILL:

Sir R. PEEL wished to know what course the Noble Lord
intended to pursue with respect to the Irish Tithes Bill?
Lord J. RUSSELL wished rather to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet what course he meant to pursue ? He understood the
Right Hon. Bart. to say he thought it desir able that the Irish
Tithe Bill should not be read a second time till an opportunity
was afforded of sending it to Ireland, and obtaining some opi-
nion upon it. If that were still the view of the Right Hon.
Baronet, there would not be sufficient time to send the Bill to
Ireland, and have it considered there before the holidays, and
he (Lord John Russell) would in that case defer the second
reading till after the holidays—say to the 30th of the present
month. If, on the contrary, the Right Hon. Bart. did not
take the same view of it, he had no wish to postpone it.
Sir R. PEEL did take the same view of it, and that without
reference to this particular Bill, but to all Bilis. When mea-
sures of such importance were brought forward, it was only fair
that a sufficient interval should be suffered to elapse to allow
of its recommendations to be taken into consideration. He
thought it better, therefore, that under present circumstances,
the second reading of this Bill should be deferred tili after the
holydays.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought it reasonable that the second
recond reading should be postponed ; and therefore he would
make no objection to it. He would postpone it to Monday,
the 30th of May, or to the 2d of June.
Sir R.. PEEL thought that there was generally a thin at-
tendance on the first day of meeting, and that therefore one or
two days after would better suit the general convenience.
Lord J. RUSSELL would postpone it till Wednesday,
.the Ist of June.
OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. WARBURTON brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee appointed to inquire into the fees, &c. of the officers of
the House.

Mr. HUME gave notice that he would, as soon as the Report
was printed, submit to the House a resolution, with a view of
carrying it into effect, and of taking the opinion of the House
upon its recommendationa.
TITLES TO ESTATES.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

The Order of the Day having been read for resuming the
debate on this question,
Mr. PEASE proceeded to address the House, but from the
noise occasioned by lion. Members leaving their places, his
observations did not fully reach the gallery. He was under-
stood to object to the dmendment, and to support the
original resolutions, which was was only, in his opinion,
an act of justice both to the landed proprietors and to the rail-
way companies. He was surprised to hear the terms of the
amendment, which were in point of fact relieving the railway
companies from the contract into whith they had entered, and
which he trusted would not receive the assent of the House.

Mr. TOO RE said the object of the present proposition was
to protect landowners from the extortion of Railway Com-
panies, but he thought the Railway Companies required some
protection from the extortion of the landed proprietors.
There were many curious instances of that extortion on re-
cord, and even so far back as the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway, a landowner, not content with obtaining an enormous
sum as compensation for what he considered an intolerable
nuisance, actually demanded and was:paid 500/. to build his
house elsewhere, alleging that he could not live so near the
railway, and yet, after the railway was finished, he enlarged
his house, for the purpose of having a better view of it. The
landowners were fully capable of defending themselves, with-
out this additional protection, which would be in its operation
very injurious to the interests of public companies.
Mr. 11 UM E thought the matter was one of very great im-
portance, and ought to be well and seriously considered in a
Committee. He objected to both propositions as being too
exclusive.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would not agree to the
proposition of the Hon. Member who moved the resolutions,
though he could not support the amendment of the Member
for Truro.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY believed the question could be best
considered in Committee.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY thought that the time of the House
would be saved by referring this Resolution to a Committee,
where it might be fairly and properly argued and decided.
He had no objection that it should be referred to the same
Committee as the resolution of his' Hon. Friend.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought the question was one well
worthy the consideration of the House. He did not think
it a subject fur a Committee. The question was one
of principle, upon which, after a Committee of ten or
fifteen Members had decided, the House would be as much
abroad as it was now.—( Hear.) The suggestion of the
Hon. Member, that there should be some plan to enable the
parties through whose land the railways should go, to make
a title, without going through that strict investigation which
was generally gone through where the parties were willing,
vendor and vendee. He was surprised at the statements
of the So'icitor-General, that thz,ie was no necessity for the
provision proposed by the Hon. Member for South Durham,
because the Jaw as it now stood enabled parties to re-