The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

Noble Marquis
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 22.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
SPAIN.
Lord STANLEY wished to put a question to the
corre-
spondence between the Spanish Government and the
opposite relative to the recent
Government of her •Mujesty. Afier the Spanish Go-
vernment had taken the very strange step, which per-
haps could not he justified under any circumstances, of
dismissin., Sir H. Bulwer at so* short a notice, sup-
posing that it would excite great indignation in this
Country, they hastened to remove that impression by

sending over Count Mirasol to explain the circum-
stances under which so strong a course had been
adopted, and that gentleman arrived on the 25th of
May. But the Noble Viscount at the head of Foreign
Affairs—he would not say whether correctly or in-
correctly came to the conclusion that he would
not receive any communication from the Spanish
Government unless it came through Senor Istu-
ritz, the Spanish Minister here. In a private
note of the 29th of May the Spanish Ambassador told
Lord Palmerston that that he might have to transmit to
him the documents of which Count Mirasol had been the
bearer. His Lordship subsequently inquired when they
were to be forwarded, on which Senor Isturitz informed
him that ho did not feel himself authorised to present
the communication with which another individual had
been charged without first communicating with his Go-
vernment on the subject. On the 6th of Juno Lord Pal-
merston addressed to Senor Isturitz a letter, the conclud-
ing paragraph of which stated that her Majesty's Go-
vernment could not acquieFce in a course of proceeding
so disrespectful to the British Crown; and that if Count
Mirasol had brought any statement from the Government
of Spain in explanation or justification of the dismissal
of her Majesty's Minister from Madrid, he called upon
Senor Isturitz to send it in writing forthwith. The Noble
Lord went on in his letter to say that if he did not do so
it would be in vain to have any further communica-
tion on the subject, and her Majesty's Government would
assume that Count Mirasol had brought no statement
deserving of consideration, and that the Spanish Goeerte
meat in sending him had no becoming purpose in view.
The Noble Lord then referred to a letter of the 7th of
June, but so indistinctly that we could not catch its
purport. To that letter Lord Palmerston replied on the
12th of June, intimating that Senor Isturitz (so we
understood the Noble Lord) would do well to quit the
country forthwith. And on the 14th of June, without
having had an opportunity of submitting to the British
Government the papers explanatory of the motives of
the Spanish Government, which had been sent by a con-
fidential agent, and with such haste that, he believed,
that agent had arrived in this country before Sir
Henry Bulwer, the Spanish Ambassador quitted
England. It was under these circumstances that
the Government had laid the correspondence on
the table, with an intimation that it had wholly
and entirely closed. He believed, however, that within
twenty-four hours after Senor Isturiti had left this
country a courier arrived with dispatches giving permis-
sion to him to communicate to the British Government
the documents brought by Count Mirasol, and other
papers as well. And if the Spanish Government had
a justifiable cause for believing that the British Minister
at Madrid had been departing from his ordinary duties
and intriguing to overthrow the Government of the
Queen of Spain, it would go far to explain the con-
duct of the Spanish Government. Parliament was,
however, to be called on to decide this most important
question in the absence of that justification which the
Spanish Government had forwarded by a special envoy.
He wished to ask the Noble Marquis, first,
whether a supplementary communication had in
the first instance been made by Count Mirasol, and
whether directions had subsequently been given
to the Spanish Minister here to make that communi-
cation? If so, whether it had been made; and if made,
whether it had been accepted and received by the Fo-
reign•office? And if so received, he wished to know
whether it was the intention of Ministers to submit such
papers and explanations to the consideration of Parlia-
ment before they were called upon to decide on the
merits of the question?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE (who was all but
inaudible in the gallery) was understood to say that no
further communication had been made to her Majesty's
Government on the subject referred to. No communi-
cation, in fact, could have been received since diploma-
tic relations between the two countries had ceased.
Lord STANLEY wished to know whether since the
departure of Senor Isturitz there had been a tender by
any person whatever, on the part of the Spanish Go-
vernment, of the explanations to which he had referred?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNM was understood to
say that there had not, because it could not have been
received.
Lord BROUGHAM—Then we can only see one side
of the question.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said, that in such a state of
things they could not be called upon to pronounce any
opinion on the subject of the correspondence in question.
They must necessarily wait for that information which
had been declined by her Majesty's Government—they
must wait until the Spanish Government took the
means of communicating it to the world.—(Hear, hear.)
CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.

Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of this
Bill. His Lordship stated some of the alterations which
he proposed to make, as also the reasons why he thought
there should be a digest of the criminal law which should
make it more easily understood; and concluded by say-
ing it was his intention to refer the whole matter to
a Select Committe.
The LORD CHANCELLOR approved of the Noble
and Learned Lord's proposition to refer so complicated
a subject to a Select Committee.
Lord CAMPBELL also thought it desirable that the
measure should be fully considered.
The Earl of POWIS called attention to a clause in
the Bill enacting severe penalties on deans end chapters
for refusing to obey letters missive of the Crown nomi-
nating to bishoprics. He complained of such a clause,
and hoped it would not be allowed to pass without the
fullest consideration.
Lord BROUGHAM said the Bill proposed no more
than that which was now part of the law: of the land.
Lord DENMAN hoped this matter would be taken
altogether out of the criminal code. - Th 6 law had been
accidentally and carelessly enacted by a statute of Ed-
ward VI., and he thought there was a general wish that
it should be done away with.
After a few words from Lord ELLENBOROUGH, the
motion was agreed to; and Lord BROUGHAM nominated
the Select Committee.
COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT EXTENSION
BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Lord WIIARNCLIFFE presented a petition from the
lord of the manor of St. John, Clerkenwell, praying for
protection from certain provisions of the Bill, end
stated at some length the object which the petitioner
had in view. As far as could be collected in the gal-
lery, the petitioner objected to a compulsory valuation of
his property, and prayed exemption from the operation
of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the Bill was not
intended to interfere with any voluntary arrangements.
It professed only to deal with particular circumstances
of the tenure, which at present rendered the property
less valuable, and its object was to make the property
more valuable to both landlord and tenant.
Great inconvenience arose from the present copyhold
tenure. The Bill dealt with fines, heriots, wastes
(including the mode of dealing with the timber), and
sought to improve the interests of all parties concerned.
The operation of heriots was most injurious ;
if the holder of a copyhold tenement died, his most va-
luable property might be seized by the lord of the manor.
There were many other equally injurious things con-
nected with the copyhold tenure. Wastes were a very
uncertain source of profit to the lords of the manors,
owing to the difficulty of making a just estimate. To
remedy this, the Bill proposed to give a settled sum to
the landlord, to be made the subject of previous esti-
mates. The system of fines had operated most prejudi-
cially; its tendency in many cases was to prevent im-
provement by the tenant. He could cite a case in point,
where a small estate of six acres, in Herefordshire,
had been subjected to a fine of 4,0001., because the
Court of Chancery bad appointed the trustees, and
these were held to be so many new lives in the
lease, and a proportionate fine on renewal was
charged. The question was only settled after thirteen
years' litigation and four trials. The Bill also pro-
posed improvements in the matter of timber, for the
purpose of adjusting contending claims. It was
admitted at present that copyhold tenure prevented
the parties from deriving the full benefit of the property;
and to put an end to this state of things, it was proposed
to convert such property into freehold, by giving tenants
a right to call on the lords to accept a fair compensation
for their interest. One great difficulty which they had
had to deal with was the stewards' fees, which were re-
gulated by different customs in different manors. These
would be simplified by the establishment of a scale, and
interfered with as little as possible. It had been sug-
gested that in some cases an arbitrary fine might be ne-
cessary as a protection; and to meet these cases he should
propose a clause in Committee. He hoped their Lord-
. _

ships would consent to the second reading of this Bill,
which ho now moved.

The Marquis of SALISBURY said that in all cases
of this kind, where legislative interference had been exer-

cised, it had been customary to give a compensation, or
at least an option, to the parties who were likely to be
aggrieved. He believed that under the operation of
this Bill copyhold tenures would totally disappear. He
therefore moved that it be read a second time that day
six months.

Lord BEAUMONT thought the Bill desirable, but
objected to its taking away from the lord of the manor
the protection he now enjoyed without giving him any-
thing in lieu of it. It gave the copyhold tenant the
power of forcing a sale to the prejudice of the lord of
the: manor, while the latter had no power of forcing the
tenant to a commutation or sale of his interests. lle
would support the Bill, but hoped to see it altered in this
respect.
Lord REDESDALE said that the Bill amounted to
such a dangerous violation of principle, that, ir carried
one step further, it would place property in the same
position it now was in on the continent, and materially
affect the whole system of leases and lives. lie, there-
fore, supported the amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL defended the Bill as necessary to
remove an odium which justly attached to this descrip-
tion of tenure, but regretted that it did not make com-
mutation compulsory in all cases.
The Earl of HARROWBY observed, there was one
universal feeling in the country as to the great incon-
venience resulting from the existing system. Many of
the details of the Bill required further consideration in
Committee, but as to the principle, it was one which de-
served the assent of their Lordships.
Lord STANLEY said the Bill went much further than
the recommendation of the Commissioners, for it not
only made the enfranchisement compulsory as against,
the lord of the manor, or a certain number of the te-
nants joining together in demanding it, but it also em-
powered the lord, ho having consented to such demand,
to compel those tenants whose assent had not been ob-
tained to commute their copyhold into a permanent
tenure. The compulsory power as against the landlord
might be a great advantage to the rich copyholder, but
the compulsory power as against the tenant might be
productive of serious injury to the poor man who
had not the means to pay for the commutation. The Bill

was altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as voluntary com-
mutation, especially in regard to ecclesiastical property,
was now going on to no small extent ; but ho
jetted to it further on the ground that it was an im-
proper interference with_the rights of property, and if

his Noble Friend divided on his amendment, he should
vote with him.
Lord ABIN GER. thought it better to adhere to the
present system of voluntary commutation.
After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR
in reply,
Their Lordships divided, when there appeared—
Contents
Non-contents

-15

Majority.
The Bill was then read a second time.
EVICTED DESTITUTE POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the further
consideration of the amendments proposed on the report.
Lord MONTEAGLE said that he had assented to the
second reading of the Bill, believing that its principle
was in all fair and just cases to make provision for
evicted tenants. In its present shape, however, it was
open to many objections. He thought the notices should
be served on the relieving officer, who would be always
on the spot, instead of on the guardians of the union.
The Noble Lord then stated the substance of the amend-
ments which he meant to propose. His only object was
to secure relief to the evicted and really destitute tenants.
He would now move that the Bill be re-committed.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he should
not object to the re-committal of the Bill, having him-
self sundry amendments to propose.
After a conversation, the Lord Chancellor quitted the
woolsack, but the•l3ouse was delayed going into Com-
mittee by the absence of Lord Shaftesbury.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that Lord
Beaumont should take the chair.

Lord REDESI)ALE said, that in his opinion, as the
Lord Chancellor had left the woolsack, the Noble Mar-
quis could not make that motion.

Lord CAMPBELL said it was the inherent right of
their Lordships to appoint their own Chairman of Com-
mittees, and there'ore the motion was perfectly good.
After a general discussion on the subject, which ap-
peared to excite considerable amusement,
Earl GREY begged of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Redesdale) to consider for a moment the absurdity of his
proposition, for, if it were true, it would be equally im-
possible for their Lordships to get back again or resume.
Their Lordships then went into Committee, Lord
Beaumont in the chair.

On the first clause being read,
Lord MONTEAGLE moved his amendment to render
the service of ejectment process uniform with the service
of any other description of process
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE opeosed the amend-
ment. He acknowledged that the Bill would occasion
difficulties to the landlords, but he would ask them whe-
ther it was not better to incur that disadvantage and the
risk of a greater expense, rather than allow a loss of life
to take place, which a timely and effectual enactment
might prevent. —(Hear, hear.) On that consideration, he
prayed their Lordships to accept the Bill as it stood.
Lord STANLEY here rose 'to call the attention of
their Lordships to a question of form, arising upon the
suggestion thrown out by the Noble Earl opposite (Earl
Grey), that the House would be unable to resume after
going into Committee, if the argument of his Noble
Friend near him (Lord Redesdale) were deemed correct.
Now he (Lord Stanley) apprehended, according to a rule
of the 17th of Tune, 1814, that their Lordships, when in
Committee, had the power to resume, by an unanimous
resolution to that effect, agreed to amongst themselves,
without any question being put from the chair.
After a few words from the Marquis of LANS-
DOWNE,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he objected to the
argument of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley),
because it assumed that their Lordships were at that
moment not in form, which, he was of opinion, was not
correct. Their Lordships were not bound by an ap-
pointment of Chairman of Committees at all times, for
the Chairman of Committees, by virtue of his appoint-
ment, was to preside at the Committees on all occa-
sions, unless on any one occasion their Lordships made
a different provision.—(Hear.)
Lord CAMPBELL repeated what be had said be-
fore, that their Lordships had an inherent right to ap-
point, at any time, their own Chairman of Committees.
A desultory conversation ensued, in which the Earl
of Minto, Earl Desart, and the Earl of St. Germans took
part:

The House then resumed.
Earl GREY said there was, it could not but strike
their Lordships, a spirit of opposition growing up in
Ireland against the rights of property; and their Lord-
ships should take care to adopt such a course as would
put an effectual stop to that spirit. He was quite aware
that in many instances the landlords in Ireland were not
to blame, and whilst they armed them with power to
consolidate small holdings, they should take care that
the interests of the poorer classes should be in some
way protected in cases of ejectment. He was of opinion
that the law with respect to ejectments ought to be so
eonstructed that the ejected party would not be subjected
to be dispossessed after sunset in winter, and the best way
that this could be effected would be by serving notices
on the relieving officers that such an ejectment was to
take place; and the notice should be given seven days
beforehand, that the board of guardians might make the
necessary preparations. There were eases wherein poor
people were exposed, by the severity of those ejectments
in inclement winter nights, and fever and disease were,
in many instances, the consequence. He, therefore,
hoped that their Lordships would adopt such a course as
would most effectually remedy that state of things.
Lord MONTEAGLE repudiated altogether the in-
terpretation put upon this Bill by the Noble Earl. He
would take the course which he believed to be right, and
sooner or later justice would be done. His object was,
notwithstanding the taunts that had been thrown
out, to obtain speedier and more effectual relief for
the poor.
The first clause, as amended, was then ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
On the second clause being proposed,
Lord MONTEAGLE wished to know whether any
effi•ctual notice had been given, so as to show who were
the parties entitled to receive support.
The Marquis of CLA NRICARDE was aware that
even twenty and thirty families were sometimes
ejected ; and he would therefore ask how was it possible
that the relieving officers could confer relief on those
parties, unless due notice were previously given ? He
should therefore propose, as an amendment, that the
word " before " do stand part of the Bill.
After a few words from the Earl of ROUE and the
Duke of LEINSTE R,

Lord GLENGALL said that great sympathy was
raised on the part of the ejected paupers against the
landowners, who are generally severe sufferers; for
those paupers get up an affecting story, and bring
odium, together with loss, on the landowners. He felt
assured that if seven days' notice wer3 required the
ejectments would never take place, because the people
would get up a conspiracy and shoot the landlord, as
they did Major Mahon and others.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS could not agree with the
objection of the Noble Lord (Lord Glengall), because he
thought it right that the relieving officer should have
notice from the landlord who ejects, and should he fail
in giving this notice of twenty-tbur or forty-eight hours,
that he should be punished.
The Committee then divided on the question that the
word "before" stand part of the Bill—

Contents
,
Non-contents 23
On our return to the gallery we found the Earl o:
SHAFTESBURY in the chair, and

Lord STANLEY on his legs, inquiring in what posi-
tion the House now stood. Lord Beaumont had been
voted into.the chair, but just at the moment of the di-
vision in came the Earl of of Shaftesbury and left the
Noble Lord at liberty to vote, and thus the numbers on
the division were equal. He wished to know on what
principle the Noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) had been
turned out of the chair after having been voted into it?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE replied that the
Noble Lord had taken the chair in the absence of the
Earl of Shaftesbury, and, on the re-appearance of the
Noble Earl, of course the latter resumed his office as
eh airman.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY (with great animation)
—Yes ; perfectly right.—(Loud laughter.)
The Earl of CLANRICARDE, as we understood him,
said that according to the forms of the House the amend-
ment was lost, and that the word " before" would be
erased.

The clause was then agreed to.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to,
with some verbal amendments, and the Bill was reported.
"'Their Lordships then adjourned at Ten Minutes to
Twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 22.
GREAT WESTERN AND OXFORD AND BIR-
MINGHAM JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
The third reading of the Bill for conferring on the
Great Western Railway Company the power to pur-
chase the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Line, &c.,
was then moved, but we did not oollept by whom.
Mr. LABOUCHERE desired the postponement of the
measure, as being likely, in the opinion of the Railway
Board, to operate injuriously upon the general railway
interest of the country, if prematurely assented to. The
experience of the working of the mixed gauge upon a
lengthened line was not sufficiently mature to enable the
House to pass a final judgment on the principle. And
until this experience was attained, it would be in the
highest degree unadvisable to sanction the extension of
the principle. The double gauge was now being tried
on two tolerably long lines—the Rugby and Oxford, and
the Wolverhampton, Oxford and Worcester, and the
experience upon these railways would enable I'ailia-
ment to determine whether or not the sane principle
should be extended to other lines. He moved that the
third reading be postponed till Monday, in order that
the clauses relating to the double gauge might then be
struck out.

Sir E. HAYES supported the recommendation of the
Select Committee in favour of the Bill.
Sir R. H. INGLIS would assent to the amendment.
Mr. E. DENISON said that the consent of the House
to these measures would involve a breach of the pledge
which had been given to the Buckinghamshire Railways
that the railways to Birmingham should be upon the
narrow gauge.
Mr. INIUNTZ said that the rule of the House to
support its Committees ought not to be departed from
on the present occasion, which gave no grounds for an
exception to the rule. He considered that the double
gauge had been sufficiently tried for the purposes of
this Bill.

----Mi.HUDSON said ho had the honour of presiding
over the six miles upon which the double gauge was at
work, and he considered that it was impossible, from
the complication of the system, to work it satisfactorily.
—(Hear, hear.) IN about complaining of the Com-
mittee, he begged to express an opinion that, in its
search for information on the subject, it would not have
done ill to have called before it the engineer of the Mid-
land rtniiway, on which these six miles of double gauge
were being tried.—(llear, hear.) He was of the convic-
tion that the double gauge could not be worked uponany
length of line. He found it all but intolerable, even