The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-28 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-MONDAY.

The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the woolsack at
five o'clock.
DEATH OF THE EARL OF CLARENDON.
Earl GRANVILLE, in asking Lord Westbury to postpone
the motion which stood in his name, expressed the great
loss the Sovereign, the Government, and the country had
sustained by the death of the Earl of Clarendon, which
took place that morning. The noble earl then passed a
very high tribute of praise on the great and singular
ability of the deceased nobleman, and to the high es tima-
tion in which he had been held by the sovereigns of
Europe, and expressed the deepest regret at the loss of so
great and distinguished a colleague. He said lie was only
prevented moving the adjournment of the House by its
creating a precedent which it might not be advisable to
follow.—The Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Derby, and
Lord Cowley gave expression to their deep regret at the
great loss the public service had sustained by the sudden
death of the noble earL

The Benefices Resignation Bill then passed through
committee.

The Felony Bill was read a third time and passed.

THE IRISH LAND BILL.

Their lordships then went into committee on this bill,
resuming at clause 4. The first amendment made was
that moved by the Marquis of Clanricarde, who limited
under certain cases compensation for improvements
made twenty years before any claim for com-
pensation shall have been made. An amendment
was also moved to the clause by Lord Cloncurry,
to the effect that a tenant should not be en-
titled to compensation in respect of any improvements
made with money advanced by the Board of Works.—A
discussion ensued, but as Earl Granville said the proposal
should be thought over before the bringing up of the re-
port the amendment was not pressed.—A number of
trifling amendments were then severally proposed, but all
of them were withdrawn with the exception of one by
Lord Dunsany, preventing any tenant or occupier, with
out the previous consent in writing of the landlord,
breaking up or tilling any land usually let as grazing or
grass land, or let expressly as grazing or meadow land, or
from cutting down timber.—An amendment was then
moved by the Duke of Richmond to insert at the end of
the clause a proviso to the effect that twenty years' en-
joyment by the tenant or his predecessors in title should
extinguish his claim under the clause in the case of all
improvements other than permanent buildings and recla-
mation of waste lands ; that an enjoyment of 41 years
should extinguish the claim in case of permanent
buildings ; and that 31 years' enjoyment should ex-
tinguish the claim in respect of the reclamation of waste
lands.—The Earl of Kimberley thought that the principle
which ought to be recognised in the matter of compensa-
tion was that the landlord should pay the tenant the
then value of the improvements' at the expiration of the
contract, and the introduction of the element of time as
suggested in the amendment proposed by the noble duke
would only tend to complicate the matter. A discussion
followed, but the amendment was withdrawn, the noble
duke reserving the right of re-introducing it at a future
stage if he should think it necessary. The clause was
then agreed to.

On clause 5 being proposed the Marquis of Clamicarde
moved an amendment omitting all the words after the
word " usage " for the purpose of inserting the following :
" All claims for improvements under this act, put forward
either by landlord or tenant, shall be proved by evidence,
and such evidence shall be subject to appeal."—Lord
O'Hagan said that evidence where the improvements had
been effected by the landlords could easily be brought
forward, they could call their agents or workmen or produce
their accounts, but no such evidence could be put forward
by the tenants, because they kept no records of the cost
ofthe improvements, as they were works which extended
over very long periods, and had been effected by the
united efforts of their families. It would be extremely
unfair to throw the burthen of proof on the tenants, espe-
cially where the presumption was in their favour. He
was quite certain no landlord in Ireland would suffer any
injustice from the clause remaining as it at present stood.

—The Duke of Richmond thought it somewhat novel to
hear a noble and learned lord stating that a person making
a claim should not be called upon to prove it by evidence.
He was not disposed to agree that the presumption as to
improvement was in favour of the tenant, and he felt that
various difficulties would arise, for the landlord was called
to produce his books to show the cost of any particular
improvement he had effected.—Earl Granville strongly
objected to the amendment as one-sided and unfair.—
The Earl of Bessborough thought the landlords could
easily prove the cost of their improvements, so that if
the amendment proposed was made he considered a
great' injustice would be done to the tenants.—Lord
Chelmsford supported the proposed amendment, whilst
the Marquis of Lansdowne said if it was carried
it would, to a certain extent, increase the difficulty that
would arise from the alteration that had already been
made in the bill, and be a great injustice to the tenants
of Ireland. Lord Cairns insisted that the making the
books of the agents evidence of improvements against the
tenants was an injustice to the tenant, and a proposal to
which he should offer the strongest opposition. That
being so with respect to one side, he did not see why the
tenants' books should be taken as evidence against the
landlord.—The Marquis of Clanricarde, after some dis-
cussion, altered his amendment by striking out that part
of it relating to appeal. Their lordships divided, when
there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it

. 122

The amendment was therefore carried by a majority of

39.—Th3 Duke of Richmond then moved an addition to
the clause permitting landlords and tenants to file
schedules in the landed estates courts claiming improve-
ments, such schedules to be primd facie evidence of the
improvements having been made as specified, notice being
given by the landlord to the tenant of intention to fill
such schedule, the tenant being at liberty to dispute the
claim in the Civil Bill Court.—Lord Athlumney thought
the effect of the amendment, if made, would lead to endless

preliminary disputes arising between landlord and tenant.
—Earl Granville said he did not approve of the proposed
addition to the clause, but he should not put their lord-
ships to the trouble of dividing.—The words were then
added, and the clause, as amended, was ordered to stand
part of the bill.
Clause 6 was agreed to, with a verbal amendment : so
also was clause 7.—On clause 8 being proposed, the Duke
of Richmond moved an amendment to the effect that

ejectment for non-payment of rent or for breach of any
condition which should appear to the judge before whom
the ejection was tried to be a reasonable condition should

not be deemed disturbance of the tenant by act of the
landlord.—The Marquis of Salisbury condemned this

clause as one of the black parts of the bill.—The Earl of
Kimberley said the provision was open to some of the

exceptions of the noble marquis, but it was framed to

meet extreme cases.—Earl Granville said he could not
accept the amendment, but he would not put their lord-
ships to the trouble of dividing.—The words were then
added to the clause. which was then ordered to stand
part of the bill. Clause 9 was agreed to.
Their lordships rose at five minutes to one.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY.
THE EDUCATION BILL.

In the debate which followed the remarks of the Vice-
President of the Council, Sir Charles Adderley complained
that the alterations which had just been announced were
of a very serious character, whilst Mr. Dixon, the mem-
ber for Birmingham, thanked the Government for the
concessions which they had made, although he spoke in
favour of the amendment. Without school boards, he
said, they could not enforce the compulsory law, however
mild and lenient.—Lord Henley agreed with the member
for North Staffordshire that the amendments proposed
by the Government were serious, and amid tokens of
dissent he said it seemed that the school boards were to
be created not by the bill, but by the education depart-
ment. Some excitement at this stage of the proceedings
was imparted to the committee, and all the customary
talkers seemed inclined to give expression to their
opinions.—ln reply to Sir R. Knightley, Mr. Walter
expressed his determination to take the sense of the com-
mittee on his proposition. Sir Henry Hoare, the mem-
ber for Chelsea, put his foot in it, as the saying goes, and
received a calm but stern rebuke from Mr. Candlish, the
member for Sunderland.—The hon. baronet said the re-
marks of Sir Charles Adderley had convinced him more
than ever of the wide gulf which separated the two parties
in the House in the matter of education. This declara
tion evoked loud cries of " No, no," and other unmistak-
able signs of disapprobation, contrasting strongly with
the loud and repeated shouts of laughter which accom-
panied an expression which the hon. member for Chelsea
Was unguarded enough to make—" compulsory coercion."
Mr. Candlish, in reproving the intemperate language of
Sir Henry, gave utterance to an opinion which re-
ceived an almost general endorsement, namely, that a
good bill eould only be passed by the union of parties.
Mr. Fawcett said it seemed now that they were not only
to have permissive compulsion, but permissive school
boards. He believed that it would be found that no
general defining of school accommodation would be found
in the rural districts, and that in bripging into ((Ice a

complicated machinery to supply those districts with
schools they were not striking at the great source of edu-
cational deficiency. What was required was not so much
schools as a greater attendance at those which had been
provided, he was bound to say, chiefly by the enthusiasm
of the clergy.—On a division taking place, the amendment
was rejected by a majority of 303 against 112. There was
a feeble attempt at- a cheer on the part of the supporters
of the amendment.—ln the absence of Mr. Vernon Har-
court, Sir Charles Mice moved to insert words which
he considered would define " public school accommoda-
tion," but Mr. Fowler could not accept the
poposition, inasmuch as sufficient interpretation was
given to the phrase in subsequent clauses, but he had
no objection when they came to the consideration of
clause 8 to add the word "suitable " by way of explana-
tion. On the understanding that the discussion would be
re sewed on clause 8, the hon. baronet withdrew the
amendment.-'—On proceeding to the consideration of clause
6, the Vice-President of the Council moved an amend-
ment in reference to the supply of schools in case of de-
ficiency, omitting words which applied only before the
year of grace was abandoned. The right hon. gentleman,
referring to the contemplated year of grace, said there
were disadvantages in the twelve months in regard to
large towns, and the operation of the bill would be delayed
if they adopted the year of grace.—Mr. G. Hardy called
attention to the omission of the year of grace, but the
Vice-President thought the question as to whether it should
be retained or otherwise would best be discussed
afterwards.—As considerable objection was taken to the
amendment it was modified and agreed to.—At a quarter
to eight the committee had reached the seventh clause,
and the members proceeded to leave by twos and threes
for dinner.—When Mr. Corrance rose to urge upon the
committee the acceptance!of his amendment on Clause 7
very few of his own party remained in the House, and
the Liberal benches were but partially occupied. The
hon. member for East Suffolk, although he did not speak
long, tried the patience of the committee, and he was
eventually obliged to resume his seat, in obedience to
cries of " Vide, vide." His object was to make the regu-
lations for the conduct of elemementary schools apply to
schools constituted from and after the passing of the Act,
and subject to any board or rating authority. Finding that
the proposition found no favour with the committee, the hon.
gentleman did not care to occasion the trouble of dividing.
The hon. member for Merthyr Tydvil intimated that the
member for Stroud had asked him to state that he
withdrew the first three propositions of which he had
given notice, but would bring forward the fourth at a
subsequent period.—Mr. Serjeant Simon proposed an
amendment in effect that not only should the child be ex-
empted from attending religious worship or religious in-
struction either in school or elsewhere to which he
objected, but that he should not have it made a
condition of attending school that he should do
so on days and occasions he held sacred. The
hon. gentleman, however, withdrew his amendment
after a few words from the Vice-President, who said that
he thought the case was met by the word " abstain " in
the clause ; but if that were not sufficient, he should be
willing to further consider the proposal.—Mr. Pease
raised a long discussion on a proposition in reference to
the time when any religious observance should be prac-
tised or instruction in religious subjects given. He pro-
posed to leave out the words " either at the beginning or at
the end, or at the beginning and the end of such meeting."
A great difference of opinion was manifested, and Mr.
Forster, who admitted the importance of the subject, said
it was one which occasioned the Government great diffi-
culty. It was impossible, he argued, to deny the exist-
ence of a strong feeling that religious and secular instruc-
tion should be separate, and that was the reason a limit
had been made in that respect. According to the present
proposal there could be four opportunities of giving reli-
gious instruction. The member for the University of
Cambridge was of opinion that it had been argued as if
the motion of the hon. member for South Durham was of
an exclusive instead of an inclusive proposition, and was
antagonistic to the four meetings for religious teaching.
Many other hon. gentlemen addressed themselves to the
subject, but the committee were impatient to go to a
division. Shortly before half-past ten the committee
divided, and the amendment was lost by 222 to 122 votes.
An amendment was proposed by Dr. Brewer, that no
scholar should be privileged to attend the instruction in
religious subjects or any religious service held within
school hours except at the request of the parents or
guardians of such child, and prescribing the form of the
request. The right hon. gentleman experienced a perfect
storm of opposition, and was constantly interrupted by
both sides of the House. The proposal was ultimately
negatived without a division. Towards midnight the
attendance again became large, and when a division at
about 11.30 took place on a proposition made by the
member for Birmingham with reference to the withdrawal
of a scholar during the time of religious teaching or
observance there were 414 members present. Mr. Dixon
moved that religious instruction should not be
given in a room where secular instruction was be-
ing conducted.—Sir Roundel] Palmer received great
applause when he said that it appeared to him as if the
hon. member for Birmingham had never been to school
in his life. His experience taught him that different
classes were going on at the same time. The Vice-Presi-
dent of the Council, whilst he acknowledged the clear-
ness of the amendment, could not accept it, and Mr.
Dixon said he would withdraw his proposition for the
present.
Several other amendments were considered, and at a
quarter to one progress was reported, and a rush was
made for the " members' train."
The bill will be further considered at the morning
sitting on Tuesday.
SLIGO AND CASHEL DISFRANCHISEMENT