The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-20 00:00:00

viction that it could not get through both houses in the ses-
sion. But if the Government could have carried it through
the House of Commons, and then passed it up to this house
for discussion in the ensuing session, would not a great deal
more pressure have been put upon the Government not to
drop it, and would that not have led to a greater consump-
tion of time than had already taken place ? (Hear.) And,
he would ask, could anything be more mischievous than to
hang up a bill of that character during the recess? (Hear.)
He was not one who thought that they legislated too little.
He thought that upon the whole there was as much legis-
lation as was desirable for the country, and in some years a
great deal too much. He thought it an advantage that
this Bankruptcy Bill of 500 clauses should stand over for
another year, and be considered in the interval in all its
bearings. In some sessions a great deal of business was
done because the measures had been previously considered.
This was the case in 1545. Perhaps no public measure
caused much greater excitement than the Maynooth Act.
It was introduced early, and occupied a great deal of time,
but they passed the Companies Clauses Act, of 165 clauses,
and a Scotch Act equally as long, the Lands Clauses Act,
of 153 clauses, and a Scotch Act of about as many, and the
Railway Clauses Act, of 165 clauses, before the middle of
July. Most of these provisions were the result of previous
experience, but with that experience and the conviction that
some general legislation was desirable, they were passed,
notwithstanding their • minuteness of detail, their extreme
length, and the manner in which they affected the interests
of private individuals. In the same session they passed the
Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill, with 92 clauses, a
new system of Customs regulations, embodied in a bill of
163 clauses, a bill for the registration of British vessels,and
other measures ; and in the same session the Enclosure
Commission Bill was introduced, which contained 169
clauses. It showed there was great power of legislation in
Parliament if there was a disposition to use it, and he be.
lieved the failure of bills was, in a great degree, owing to
doubts arising as to their soundness, and to the unwilling-
ness, therefore, of Parliament to entertain them. But, sup-
posing any remedy were desirable, this was not the house in,
which a resolution was necessary. With regard to any
amount of businesswhich they were called upon to do, they
were always ready to do it, and if the other house were to
adopt a little more the practice of this house in the manner
of conducting its proceedings, he believed that the business
would be carried on in a much more rapid manner. lie did
not say that because he wished the other house should in
the present session enter upon a discussion of the subject,
because it would only occupy one of thosenights which were
already too few for the measures which must pass. The re-
medy could be effected in the other house by an order. For
example, supposing the Bankruptcy Bill had passed the
Commons, they could, if they chose, send it up to this house
next session, without commencing de novo. It was not for
their lordships to inquire whether it had been read a first,
second, or third time, or whether after a single debate it had
been sent up in the same shape in which it passed those
stages in the session preceding. Such a mode of treating
measures was not necessary in their lordships' house, be-
cause they could find enough time to consider every mea-
sure, but if any remedy in the other house were necessary,
that course might be adopted, and perhaps limited to bills
of great length and of a particular character. 'With regard
to other bills, he was of opinion that there was often an ad-
vantage in a bill being lost, and that the proper control of
Parliament would be perilled if the Government bad the
power to suspend bills and take them up again in the next
session. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that great reluctance
would be shown to depart from that principle upon which
the legislation of the country had been so long and satis-
factorily conducted by both houses of Parliament.
The LORD. CHANCELLOR said that, althoughhe took
great interest in this subject, and had devoted a consider-.
able degree of attention to it, he would content himself with
thanking the noble earl for the manner in which he had
brought it under the notice of their lordships. (Hear.) He
did not agree with his noble friend who had just spoken in
thinking that no improvement could be effected in the pre-
sent mode of transacting the business of Parliament. He
believed that their mode of legislation was capable of amend-
ment ; but he refrained from seeing into any details at that
moment. He would be happy to use his best exertions to
bring forward a measure on the subject, with the assistance
of his colleagues, and he hoped with the support of the
noble earl, than whom no one was more capable of giving
advice. (Hear, hear.)

The Earl of DERBY then withdrew his motion.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER was in attendance at 12 o'clocTs, but the
sufficient number of members not being present, no busi-
ness was transacted before half-past 12 o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the following bills were con-
sidered and agreed to :—Bradford, Wakefield, and Leeds
Railway ; Great Northern and Metropolitan Junction
Railway ; Land Loan and Improvement Company ; and
Scottish Drainage and Improvement Company.
The Monkland Railway Bill was read a third time, and
Lord De Frffne's Estate Bill a second time.

GALWAY HARBOUR (No. 2) BILL.
On the motion of Mr. C. FORSTER, the following
motion was agreed to :—" That standing orders Nos. 199
and 203 be suspended in the case of the Galway Harbour
(No. 2) bill, and that the bill be read a second time to-

morrow.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, which was
introduced by the Attorney-General for Ireland.
On clause 1,
Mr. INI'MAHON moved that the chairman do leave the
chair. This was a bill which was entirely for the benefit
of the landlord, as far as it could be gathered from a careful
study of its provisions, for the Government had not stated
what its real objects were. He thought before they pro-
ceeded further in the consideration of the bill that it should
be reprinted. The bill contained 10G sections and repealed
57 acts of Parliament, while it changed altogether the re-
lation between landlord and tenant. Every one who
wished well to Ireland must desire that the laws of Eng-
land should be extended to that country, but this bill had
the contrary effect, for instead of the usual contract be-
tween the landlord and tenant in regard to land, it substi-
tuted a parliamentary contract. By the 31st section
it was provided that any tenant having less than a
perpetual interest in the land was prohibited from cutting
down trees, and for cutting a hedge, or even a gooseberry
bush, he was subject to a penalty of £5. The hon. and
learned member here quoted the authority of some practical
writers on this subject, to show the injurious objection of
this provision. It was further provided by the bill that if a
tenant violated his covenant in regard to cropping, accord-
ing to his landlord's view, ho might be taken before a j
as-
tice of peace and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
Certainly there was an appeal to the courts of law, but in. the
meantime he might be undergoing imprisonment, and the
justice of the peace was subject to no penalty under the
act for anything he did, however unjust it might subse-
quently demonstrated to have been. What he asked was that
the landlord and tenant should not be interfered with, or if
the legislature did meddle with them, at least it should be
for giving Ireland the same law as prevailed in this country.
Again, with regard to eviction, the powers given to land-
lords were very arbitrary, for it enabled him to eject a.
tenant in opposition to au expressed or modified contract, in
the ease of the land being overheld. The hon. and learned
gentleman contended that in regard to distressing a tenant
the law was also most unfair in the power it gave the land-
lord, and read some of the acts which the bill proposed to
repeal without any substitution. He concluded by appeal-
ing to the house not to proceed with the bill at this ad-
vanced period of the session, when there was such a thin
attendance, and when they had no chance of passing it
through the House of Lords.
Mr. WHITESIDE seconded the amendment, and con-
tended that the bill was a failure as it did not deal with the
law of fixture and distress. In the bill which he had in-
troduced on this subject provisions were made in reference
to these points, and he recommended to the Attorney-Ge-
neral for Ireland to postpone any measure on this subject
until next session.
After a few words from Mr. COOPER,
Mr. DEASY said he did not think the conduct of the
hon. andleamed member for,Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) was
fair to him or to the house, considering that the bills had
been: discussed and the principle affirmed on the second
reading. The hon. and learned member was not present on
that occasion, and it was unjust to re-open subjects which
had already been decided ; and with reference to his state-
ment, as to no explanation having been offered by Govern-
ment, he reminded the house that on the occasion of the
second reading he explained the main provisions of
into
measure, though he thought it unnecessary to enter mf
details as the bill had virtually been before II e house or
the last four or five years. It would have been fair!r- t him
boausr hesa,dangtdvenonhtre
noticepr
l. Doefasaym)einfdtmheenhtosnt.oanandylepaaTteieduraremcl
second reading of the bill, he invited
that
the co-operation of
of t
legal gentlemen and the criticism he. house ;
his only object
would improve the laww between landlord
Peas a bill
landlord and tenant.
He denied that the bill was unjust to the tenant
because it provided for facilitating the law in the enforce-
ment of contracts between landlord and tenant. Nothing
was so injurious to the tenant as the existing state of the,
law, as it afforded temptations to litigation, and inducrAt
him to expend his money in law instead of on improv'mg•
the land or paying his rent. He adverted to two cases
which had recently come under his
he
en
elupwestrorivaltdicnebg.ehplisrveohppaeinrneitdohnet,
ocrlaecuosnessidcaerm, ea
mb ee fno
dr t
ore
acxpornumngitte eeif
it was shown to him to be desirable. (Howe, hear.) The
bill was some time before the house. It was. brought in im-
mediately after his resolution, and read a second time on.
the 15th May. Notwithstanding that he had. invited the
assistance and suggestions of his legal friends. in Ireland.ss
well as those interested in the land, there was no objerion
made to him against the bill, but on, the contrary he
had received from both classes strong, expressions or
ap-
proval of its provisions, and requests -urging him to press
it forward this session. He did not consider the provisions
of the bill of the right hon. gentlemen (Mr. Whiteside) cal-
culated to simplify the law, and thi.3y were likely to tend to
litigation, which was the reason verhy he did not introduce
them into his bill.
Mr. LEFROY considered that the objections of the hon.
member Mr, `Mahon) wore unreasonable, but at Ow