The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-27 00:00:00

1 "
7

-

ACCIDE ON- THE' GREAT-'
• • - jeRAILWAY.- •
.The Earl of teeegefp reply to a quSestiou of
the Earl of-Ki •.0 eepikehgt_thetnecident which had
recently occurred on fllte gftere
de h' sleeper,
Railway INA
not occur In ehneesqueilee of a roSleeper, but from
an eeffiftneete/ trial of a new 'set of rails. Ile would
desire the reps rt,tos be irinted end laid on that. Lord.
ships' tape immediately. •
LANDIIORD;A.ND TENANTS -COMPENSATION
J4J-.1. ('IRELAND).
Lord STANLEY read the names of the Noble Lords
whom he „proposed should constitute a Committee on
this Bill. . • • '
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY begged that his
name might be omitted-from the COmmittee, as he felt,
from his *hien tb ' the. compulsory clauses, that he
could not fairlY sitie judgment upeteit in Committee.
A Noner Loeieieaid if the. Bill ,returned from the
Committee ,in ite;present Ann ha should propose that
it be extend-td to England and Scotland.
The Marquiseaf CLANRICARDE also objected to
be a member of the Committeee and begged that his
ekame might be omitted. Be objected generally to the
/metre of the Bill, which he eeniidefed would cause ill-
blood between landlords end tentinfi. It was con-
trary to the sense of the whole Of the people of
Ireland. Die Noble Eail (the Earl
_Of Devon) had not
read the evideeve of any persons wEL were in favour of
this measure. Om argurcentenaele,use of by those en-
gaged in the agitatien.. in Ireland vvasethat they were
forcing measures on W's country which were not sought
for by the people, and eieste the:sentiments of their peti-
tions, and of those converseent 'with their condition, were
overruled and outvoted by those whoewere ignorant of
it. The prevalent, opinion in treiehd was essentially
against the measure. By being a :lefeti::her of the Com-
mittee, he should be acting hpth imkenerously and im-
properly.
Lord STANLEY consideriW that the,Noble Marquis
had acted in opposition to the, rules of.the House by
making a speech on the motion which he;(Lord Stanley)
had made. He should not reply; after the opinion of Me
House, to the Noble Lord's objection'; to the measure.
He had felt it his duty to propose that 'they should be
members of the Committee, with oth'efg, on account of
the large stake they had in the country lq which the Bill
would apply. He was anxious that elie„eheasure should
receive impartial inquiry and consideretion, and that
Noble Lords from both sides of the , Reuse should be
members of the Committee. ;
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said that eout of the 21
Peers whose names had been placededPon the Com-
mittee, 16 were supporters, and 5 opponents, of the BBL
The Marquis of NORMANBY acid' tile state of his
health would prevent him from servieg on the Com-
mittee; but he would gladly have kaericld his personal
convenience, did he think that his:attendance the
matter could be satisfactorily adjusted. The Bill, how-
ever, appeared to him to be so highly-objectionable in its
present form, that he trusted the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for the Colonies would consent to abandon it fur
the present session.
Earl RODEN said nothing could , be suggested in
Committee which could change his opinion upon the
Bill, and he therefore begged to be excused from attend-
ing upon it.
Lord BROUGHAM said the reason given by the
Noble Earl was not sufficient to justify his non-attend-
ance on the Committee. Noble Lords .went into the
Committee with a view of attempting to improve the
Bill, and it mattered not whether the members of the
Committee were opponents or supporters of the Bill. If •
Noble Lords, after the Bill came out of the Committee,
still thought it objectionable, they could oppose it on the
bringing up of the report or on the third reading.
The Earl of WICKLOW agreed with the Noble and
Learned Lord that, with the exception of the case of the
Noble Marquis opposite, no good reason had been stated
by Noble Lords to justify their being excused from at-
tending on the Committee. The Noble Earl behind him
(the Earl of Liverpool) had he thought . dealt unfairly
with his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, in
giving an incorrect analysis of the Committee appointed
by his Noble Friend.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said unless the
Noble and Learned Lord opposite told hire that ho veto
compelled to serve on the Committee, he• should cer-
tainly not consent to do so, and he beggedto tell the
Noble and Learned Lord that he was one who would not
submit to his mode of dictating in that House.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL remarked that, out of
twenty-one names of the Committee, there were only two
that appeared upon the protest against the measure
signed by the thirty-seven Peers connected with Ireland.
Instead of deserving credit for the impartiality the Noble
Lord displayed in selecting the Committee, he deserved
credit for the ingenuity he had evinced in packing it.
Lord STANLEY said the Noble Earl was certainly
not the person to complain of strong expressions, seeing
that at first lie had charged him with having produced an
unfair and partial Committee, and now he talked of the
Committee being packed.—(Bear.) Now, although
it was certainly true that the majority of the
Peers who appeared upon the Committee had voted in
favour of the second reading of the Bill, yet nine, and
he believed ten, out of the one and twenty, bad expressed
themselves adverse to the compulsory clauses, and only
eight had expressed themselves in favour of them, while
the last four members of the Committee had expressed
no opinions at all; and, upon his honour as a gentleman,
he had not the least idea of what they were.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE had no objection
to serve on the Committee, but as the majority of their
Lordships appeared to be against the compulsory clauses,
he thought it would be better to let the Bill stand over
till the next session.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS thought they ought not
to allow an impression to go abroad that the interests of
landlord:, were more attended to in that House than
those of the t, nants.
The Earl of FORTESCUE begged to be excused
horn attending as one of the Committee, on the ground
of the great personal inconvenience which it would give
him.

'LB2 'ERN

The Earl of RODEN would be sorry to refuse to at-
:end, though he did not agree with the principle of
he Bill.

After a few words from the Marquis of LON-
DONDERRY,

The Earl of DEVON honestly confessed that he did
not read the evidence, because he was unable to do so by
candlelight. lie thought, however, that the Bill intro-
duced by the Noble Lord the Secretary of the Colonies,
would be the cheapest to the tenant, and the most effec-
tual to carry out the principles of the report.
A desultory conversation then ensued, in which Lord
Charleville, Lord Redesdale, Lord Lucan, the Duke of
Richmond, and Lord Roden joined.
The Select Committee was then agreed to, the name
of the Earl of Charleville being substituted for that of
the Ma►quis of Clanricarde, and the third reading was
appointed for Monday next.
LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.
Lord PORTMAN moved the second reading of the
Landlord and Tenant Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT objected to the Bill. He thought
that a written agreement was a sufficient guarantee for
the tenant. It was his usual custom, and he believed
that their Lordships would give such agreement at
present. And he saw therefore no reason why it should
be made compulsory to do so. Believing that any inter-
ference was uncalled for, and unnecessary, he would
move that the Bill be read a second time that day six
months.

The Duke of RICHMOND supported the Bill. He
thought that the tenant was entitled to receive compen-
sation for any outlay be might be put to. He thought
that the Bill was called for, as well from expediency as
from a sense of justice, and he contended that it would
facilitate the. improvement of the country, and the
tenants, who were the practical farmers of the country.
lie hoped, therefore, they would not throw out the
Bill on the second reading. Those alterations which
might be thought necessary might be made in Com-
mittee. •
The Duke of' CLEVELAND said he should support
the measure, as compensation should be secured to
tenants for improvements which they might make of a
permanentcharacter on the land which was let to them. The
Bill was good in principle; and if it did not effect all that
was stated, it certainly would not lead to evil. He hoped
their Lot dships would consent to the second reading.
Lord ASIII3URTON opposed the Bill, on the ground
that in almost evey case where compensation was sought
by the tenant, a lawsuit would be the inevitable result.
The word " improvement " was so extremely vague, and
might apply to so many different things, that litigation
could not fail to ensue. Some definition ought to be
given in the Bill on this. point, for the guidance of both
the landlord and the . tenant, of the nature of.the " im-
provements" for which.therwould be entitled to com-
pensation. If it was to,be regulated by the "custom of
the country," no object would be gained by the Bill, as
they had such a law at present. Besides, it was a mea-
sure which it would not iAconie that House to pass.
Lord WHARNCLIFVE was,of opinion that a tenant
could attain a fair compen-Sation for any improvements
which he might make at his own expense, at the present
moment. They would also be legislating in a case in
which no legislation was required, for landlords and
tenants perfectly understood each other.
The Duke of RICHMOND said, in explanation, that
in some parts of England the custom of remunerating a
tenant for " liming ' did not exist:
Lord PORTMAN considered that • arbitration would
avoid litigation instead of conducing to it, and that the
word " improvement" was not so vague as was ima-
gined, as the term was perfectly understood. It was for
the purpose of avoiding litigation, which was 'often ex-
pensive and unsatisfactory, that he had proposed that
disputes should be decided by the arbitration of
stoo divide pthoon
itihoeuirsoLupoordoshhtispsm' time, com-
petent persons. He begged pardon' for having tres-
pteansdseedd
motion, bhute faeslt hecall
ed
upon to say thus much.
Their Lordships thin divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment—Contents ll
Non Contents 7
Majority for the amendment —4
Several measures lying on the table were then ad-
vanced a stage, and their Lordships adjourned.'

ROUSE OF C MMONS, June 26.,
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Messengers from the Lords broughtdown several Bilks, which
were ordered to he laid on the table.
CONFERENCE WITH THE LORDS:
A mmessenger o
the
Railway fromt h
c
the Ldor slarequested e
(Scotland)
tconferenceand c eniow theiitidhat
ed
Co
Bill. The Commons consented, and a deputation was ap-
pointed for the purpose, when the messenger left the House.
The deputation then returned from the conference with the
Lords, the messenger reporting that their Lordships had re-
ferred the amendments in the Railway Consolidation (Scot-
land) Bill, and assigned the reasons for their insertion.
The debate on the question of '• Privilege" was then re-
sumed.
Mr. HOME could not understand the course at present
pursued by the House; the proper subject for diseassioa was
that of the adjourned debate.—(Cries of " No, no.")
The SPEAKER intimated that last evening the Solicitor-
General had shaped the question of privilege to a specific mo-
tion for discussion on this night.
Mr. HUME was at a loos to discover
_why the ordinary