The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-24 00:00:00

THIS MORNING'S NEWS.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-THURSDAY.

- -
The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the woolsack at
five o'clock, at which hour there was a very full attend-
ance of peers, nearly every seat on either side of the
House being occupied.
The Ecclesiastical Dilapidation Bill passed through
committee.

THE IRISH LAND BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
the Earl of LUCAN rose and made a violent speech
against the measure, which he denounced as a robbery,
outrageous and illusory, and one that was not wanted by
the tenants of Ireland. The bill had been brought for-
ward solely for the benefit of the landlords, and the com-
motions that had been got up in its favour had all been
attributable to the influence of the Government. Earl
Granville declined to reply to the noble lord's remarks,
which he thought ought to have been made when the
second reading of the bill was under consideration.
Their lordships then went into committee on the bill.
On clause 1, relating to the Ulster custom, being pro-
posed, Lord CAIRNS moved to insert words setting forth
that such holding should be on the estate of which such
holding at the passing of the Act forms a part. The
amendment, which was opposed by Lord Halifax, Lord
Dufferin, and Earl Granville, was withdrawn.
The Earl of DARTRY also moved an amendment, to the
effect that nothing in the Act should affect the right of
the landlord either to refuse or accept a new tenant upon
any change of tenantry, but it was withdrawn. On the
motion of Lord Cairns, the clause was so amended that
the Ulster custom was to cease when the landlord had
"acquired" as well as purchased it. The Duke of RICH-
MOND moved an amendment that the option given to the
tenant under the Ulster custom to claim compensation
under the other clauses should only apply if the court was
of opinion that it involved no injustice or breach of con-
tract. Earl Granville thought the amendment useless,
but Lord Cairns differed from him in opinion. The Lord
Chancellor of Ireland (Lord O'Hagan) made his maiden
speech in the House of Peers in supporting the view
Earl Granville had taken of the proposal. He expressed an
opinion that if the bill passed, without material alteration
it would prove a blessing to Ireland, and tend more than
anything else to strengthen the attachment to the throne.
The noble lord spoke under extreme nervousness for a
few moments, but before he had finished his remarks he
had entirely recovered his self-possession. The amend-
ment was opposed by Lord Westbury and the Lord Chan-
cellor, and supported by the Marquis of Salisbury, who
pounced upon one of the observations of the noble duke
and learned lord who proceeded him, and said his lord-
ship by accident had stated the true object of the bill,
which was to upset altogether all past contracts. A divi-
sion at one time seemed imminent upon the amendment,
but as Earl Granville promised to consider the proposal
of the noble duke previous to the bringing up of the re-
port, the noble duke withdrew his amendment. The
clause as amended was then agreed to.
Clause 2 was agreed to after a verbal amendment had
been made at the instance of the Earl of Leitrim.
On clause 3, which relates to compensation for dis-
turbances in the absence of custom, the Duke of RICH-
MOND disapproved of the entire scale of compensation as
set out in the bill. In his opinion the Government pro-
posal was too high, and would entirely fail as far as small
holdings were concerned. He therefore moved to limit
the highest scale of compensation to six years instead of
seven, and to reduce the limit from holdings of £lO value to
£4 and under, and to limit the five years scale to holdings
under £2O instead of £3O. A discussion followed the pro-
position, which was supported by Lord Clancarty, the
Earl of Bandon, the Earl of Meath, Earl Grey, and the
Marquis of Salisbury, but Lord Granville, Earl Russell,
the Duke of Argyll, and Viscount Halifax strongly opposed
the amendment. Their lordships divided, when there
appeared,
For the amendment
Against 7l

Majority against 2l
Another amendment was moved by the Earl of LITCH-
FIELD, to the effect that when the rent had been raised in
consequence of improvements effected by the landlord a
deduction should be made in the annual sum claimed as
the rent for the purposes of compensation, not exceeding
5 per cent. interest on the sum so expended in improve-
ments effected by the landlord, and that there should be
a presumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary
that the increase was in consequence of the outlay.
A
This amendment was opposed by the Government.
division took place, when there appeared—
For the amendment
72
Against it
The Government were thus again in a minority this
time of 41.
On the motion of the Duke o R
f ICHMOND the paragraph
was struck out giving a tenant in a higher class of the
scale an option of claiming to be compensated in so much
of his rent as will bring him into a lower class, with the
understanding that Government would bring in the
proviso again with the amendments necessary to bring it
into harmony with the rest of the bill.
The Earl of CLANCARTY moved an amendment, that no
compensation should be given for disturbance under the
clause to any tenant exhibiting an example of habitual
drunkenness, vice, or immorality, or who had been con-
victed for felony or misdemeanour.
The amendment was withdrawn, but not before Lord
CAIRNS had expressed an opinion that the Government
oueht to frame some words to encourage moral conduct
on the part of the tenant.
An amendment was th en moved by the Duke of Rim-
moND, that the letting 'land in conacre should disqualify
for compensation for disturbance.
The House divided, when there appeared—
-142
For the amendment
Against lOB
The amendment was carried in this case also against
the wishes of the Government by a majority of 34. The
Duke of Richmond then moved an twill the
that in
any assignment of a will otherwise m
thadn b mey
assignee shall not be entitled to compensation for dis-
turbance unless and until he has been accepted by the
landlord. Earl Granville objected to the proposal, as it
would take away the right which the tenant had by com-
mon law and custom. Lord Cairns was of a different
opinion—he did not think the amendment would deprive
the Irish tenant of any existing legal right. A long
discussion ensued, which ended in time being allowed to
the noble earl (Granville), on the part of the Govern-
ment, to consider the propriety of framing a clause to
meet the amendment.
The Chairman reported progress at five minutes to one,
when their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THURSDAY.
The Speaker, who took the chair at five minutes to four
o'clock, was loudly cheered as he entered the House
consequent upon his return fom Oxford, where on the
previous day he had the degreer of D.C.L. conferred upon

him.
THE ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
At a quarter to five the debate on Mr. Richards's
amendment was resumed by Mr. Dixon, the member for
Birmingham. The hon. member for Merthyr Tydvil
proposed that the grants to existing denominational
schools should not be increased, and that in any national
system of elementary education the attendance should
everywhere compulsory, and that the religious instruction
he should be supplied by voluntary effort, and not out of
public funds. When the discussion was recommenced
the benches, which, during the time devoted to the pre-
sentment of petitions and to questioning, were nearly
empty, were well filled. The Treasury bench was
scarcely occupied, Mr. Gladstone being conspicuous by
his absence. The strangers and the Speaker's galleries
were filled with spectators, who seemed to take a deep and
earnest interest in the proceedings. There were very
few ladies behind the screen, a somewhat noteworthy
fact, inasmuch as they have hitherto taken a very marked
interest in social'questions. Over the clock sat the Rajah
of Cawnpore, and the Under Secretary of State for India
, with him.

Mr. DIXON pointed out what he considered the defects
of the bill. He objected to the permissive compulsory
enactment. There was another principle, he said, which
was very imperfectly carried out. Educational statistics
chewed that one of the great causes of ignorance was the
poverty of the parents, and admitting this the Govern-
ment said, " Now we are going to enforce a
compulsory law we will remove this difficulty by allowing
the School BOard to admit free those who can prove
poverty." In reply to that the people said that all who
receive that assistance would be in the position of paupers
because they would be receiving relief from the
rates, although for mental and not bodily food. He con-
tended that the Government would not even then
remove the difficulty, because there were hundreds of
thousands immediately above this lowest pauper class
who wouldstillbe in a position of the greatest difficulty, and
whether there were a compulsory tax or not they would
be unable to educate their children unless they had assist-
ance. He had no objection to the public exchequer
bearing the cost of the schools. The people did not wish
to recognise any distinctions of class, but that the schools