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

FR ,A IkIORN'ING JITI4TP yr, 1046,„

~..~{ ~'

.. . .
IMPERIAL PA itLIAIVI Et,i T. the Earl of Kinn,ird. sntd that the tteeident whieb bad
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 26. recently; oecurred on t:::. Gr,-at NV(steta Railwsy did
Their Lordships it,Fertided at the usual hour. not ocror it, cot•s:equenee ot a rotten sle,r, r. bot From
A great ; number of railway Ells wcre brought up On ,Xl),/.1!:,W,i1 trl'A ,f a t-;,ti ;r ,•1' r?ils. ; ..; woAd
from the House of Commons. - de: ir... iii.• rt-po; t to It, pria ed and laid on their Lord
CORNWALL RAILWAY. ships' tsb:e iratuediatey.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS presented a petition LANDLORD AND TENANTS COMPENSATION
in tscour of this railway. BILL (IRELA ND).
NON-ATTENDANCE OF LORD GARDNER ON Lord STANLEY read the names of the Noble Lords
THE GLASGOW- BRIDGE• commaTEE. whom he proposed should constitute a Committte on
The Duke of RICHMOND moved that the order of ; this Bil.
their Lordships respecting the atterrlanee of Lord Th, Marquis of LONDONDERRY heped that his
Gardner to explain his reasons for not attending the ; "me night b ; tomittud in;ra the Committee. as he felt,
Committee on the Gla,gow- bridge, of which he was a , .:1 r. from hi- •.bjel•.n ~ ow compulsory clau.-es, that he
member. be read. conid 1,,,t Wyk 4it in judcmcnt UP,a it in Committee.
A Nont.c Loan said if the Bill ratura,d From the

The Clerk havii•g read the order,
Lord GARDNER said his non-attendance on the
Committee did not arise from any disrespect to their
Lordships, and if he had erred, it was- from ignorance
of the power which they possessed. When he re-
ceived the notice, be was not aware of the consequences
which would result if he did net attend. Ile bad also
his reasons for not attending—first, his ignorance of the
standing ord rs. one secondly, his etij-ction, arising
from conscientious scruple., against serving on any rail-
way Committee.—(A laugh.) Their Lordships might
laugh. but such was his opii ion Some years
ego, Lefere the public were so deeply interested in
railways as at the present. aperient, he tiecan e a There-
holder in many of the trunk lines and alih. tee% he wee
pot interested its the stibject in questiop, he, nsvertheless,
considered that. he was one of their Lordships who ought
to take no part in the railway schemes before them.
Another reason for his non-aoendttece was, that he
lo ked upon the order of the Noble Lord in the light,
of an invitation, which he might either accept or refuse,
es suited hie convenience. The Noble Lord was about
to read a notice of motion which he held it, his hand,
when he was interrupted by
The Duke of RICHMOND, who said that before their
Lordships entered upon the consideration of anything
else it most first dispose of the question before the
House. He could not understand how the conscientious
scruples which the Noble Lord referred to as a reason
for not serving on railway Committees could be pleaded
by him as a pretext for absenting himself from the Corn•
mittee to which he had been appointed. It was not a
railway at all. It was the Glasgow-bridge Committee.
There 91'2. no partiality in the selection of any Noble
Lord by the Committee, whose province it was to appoint
the Members who are to serve upon the Select Commit-
tees. Quite the contrary, for the question was generally
asked them previously whether they would ha willing to
serve upon the Committee. He thought that. the Niible
Lord displayed great ignorance of what had been going on
in that House, when he alluded to the Right Reverend
Prelates. He could state that they had been always
most ready and willing to attend any Committee to
which their Lordships might think proper to appoint
them, sad he could see no reason whatever for the
insinuation thrown out against them by the Noble Lord. He
thought, therefore, that as their Lordships were exempted
from serving on juries, from serving as councillors,
and as High-Sheriffs, that it would not be adding to
their high character if they shirked any duty which
the business of the country might impose upon them.
The Earl of BESBOROUGH said that it was not
his order, or that of his Noble Friend, which the Noble
Lord (Lord Gardner) disobeyed, but the order of the
House. Upon the Noble Lord asking him whether his
attendance was compulsory, he replied that it was not ;
but he did not, therefore, -suppose that the Noble Lord
would refuse the duty on that account. He could only
say that the Noble Lord was put on the Committee he-
cause it was believed that he would be willing to serve
upon it.
The Earl of MALMESBURY thnueht that their
Lordships (night to be ready to serve one another upon
these occasions. He bad served on one Committee al-
ready, and he would have no objection, as it had been
one of short dnratien, to serve on another.
Lord BROUGHAM observed that all the Members of
their Lordships' House ought to be summoned to attend
on these Committees. No preference ought to he shown
to one more than to another, and if they did riot attend
when properly summoned they ought to be punished.
Lord REDESDALE did not consider it would be
acting with fairnese towards their brother Peers to call
upon those who were at a distance in the country to at-
tend the Committees, when there were so many Noble
.Lords remaining in London. The duties which had
to be discharged by the members of the Committee par-
took less of the judicial character than of the juryman's,
and as he was satisfied thet, fr Are the connexion which
the Noble Lord—whose non-attendance at the Com-
mittee to which he had been summoned was now under
consideration—had with railway matters, his experience
would render him a very efficient member of a Railway
Committee.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that tii compel
the attendance of Peers, residing both in and out of Lon-
don, on Committees on railways, would be to adopts very
unusual course, for which there was no precedent, and
it would require great consideration before such a mea-
sure should be passed into a law.
Lord GARDNER said he would take the earliest
opportunity of attending in future any of their Lord-
ships' Committee. which he might be summoned to
attend. He would, however, beg to propose the follow-
ing resolution:—" That my Lords, spiritual as well as
temporal, be summoned on the Committees of :heir Lord-
ships' House, beginning with the highest in the rank,
and so continuing down to the lowest."
The Duke of RICHMOND observed that he should
not he deterred, by the terms of the proposed motion,
from abiding by his original statement.
The Duke of WELLINGTON earnestly wished their
Lordships would discontinue the discussion. " Sufficient
for the day was the evil thereof." His opinion was that
all the Peers should be disposed to lend their aid in per-
forming their duties to their Lordships' House and to
the public. •
The Earl of ELLENBOROUH was of opinion that as
the Noble Lord had expressed his willingness to attend
the House when required, in future, the subject should
be dropped.
The Earl of BESBOROUGH considered that the
Noble Lord (Lord Gardner) had laboured under some
misapprehension as to the power of the House, and had,
consequently, not attended the Committee.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said the Noble
Lord had given as full an explanation as they could
expect. When he was summoned on another Commit-
tee he Must take what course he liked.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought that the
explanation should be entered on the journals of the
House.
Lord GARDNER was understood to withdraw his
motion.
Lord BROUGHAM said Lord Gardner, having at-
tended in his pla^e by the order of the House, and
having stated that he had laboured under misapprehen-
sion, he saw no reason why the matter should proceed
further.—The subject then dropped.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON 'RAILWAY
BILLS.
Lord BROUGHAM read the report of the Commit-
tee appointed on the subject of the Railway Bills before
their Lordship. The report recommended that the
Railway Bills, which could not be completed this ses-
sion, should be marked by the Chairman of each Com-
mittee, and b proceeded with next session from the
point where the investigation might terminate during
the present session. The Committee had not yet con-
cluded their labours, but they had thought it right to
make this report to their Lordships.
The Duke of WELLINGTON moved that the report
of the Committee be printed, and taken into considera
non at an early day, which was agreed to.
CONFERENCE WITH THE COMMONS.
The. LORI) CHANCELLOR informed the Mes-
sengers who brought up a Bill, that their Lordships had
appointed a conference with the Members of the House
of Commons, which would take place that evening:
GAME-LAWS.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE laid a Bill on the table for
ametidine' the Game laws.
CRIMINAL LAW COMMISSION.
Lord. BEAUMONT wished to take that opportunity
et' x4E:rig the Neble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack
ree-necrieg the report, of the Criminal Law Commis-
sion ers. Their Lordships would probably remember
that Lifter what toe k place last year upon the penal laws,
it was thought advisable to appoint • a Commission to in-
vestigate the general state of the Criminal Law, so tar as
related to the various sects of religionists. That Com-
misein had since prosecuted their inquiries with e-
makable per4everalice and industry, and their report
was now lying sip'in their Lordships' table. The Coin-
miseioeeis made certein recommendations, amongst
which was, that there should lie one general form of
°ale end declaration substituted for the form now in use
in England, Irelar d, and Scotland, which might be
taken or subscribed to alike by Protestants, Cathelies,
Dissenters, or Jews. Now, he wished to ask the Noble
and Learned
,Liird the question of which he had given
notice—namely, whether he would be prepared, in the
present session, to lay on the table a Bill to carry out the
recommendation ot the Commissioners?
The LORI) CHANCELLOR said that he did no more
than justice to those who composed that commission,
when he said that they had discharged their duty with
industry, accuracy, and intelligence. In reply to the
question of the Noble Lord, he had to state that he had
given directions that a Bill should be framed upon their
report, and as soon as the persons who had been en-
treated to draw it up had it ready, he would lay it on the
table of their Lordships' House.
'Elie Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought it should be
the object of the Bill to enable all classes ot her Majesty's
subjects to understand what were the laws under which
they were living.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR had no doubt but the
framers of the Bill would give satisfaction to his Lord-
ship, the Hou- e, end the country.
Lord BROUGJI AM thought, as it would take a con-
siderable time to draw up the Bill, the further conside-
ration of it should be postpone d till alter the long va-
cation.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR concurred with the
Noble Lord that it was a Bill of great extent and impor-
tance, and the mix, carefully it was prepared the
better. tlis object, however, was merely to state that
as etein as it would be ready he would lay it upon their
Lordships' table.
Lord MON ['EAGLE thought that a Bill of such
,;rent importance should be also extended to Ireland.
Th LORD CHANCELLOR said, that in framing
she report, the Commissioners had had the assistance of
the Attorney-General of Ireland and the Lord Advocate
of Scotland. If the Noble Lord had any iihjection to
make when the Bill was brought forward, he would then
have an opportunity to state it.
Lord BEAUMONT thought that the Bill should be so
drawn rip as to place all upon the same footing.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR suggested that the
Noble Lord ‘hottlil draw up the Bill himself.
Alter a few w,rds from the. Bish• p ot LONDON, the
s•it;ject dropped.
ACCIDEN T ON THE GREAT WESTERN
RAILWAY.
The Earl of DALIIOUaE, in reply to a question of

!Ji.TYSP Ct..31/11n1! June 26

The SerAirau to.l the ch it shortly before Four o'clock

clenorettee in its ereseet form he sheuld propose that
it he exsend,d to Eastland and Scsolatid.
The Niercpsis et' CI. NRICARDE also objected to
be a member of the Committee, rind beggs d that his
name mieht he ',misted. Ile objected generally to the
nate. e sf the Bill, which he c. nsidered would cause ill-
Woes' 'iota:eels landlorda and t• nauta. It was con-
trary to the sense s,f the wh• Is, of the people of
Ireland. The Noble Eatl (the Earl 01 Devon) had not.
read the evict, nee of any persons who were in favour of
this measurs. One, argument made use of by those en-
gaged in the agitasien in Ireland was, that they were
!owns.; nis asurs a se that coeetsy which ware net sought
for by the penile, and that the se loons nts of their peti-
tisses, mut of thus' a nverewnt with theis condition, were
oeetruted end out voted by those who were igeorant of
it. The pro ale to opinion in Ireland was s ssintially
against the measnte. By beine a Menther of the Coin.
mittee, he should be acting both ungenerously and im-
properly.
Lord STANLEY considered that she Noble Marquis
had Set,l in opposition to the rules 4,f the I !ewe by
making a spa ech on the notion which he (Lord Stables)
hsd made, He should not reply, after the opinisil of the
House, to the Noble Lord's olaectis,n, to the measure.
He had felt it his duty to propose that they should be
members of the Committee, wino others, on account of
the laree stake they had in the country to which the Bill
would apply. He was anxious that the measure should
receive impartial inquiry and consideration, and that
Noble Lords from both sides of the House should he
members of the Committee.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said that out of the 21
Peers whose names had been placed upon the Com-
mittee, 16 were supporters, and 5 epps,nents, of the Bill.
The Marquis of NORMA NBY *aid the slate of his
health would prevent him from servieg. on the Com-
mittee; but he would gladly have sacrificed his personal
convenience, did he think that by his attendance the
matter could be satisfactorily adjusted. The Bill, how.
ever, appeared to him to be so highly objectionable in
present form, that he trusted the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for the Colonies would consent to abandon it for
the present session.
Earl ROI)EN 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 catne out of the Committee,
still thought it objectionable, they could oppose it on the
bringing up of the report on the third reading
The Earl of WICKLOW egreed with the Noble and
Learned Lori 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 Nebie 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 Neble Friend.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said unless the
Noble and Learned Lord opposite told him that he was
compelled to serve on the Committee, he should cer-
tainly not consent to do so, and he begged to tell the
Noble and Learned Lord that he WAS one who would not
submit to his mode of diciating 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 selectint! the Committee, he deserved
credit for the ingenuity he had evineed in packing it.
Lord STANLEY said the Noble Earl was certainly
not the person to complain of strong expressions, seeing
that at first he had charged him with having produced an
unfair and partial Committee, and ttow he talked of the
Committee be packed.---(Hear.) 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 teniout of the one and. twenty, had expressed
themselves adverse to the compulsory clauses, and only
eight hail expressed themselves in favour of them, while
the last four members of the Committee had expressed
no s- pinions at all; and, upon his honour as a gentleman,
he had not the least idea of what they were.
The Marquis of CLANRICARI)E had no ohjeet,on
to serve on the Committee, hut as. the majority of their
Lordships appeared to be against the compulsory clans -s,
he thought it would be better to let the Bill stand over
till the next session,
The E-erl of ST. GERMANS thought they ought not
to allow an impression to go abroad that the interests of
landlords were more attended to in that House than
those of the tenants.
The Earl of FORTESCUE begged to be excused
from. attending as one of the Committee, on the ground
of the great personal inconvenience which it would give
him.
The Earl of RODEN would .be sorry to refuse to at-
tend, though 'he did not agree with the principle of
the 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. He 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 eut the principles of the report.
A .desultory conversation then ensued, in which Lord
Cbarleville, Lord R, desdale, 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 Marquis of Clanricarde, and the third reading was
appointed for Monday n.-xt.
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 teni)nt. 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 cotnpukory 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 he might be pet 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.
He 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 sheuld support
the measure, as compensation should be secured to
tenants for improvements which they might make of a
permanentcharacterim the land which was let to them. The
Bill was good in principle; and if it did not effect all that
was st ,ted, it certainly would not lead to evil. He hoped
heir Lordships would consent to the second reading.
Lord ASTIBURTON opposed the Bill, on the ground
that in almost evey ease where compensation was sought
ba the tenant, a lawsuit would be the inevitable result.
The word " improvement " was so extremely vague, and
might apply to so mary different things. that litigatien
could not fail to ensue. S.sme definition ought to be
given in the Bill on this point, fer the guidance of both
the landlord and the tenant, of the nature of the "im
provems toa " tor which they would he entitled to cam
pensation If it was to be ressulated by the "custom of
the country." no object would be gained by the. Bill. as
then bad •uch a law at present. Beside s. it was a mea-
sure which it wisuld n• he (seine this, House to pa-s. •
Lord Vs' Fl A RNCLIFFE was sae- opinion th.st a tenant
could attain a fair compensation for any improvements
which he might ut,,ke at his own expense. at. the pre .•
moment. They would also he legislating in a case ist
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 Eneland 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 ss) vague as was 1111/1
toned, as the term was perfestly understsaal. • It was for
the purpose of avoiding litigation, which was often ex-
pensive and unsatisfsctory, that he had proposed that
disputes should be decided by the arbitration of com-
petent persons. He begged pardon for having tres-
passed so long upon their. Lordships' time, but as he in-
tended to divide the House upon his motion, he felt called
upon to say thus mussh.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
For the -amendment—Contents ll
Non Contents 7
Nsjority for the atuendmeat.
Several measures la in ; on the table were then ad-
vanced a stage, and their Loriships adjourned.

Captain BERKELEY presented a petition from Gloucester
against any alteration in the Sentn-Wales Railway. The
Gallant Member moved that the petition should be referred to
the Ckgrimittre.— Agreed to.
COHK AND BANDON RAILWAY.
On the motion of Lord BERNARD, the Cork and Bandon
Railway Bill was read a third time and passed.
Yuitli AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY.

rhe;brds' amendments to ihe York and Nor h Mid-
land (a;riillo‘vton Branch) Railway werr agreed to.
The Key Hingham Drainage Bill was read h third time
and pasied.
HULL AND SELBY RAILWAY.
The Lords' amendments to the Hull send Selby Rail.
way ( Bridlington Branch) were agrrcd o.
Ti•e Lords' ametrimenks to the N weds- h,•up-iti-
Tyne Coal Turn Bill were agreed to.
WAKEFIELD, PONTEFRACT, AND GOOLE
RAILWAY.
The Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Ridlway Bill
wu reported,