The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-27 00:00:00

GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA.

The Marquis of NORMANBY said he had a motion
on the paper for Monday next, with respect to certain
recent transactions at Gwalior. It was his intention in
in making that motion to make some remarks respecting
the treaty of Bhurtpore, but he had just hoard that the
Governor-General of India had been recalled, and if this
was so, of courseat present he should refrain from
making such remarks. He wished to know whether the
report of the recal of Lord Ellenborough from India was
true ?

The Earl of RIPON said it was true that the East
India Compiny hid recalled Lord Ellenborough.
The Earl of COLCHESTER wished to know if this
step had received the sanction of her Majesty's Govern-
ment ?
The Earl of RIPON said it bad not.

Lord BROUGHAM said it was a most extraordinary
• thing that the Board of Control should have the power
Of controlling every act of the Court of Directors of the
East India Company except that most important one the
recall of the Governor-General of India. This way a
matter which might affect the safety of our Indian em-
pire, and yet the East India Company were subject to no
control with respect to it. He thought this was a great
oversight.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE! said that so far from
fp having bean an oversight, it had bean the subject of
the gravest discussion.
After a short conversation the subject dropped.
WRITS OF ERROR.

Lord CAMPBELL postponed the second reading of
this Bill from Monday to Thursday next.
LANDLORD AND TENANTS COMPENSATION

BILL.

Lord PORTMAN moved the second reading of this
Bill. The object of the Bill was to give to the tenant
security for capital which he expended on his landlord's
property.
Lord BEAUMONT opposed the Bill. He believed
that if this Bill were allowed to pass, it would lead to
endless litigation between landlords and tenants, and he
therefore, moved that the Bill be read a second time that
day six months.
The Duke of RICHMOND was prepared to vote for
the second reading of this Bill, provided his Noble Friend
Would consent to send it to a Select Committee up
stairs.

The Marquis of SALISBURY would be glad if means
could be devised for giving compensation to tenants for
their improvements, and he therefore thought this Bill
ought to be referred to a Select Committee.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said this was a
subject of very great danger and difficulty, and ought to
be approached with great caution. He did not think
that this Bill would be so beneficial to the tenants of the
country as had been anticipated by the Noble Lord op-
posite (Lord Portman.)
The Earl of HARDWICKE opposed the Bill, on the
ground that it would, if passed, open the door to litiga-
tion. He thought the Bill was unnecessary, and he
trusted their Lordships would refuse a second reading
to it.

The Duke of CLEVELAND said he should support
the Bill, for ho did not believe it would have the effect
which had been stated by the Noble Earl who had just
sat down. He believed the Bill to be admirable in prin-
ciple, and one which would be very beneficial to the
tenantry of the country, and he should therefore give it
his entire support.
Lord REDESDALE believed the Bill to bt useless,
and therefore he should support the amendment.
After a few words from Lord PORTMAN,
Their Lordships divided.. The numbers were—
For the second reading
For the amendment
Majority
th, read

Bill

-id .

The Bill was _.en r a second time.
Lord WIIARNCLTEFE presented several petitions
fur and against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, April 26.
The SPEAKER. took the Chair at the usual hour.
NEW WRIT.

An How. MEMBER (Mr. Estcourt we believe) moved
that a new writ be issued for the election of a burgess to
serve in Parliament for the borough of Horsham, in the
room of the Hon. Mr. Scarlett, now Lord Abinger.
Mr. TUFNELL, who was very indistinctly heard in
the gallery, rose to call the attention of the Speaker to
the delay which had occurred with respect to the issuing
Of this writ. He wished to know whether it would not
be consistent with the forms of Parliament to issue at
once a writ for the election of a-Member of that House,
in the room of a Member who had been called by the
death of his father to the House of Peers—to issue that
writ immediately that this fact became known. The
eldest son of a peer was admitted into that hlouse with-
put any property qualification, without any inquiry
being made as to his claim to such a privilege ; and he
(Mr. Tufnell) could not see why a new writ could not
132 issued without such delay taking place as that which
bad occurred in this case.

The SPEAKER was understood to say that this
point bad been settled by Lord Dunfermline when
Speaker of that House. It was perfectly true that on
the death- of a peer, the 'eldest sou of that peer holding
a seat in that Ileuse immediately vacated his seat, but
the House had no means of ascertaining whether such
Member's claim to the peerage was bona fide or not ;
and therefore the only safe course for the House to
adopt was to wait for 'the issuing of a writ of summons.
It was perfectly true that the eldest son of a peer was
admitted into that House without a property qualification;
but it was equally true that a claim to that privilege
might be founded on error. Thi4 had been shown in a
case which had recently occurred, in which an Hon.
Member qualified as the eldest son of a Peer, and it
afterwards turned out that he was not so.
Mr. ESTCOURT perfectly concurred in the view
wbieh was taken by the Speaker.
After a few words from Mr. TUFNELL the new
writ was ordered.

LEEDS GAS BILL.

Mr. BECKETT moved that the evidence taken be-
fore the COmmittee on the Leeds Gas Bill, in the year
1835, and also the evidence taken before the Committee
in the year 1843, be referred to the Select Committee
en the Leeds New Gas Bill.—Ordered.
LEEDS AND BRADFORD RAILWAY BILL
' 0 i the Order lvthe Day that the report of the Com-
mittee upon the Leeds and Bradford Railway Bill be
further considered,
. ,Mr. HARDY said that ho thouelit it was neccessary
that the Bill should be re-committed. Ile thought that
the Standing Order which precluded Committees on
Railways from receiving maps or plans relating to com-
peting lines should be suspended. When this question was
raised in the Committee, he voted against the evidence
offered by the opposing parties being received; but he now
thotight that he had construed the order too strineently,
and as the parties themselves to the Bill had
•
Yep evidence that there was a shorter line than that
gi
proposed by them, it was, in justice to the public, and
to t e advocates of the . other line, only right that the
43 litims .of both should be fully examined. He would
move, acc.irding to that view, that the Bill be referred
back to the Committee.
An Hort MgMBEg seconded the motion.
Sir. E. COLEBROOK defended the decision to which
the Committee had ome, and to which he said they were
by the Standing Order bound tocome. Ith ad
,besides,
been
proved to the Committee that the
impracticable.shorterlinea [At
sint
=any respects objectionable, if note,.
this moment Mr. C. W. W. Wynn was carried into the
Rouse upon a litter, borne by two of the messengers,
w the seat
ho placed him upon the Ministerial bench, on During
.
next to that usually occupied by Lord Stanley. urng
t
the silence occasioned by this unusual occurrence, Mr.
Perrand came into the House, and took his usual seat,
*without attracting observable notice.]
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY wished the House to recollect
that the Hon. Member for Bradford, only asked the
House to re-commit this Bill. Had he asked anything
beyond this most assuredly he (Mr. Wortley) would
~.., ~,., ,kave.opposed him to the utmost. The question was
N r., NA' ,-) iwlyitliari 'the Committee were justified by. any rule or
,---,....,),..,-'!"r*,:tgeprs,ctice of that House in refusing they evidence
Z.,..jc--I_,
____.)_,b:Alad been'tentlered. Had the matter been fully
ielt.-::iiieliiiiiito," nd fairly so—if they had refused to enter-
\
`14,; .;::tard n e which they ought to have received, then
-, - .pt.ti,oi.., ' tley) thought it would be difficult for them
litit,7
x^!•• ...,
ra re-commit the Bill. For this reason he
1"---''' ' - • !iota support the motion of the Hon. Member for
.." es
I.**:-1- -----itildf, ord.
:IN- I.t: Air, M. MILNES said the question of the reception

~~~~

of the evidence had been decided in the negative after
fair and due consideration ; and were the House to order
the Bill to be re-committed, he very much doubted if the
Committee would not again come to the sa-re decision
as that at which they hadnlready arrived.
After a few words from Mr. REDHEAD YORKE,
Mr. C. WOOD said the position of the question was
simply this—that evidence had been rel. cted which,
according to the ordinary practice of the House, ought
to have been received. The parties ought to have the
opportunity of putting in that evidence.
Mr. ALDAM and Mr. HoDskin haying briefly ad-
dressed the House,
Mr. GLADSTONE was of opinion that the Com-
mittee which sat on the Bill were in error, and that the
Bill ought to be re committed.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority for the re-committal of the Bill —lO2
The Bill was then ordered to be re-committed.
NEWQUAY-HARBOUR AND RAILWAY BILL.
On the motion of Mr. P. HOWARD, the Newquay
Harbour and Railwiy Bill was read a third time and
passed.