Lords Sitting of 26 June 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. West India Islands Relief; Sir Henry Pottinger's Annuity; Games and Wagers Act Amendment.
2a. Granting of Leases; Outstanding Terms.
Reported.—Banking (Scotland); Heritable Securities (Scotland); Infeftments (Scotland).
3a. and passed:—Military Savings Banks.
Private.—1a. Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool Railway, and Bury Extension); Cork and Bandon Railway; Keyingham Drainage; West London Railway Extension and Lease; Sheffield Waterworks; Westminster Improvement; Falmouth Harbour.
2a. Blesington Estate (Earl of Charleville); Harwell and Streatley Road; Cromford Canal; Hartlepool Pier and Port; Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway (Heywood Branch).
Reported.—Glasgow Bridges; White's Charity Estate; Agricultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland; Blackburn and Preston Railway; Trent Valley Railway; Whitehaven and Furness Railway; Eastern Union (Bury St. Edmund's) Railway; North Wales Railway; North Woolwich Railway; Dundalk and Enniskillen Railway; Glasgow. Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (Cumnock Branch); York and North Midland Railway (Harrogate Branch); Shaw's Waterworks; Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway; Crediton Small Debts.
3a. and passed:—Earl of Onslow's Estate; Morden College Estate; Lord Monson's (or Countess Brooke and of Warwick's) Estate; Heaviside's Divorce; Dundee Waterworks; Kidwelly Inclosure; London and Greenwich Railway; Kendal Reservoirs; North British Railway; Belfast and Ballymena Railway; Blackburn Waterworks; Manchester Court of Record; Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Tynemouth Extension) Railway; North British Insurance Company.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Bath Easton, and 3 other places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath—From Bath Easton, and several other places, for the Better Regulation of Beer Houses.—From Aughmacart, for Encouragement to Schools in connexion with Church Education Society (Ireland).—By the Duke of Buccleuch, from Provincial Synod of Aberdeen, against the proposed measure relating to Universities (Scotland).

ATTENDANCE OF PEERS ON COMMITTEES.
Order of the Day for the attendance of Lord Gardner in his place, to state to the House the reasons for his not attending the Select Committee on the Glasgow Bridges Bill, read,
Lord Gardnersaid, that not being in the habit of speaking in the House, he had prepared a statement upon paper, which, with the permission of their Lordships, he would read. The noble Lord then read a statement, which was, in substance, that his non-attendance upon the Committee in question was occasioned by no disrespect towards their Lordships; that he was ignorant of the Standing Orders, and therefore considered himself incompetent to adjudicate in Committee upon points arising out of them. He had, moreover, a conscientious scruple against serving upon Railroad Committees, as he had some years ago become a shareholder in almost all the trunk lines; and he did not conceive it proper to place himself in a position in which he might become in a manner a judge in his own case. He had been asked by his noble Friend (the Earl of Besborough) to be a member of the Committee

1191
in question; but he had considered it rather in the light of an invitation which might be accepted or declined at pleasure, than as an Order of the House, which must be obeyed. He had no objection to serve if required; but he thought that the right rev. Prelates in that House ought to perform their fair share of the business of these Committees, and he would give notice of a Motion on the subject.
The Duke of Richmondcould not understand how the noble Lord's being a shareholder in railways could operate in preventing him being a Member of the Glasgow Bridges Committee. The Committee on which the noble Lord had been appointed to serve, had nothing to do with railways at all, and it was not apparent how the noble Lord's conscientious scruples were applicable in the present case. He must inform the noble Lord that it was not his noble Friend (Lord Duncannon) who had required his attendance on the Committee in question, but the Select Committee for recommending the Members of the different Private Committees, the recommendation of which Select Committee was enforced by a vote of their Lordships' House. The noble Lord had said he had no objection to serve upon Committees, if the right rev. Prelates in that House performed their share of duty. The noble Lord was not only perfectly ignorant, as he had acknowledged, of the Standing Orders, but of what had occurred within the last three weeks. There had been many right rev. Prelates on Committees; and to their credit be it said, they had never declined when their services had been requested. He would remind the noble Lord that Peers possessed many privileges; that they were exempted from numerous offices which other gentlemen had to serve; but with their privileges they had duties also, and this was one of them. It was only necessary to add that in having moved that the noble Lord should attend and give an explanation of the cause of his absence, his (the Duke of Richmond's) only object had been to maintain the high character of their Lordships, which would be injured in the eyes of the country, if it appeared that Peers wished to shrink from the performance of their duties.
The Earl of Besboroughagreed that Peers were bound to attend, and if they did not, they would not only be disobeying the Order of the House, but neglecting the business of the country; and he explained
1192
that he had informed his noble Friend that attendance was compulsory.
The Earl of Malmesburydid not deny the existence of the great powers that had been ascribed to their Lordships in cases of non-attendance; but when heavy fines were spoken of, and the sending Peers to the Tower, he did not think that such a course could be taken practically with respect to the Railway Committees, for they must have the feeling of the country with them in the adoption of such extreme measures. He had already served on one Committee, and he was ready to serve again; but when noble Lords spoke of resorting to stringent proceedings against those who absented themselves from these Committees, it should be remembered that there were about two hundred Peers who never came near the House at all; and if the law of Parliament was to be put in force at all, it should be against all alike, both those who were in the habit of attending the House, and those who never came, so that the public might see that all Peers were upon the same footing.
Lord Broughamsaid, there was not the least doubt that the House had the powers to which he had before adverted. On one occasion, before he had the honour of being a Member of their Lordships' House, all Peers had been compelled to attend on the service of the House for six or eight weeks, and had been compelled to give up the whole of their vacation. He agreed with the noble Earl that all Peers who had taken their seats in that House should be placed on the same footing; and those who were in the habit of attending the House on other business, ought not to be punished with greater severity than those who never came near the House at all.
Lord Redesdaledid not perceive the necessity of calling Peers from a great distance, if a sufficient number were in town to perform the necessary duties. Such a course would at least be discourteous to their brother Peers. The noble Lord had rather misunderstood the nature of the duties which would devolve upon him in attending a Committee. They did not necessarily require so perfect an acquaintance with the Standing Orders as the noble Lord seemed to suppose, but were such as, were he not a Peer, he would be very likely to be called upon to perform as a juryman.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that undoubtedly all Peers ought to attend; but if they were to summon Peers for the

1193
express purpose of attending these Railway Committees, they would be adopting a novel course of proceeding; for all the precedents of this kind on the Journals related to matters of much graver import, such as the consideration of matters of State. Moreover, if they were to compel Peers to come from a distance for the express purpose of attending these Committees, the question was, whether they would attend them in a spirit and temper best calculated for the discharge of the duty.
Lord Gardnerthen gave notice of Motion to the effect that the Lords Spiritual, as well as Temporal, be summoned and compelled to attend the House, beginning with those of the highest rank, and so continuing until the whole of their Lordships had served.
The Duke of Richmondrepeated that the Lords Spiritual had attended the Committees without any excuse, and without pleading ignorance.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that if the House was in course of performing those duties with regularity, and if they were going on in a satisfactory manner, he entreated their Lordships to discontinue this discussion. When there was a difficulty in finding Members for these Committees, let their Lordships consider what course ought to be adopted. Meanwhile he thought that all the Members of the House would lend their aid in carrying through the duties.
Lord Broughamsaid, he believed the form now would be, to enter on the Journals that Lord Gardner having attended in his place, and explained the cause of his non-attendance, the Order was discharged.
The House proceeded no further in the matter.

STATUTES AGAINST RECUSANTS.
Lord Beaumontwished to put a question to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with reference to the Report of the Criminal Law Commissioners. Their Lordships were aware, that in consequence of what had taken place since the Bill passed through that House, supported by the noble and learned Lord, repealing certain Acts against the Roman Catholics, it was thought advisable to appoint a Commission to investigate the state of the laws, not only as they bore on Roman Catholics with respect to the practice of their religion, but also on the position of Protestant Dissenters and Jews. That Commission had fulfilled the duties entrusted to them in a
1194
manner which must be considered by all who had read their Report, to be one displaying the greatest industry and sagacity. The Commissioners recommended that the Penal Statutes, against recusants should be repealed; that the Jewish religion should be protected by law as well as the Roman Catholic; and that one form of oath and declaration should be substituted for the many now in use throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the case of candidates for public offices. He should put the question to the noble and learned Lord, of which he had given notice, whether it was proposed to lay on the Table this Session, a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, his noble Friend, in putting a question to him with respect to the Report to which he referred, had done no more than justice to the learned persons upon the Commission, in the commendations he had bestowed on their industry, and the accuracy and intelligence with which they had performed their duties. Every person who turned his attention to the subject must consider that it reflected great credit on them. In answer to the question, he begged to say that he had directed a Bill to be prepared on the footing of their Report; but when it was considered that there were more than 700 Acts of Parliament to which their Report applied, it must be admitted that no little consideration and trouble were required for framing such a Bill. That work was now in the hands of persons in whose industry and care they might confide to produce it as soon as they could, consistently with the necessary examination and reflection demanded by the subject. The Bill would be produced as soon as the Commissioners were able to lay it on the Table of the House.
The Earl of Ellenboroughcould not help thinking that any Bill merely confined to repealing certain Acts, and parts of Acts, would be extremely inconvenient. It was essential that the public should know how the law really remained; otherwise, the uncertainty consequent upon leaving it vague or undefined, might lead to great mischiefs. It was a subject requiring extreme consideration from his noble and learned Friend, and those whom he might employ. But he hoped that the new Bill, when it was prepared, would be such as to enable all classes of Her Majesty's subjects to understand the law under which they were living.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the persons to whom he had committed the framing of the Bill were the Commissioners themselves, and they in every way deserved the confidence of their Lordships and the public.
Lord Broughamconcurred with his noble Friend opposite, that it was of extreme importance that the new Bill should plainly state the law. Time should be taken to draw the Act, and it should be prepared during the long vacation.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that when the Bill had been laid on the Table and printed, it would be for their Lordships to consider whether it would not be proper, looking to the extent and variety of the matters to which it referred, that it should stand over to the next Session; but it was quite premature to decide that at present.
Lord Monteagleobserved, that the same confusion of ancient laws, absurdity, and injustice, which it was the object of the Commission to remove in England, existed in the Statute Book of Ireland; and it was a matter of extreme importance that the improvement they contemplated with respect to the Statute Law of England, should be contemporaneously extended to Ireland. It would be better to remedy it by the same Bill, if possible, than by separate Statutes.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the Bill would extend to England, Scotland, and Ireland. In framing their Report, the Commissioners had had the assistance of the Attorney General of Ireland for the law of that country, and of the Lord Advocate of Scotland for the Scottish law. He hoped also to have the assistance of their Lordships to supply any omissions that might be found in the Bill, but he did not expect that there would be any.
Lord Beaumontsaid, the actual object of the Commissioners was to remedy the state of the law in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord himself will have the goodness to draw the Bill.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, it should be distinctly understood that Her Majesty's Government would not press the Bill through more than its first stage during the present Session.

TENANTS COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Stanleymoved the appointment of the Committee on this Bill.
The Marquess of Londonderrydeclined
1196
to serve on it. He had already expressed his opinion very decidedly on this measure, and maintained, that if the compulsory clause were omitted it would be a dead letter; if inserted, it would be the means of interfering between landlord and tenant in a manner prejudicial in the highest degree, especially in that part of Ireland with which he was connected.
The Earl of Lucangave notice, that if this Bill came in its present shape from the Committee, he should move its extension to Scotland and England.
The Marquess of Clanricardealso begged to be excused from attendance on this Committee. His objections to the principle of the Bill were so extremely strong, that it would be a farce to go into Committee with the view of improving its provisions. The new principle of this measure was not the compensation to tenants, but the appointment of a Government officer in Dublin, with power to interfere between landlord and tenant. The opposition to this Bill had been much misrepresented; for the noble Mover of the Bill, and the noble Earl at the head of the Commission, treated it as if directed against the provision for granting compensation to tenants, and not against the nomination of this new officer in Dublin. Now, he for one must say, that if the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) moved a Resolution or introduced a Bill directing that compensation should be awarded to tenants for improvements effected on estates, he should not only support it, but do all in his power to carry it into effect. He must say, too, that they were mistaken who supposed that this question had been considered solely as a landlord's question; he maintained that this Bill would do no good to the tenants, to whom it professed to give compensation. It had been said, that this measure would not apply to good landlords; that if landlords and tenants agreed well together, and that due consideration was had for the latter, this Bill would not at all interfere with the relations which subsisted between them. But they might be sure that landlords and tenants would come together with very different feelings, if the latter had an opinion that there was a Commissioner in Dublin, to whom on every occasion of dispute they might appeal. How did this Bill operate as against an adverse landlord? Take it as affecting three classes of tenantry—those having leases likely to last for a considerable time, those that would last but for a short time, and those who were tenants at will. Those

1197
who had seven or fourteen years of a lease to run would find the occupation infinitely more profitable than any award that might be granted by the Dublin Commissioner. As for the tenant at will, the notice of appeal would be a notice to quit. But it was said that it would be a great thing for the widow, who was often turned out on the death of her husband, if she had an allowance for any improvements that were made. Did or could the landlord turn out a person so situated at present? Take care, however, that if this Bill passed, it would not give a sanction to so harsh an act, and almost compel the landlord to pick and choose from those who would, in such circumstances, stand in a position equally indifferent to him. But there was another unfair provision in the law: it proceeded on the principle that there was to be no change in the value of agricultural produce. Now it was imagined that protection to agriculture in this country increased the value of the land. It was true the price of agricultural produce could never be kept up to the degree calculated upon; for the price, which it was thought protection would ensure, instead of being 63 s. or 56 s. per quarter, for corn, was now but 47 s. But how did this Bill propose to deal with the fluctuations in the value of land? Why, by declaring the landlord should never raise his rent until the whole value of the improvements was paid; and this, though the value of the land by a rise in the price of produce might be greatly increased. It acted as a bar to the landlord and tenant coming to a fair agreement as to the value of the land. These were tenants' and not landlords' arguments against the Bill. But the great argument against it was, that it would excite bad blood between landlord and tenant. The tenant was the weaker party, and if tempted to a struggle he must come off worse. This measure was opposed by every party in Ireland. He had not read the whole of the evidence taken before the Commission. He doubted whether any noble Lord had; but in what he saw of it, he found nothing new. The facts deposed to were brought out over and over again; and he could not help thinking that if, instead of issuing this Commission, they had a year ago referred the whole subject to a Committee up-stairs, there would now be effected a solid improvement in the law. The only authority for the present measure was the noble Earl at the head of the Commission, as he understood that his Col-
1198
leagues by no means pledged themselves to such a step. "Who are the supporters of this measure? Remember that one great argument against your legislation made use of by the Repealers is, that you constantly pass laws, not in opposition to one but to all classes in that country. And I say that is a most dangerous state of feeling. Some years ago I had a conversation on this subject with an hon. Gentleman, who has since become a distinguished member of the Repeal Association, but who was then opposed to Repeal. He said to me, 'I have been many years a Member of the British House of Commons, and I have found that on all questions, except those relating to Ireland, I am listened to with attention; but I have often felt that the very fact of my being an Irish Member, lessens my influence on Irish subjects. I am not a Repealer, he said, for I see many objections to such a measure; but if the Legislature proceed in the same course, I do not see what good I can do in a British House of Commons, and must support the proposal of an Irish Parliament for Irish affairs.' I tell your Lordships that is a feeling widely spreading in Ireland. They tell you in their petitions that matters relating to the internal state of the country are not attended to, and that the views and votes of those connected with the country are overruled by those not acquainted with it. Now, I maintain this Bill justifies that description. There was a petition respectfully, firmly, and calmly drawn up, and signed by a number of noble Lords, supporters of the Government. These are men, to whom the Government, having no Irishman in the Cabinet, may be naturally supposed to look for advice; but they reject their advice, they despise their guidance, and force on Parliament a measure opposed to the wishes of every one who understands the subject; for my noble Friends near me (the Marquess of Lansdowne and Marquess of Normanby), though they voted for the second reading, can hardly be reckoned upon as strenuous supporters of the measure. All the authorities out of the House—all the organs of all parties in Ireland, are opposed to this measure. Everybody is favourable to the consideration of the principle which it professes to carry out; but you (the Government) say you will not go into that question, except on an understanding that it is a violation of the rights of property, and which will never be admitted in any part of Great Britain. I move,

1199
as an Amendment, that my name be omitted."
The Marquess of Londonderry: I rise to correct a mistake into which the noble Marquess has fallen. He says there is no Irishman in the Cabinet. Now, there is the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) at the head of the Government. Besides, there are two distinguished men, who, though not Irishmen, have filled the office of Secretary in Ireland, and to whose opinions in general I should readily bow, though I conscientiously differ from them on this occasion.
Lord Stanleyconsidered it was a singular proceeding on the part of the noble Marquess—on a Motion for appointing a Select Committee—that he should have taken such an opportunity of entering into a full discussion of the merits of a Bill which had already been fully discussed at the proper stages. He hoped the noble Marquess would acquit him of disrespect and discourtesy if he declined to follow him into any arguments he had brought forward. With respect to the objections raised to acting on the Committee, he believed there were precedents for noble Lords serving on Committees against the object of which they had strong objections. He could not, however, but admit the validity of the objections of the noble Marquess; and though he should regret his absence, he should not press for his name as one of the Members. His object in forming this Committee had not been to place on it the names only of those who were supporters of the Bill, and on whom, therefore, Government might rely for a favourable verdict; his object had been to have the opinions and the decisions of noble Lords in this Committee most likely to carry the greatest weight with the public—be those opinions and decisions in favour or against the measure—because the public would then be satisfied that whichever way the verdict went, the question before the Committee had been tried fully and fairly. He could not have reconciled the proceeding to himself, had he omitted the names of noble Lords who had so great a stake in Ireland as the noble Lords who had raised objections to serve on the Committee. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had stated there was a disadvantage felt by Irishmen, in Her Majesty's Government legislating for Ireland. Now, he had been anxious respecting this Committee, to submit the question only to those who were best acquainted with its bearings, and most
1200
deeply interested in its results. Out of twenty-one names forming the list, no less than fourteen were directly interested and personally connected by property with Ireland, and out of this number no less than seven were constant residents in Ireland. He had taken names from both sides of the House indiscriminately; his only wish was to submit the question to an impartial consideration, and his only aim, not to select parties merely because they were favourable to Government. In fact, he believed the majority of them on the list had expressed themselves doubtfully with respect to portions of the measure. He repeated, his sole and single view in forming the Committee was to obtain the best and most impartial tribunal to which to submit the question; and this being so, though he should regret the absence of the noble Lords, still he could not press them to let their names remain on the list. The two noble Marquesses opposite were both opponents of the measure. The removal of their names would reduce the number to nineteen; but if their Lordships should wish to substitute for them the names of any two other noble Lords known to be opposed to the Bill, he could only say he would readily accede to their nomination, or that of any other noble Lords who might be offered as substitutes.
The Earl of Lucansaid, the noble Lord took great credit to himself for the impartiality with which he had selected the Committee; whereas out of twenty-one noble Lords there were only five nominated who had voted against the second reading of the Bill, while the other sixteen had all voted for it, or were known to be supporters of it. He thought it his duty to call previous attention to the constitution of this unfair and prejudiced Committee.
The Marquess of Normanby: The state of his health would not allow him to remain more than a few days longer in that House; but if he saw any prospect of coming to a satisfactory conclusion as to this Bill, there was no amount of personal inconvenience which he would not undergo for the sake of arriving at such a result. He had waited for the second reading, not because he approved of the whole measure, but because he was unwilling to take on himself the responsibility (seeing the division was a very close one) of refusing the Government an opportunity of stating their case. He had since looked at the Bill more attentively; and he was bound to say he did not see the most remote pro-

1201
bability of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion with it. He spoke as one unlearned in the law; but it struck him as one of the worst drawn-up Bill she had ever seen. He should move that his name be also omitted.
The Earl of Roden: After the statement made as to the composition of the Committee, he thought it would be fruitless for those opposed to the principle of the measure to serve on it. He must, therefore, move that his name be withdrawn.
Lord Broughammust be allowed to say that, however plausible the reasons given for declining to serve on this Committee, they had, in his opinion, no validity whatever. Details were constantly discussed in that House, when they differed on the principle. If noble Lords failed in improving this measure, they could vote against it in Committee of the whole House, or on the Report; but they would do good service to their country if they improved in any way the relation between landlord and tenant, even though they might not succeed in altering this Bill as much as they desired.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that on looking over the names, his impression was directly the reverse of that of his noble Friend (Lord Lucan) as to a preponderance of Peers in favour of the Bill. He hoped his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) would persevere, seeing that he admitted the other night, that if every objection then urged to the Bill was acceded to, a good measure might still remain for their decision.
The Marquess of Londonderryobserved, that as to the noble and learned Lord's (Lord Brougham's) dictation, given in so decided a manner, he could not submit to it. He could not sit on the Committee; for he was directly opposed to the principle of the Bill. He predicted, that in the course of a few weeks, petitions would be presented from all the tenantry of Ulster against this Bill.
The Earl of Lucanthought the propositions of the proposed Committee were unfair and unjust, consisting as they did of sixteen to five. The list only contained two names of the Peers who had signed the remonstrance against the Bill read the other night. Indeed, he could not help saying that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) deserved praise for the ingenuity with which, not to say it harshly, he had packed the Committee.
Lord Stanleysaid, that the noble Earl
1202
behind him ought not to be the person to complain of strong expressions; for when he first rose he charged him (Lord Stanley) with having selected an unfair and partial Committee, and he now improved upon that language by calling it a packed Committee. He said, that sixteen of its Members were in favour of the Bill, and only five opposed to it. Now he (Lord Stanley) would come to names, and he thought that he could show the House that though it was certainly true that there was a majority of Peers proposed to be placed on this Committee who had voted in favour of the second reading of the Bill, yet if they would examine the list with reference to one of the most material principles of the measure, the compulsory clause, they would find that there were certainly nine—he believed ten—of the twenty-one who had expressed themselves adverse to that principle, and only eight—if, indeed, there were so many—who had spoken in its favour. Four Members of the Committee had expressed no opinion on the subject; and upon his honour as a gentleman, he had no idea of the view which they would be inclined to take of it. Now there voted against the second reading the Marquess of Hertford, the Earl of Roden, the Marquess of Clanricarde, the Earl of Rosse, the Marquess of Londonderry, and Lord Monteagle. All these voted against the principle of the Bill, and against its being read a second time. Again, the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Normanby, and the Marquess of Salisbury condemned in the strongest terms the compulsory clause. Therefore, in this so-called packed Committee, consisting of twenty-one Members, there were no less than nine (and he believed, although he was not certain of it, he might add to that number the name of a noble Duke upon the cross benches)—at all events, there were at least nine—who had declared themselves decidedly opposed to the compulsory clause of the Bill. Then there were favourable to that clause the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, the Earl of Devon, Earl Fortescue, the Earl of Wicklow, the Earl of St. Germans, the Earl of Besborough, and Lord Stanley—in all eight. Thus seventeen of the twenty-one were accounted for. He did not know the opinions of the Duke of Cleveland, of Earl Fitzwilliam, the Earl of Chichester, or of Lord Ashburton. Thus there were four of the proposed Members of the Committee of whose opinions he was ignorant.

1203
Eight were in favour of one of the most important clauses, and nine had declared their hostility to it. Such was the composition of the Committee, which the noble Earl thought he was justified in pronouncing as an unfair, a prejudiced, and packed tribunal. He had laid, he confessed, some stress upon the subject, as he felt it to be one touching his personal character and honour. Moreover, the statement of the noble Earl appeared to have made some impression upon the mind of another noble Earl near him, for whose good opinion and respect he must always have the greatest regard, and upon which he must always set the highest value. He would be allowed to say, in conclusion, that he attached more importance to their Lordships being satisfied that there had been no attempt at unfairness or partiality in the composition of the Committee, than he did to the result to which the labours of that Committee might lead, vitally important to Ireland, as he believed the measure to be to which their attention was to be directed.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he was convinced the noble Earl who had criticised somewhat warmly the constitution of the Committee, did not intend to throw any imputation upon the noble Lord who had just sat down. It would be absurd for him (the Marquess of Clanricarde) to attend this Committee; for, though he agreed—in common, he believed, with all their Lordships—that it was desirable compensation should be afforded to tenants for permanent improvements, he strongly objected to the appointment of a Commissioner in Dublin, and he would feel it his duty to divide the Committee upon that point. He considered that the statutory law of the land ought to give tenants a right to compensation for improvements; but if he were a Member of this Committee, and his Motion for expunging the clause for the appointment of the Commissioner should be successful, the whole Bill would fall to the ground; for there was not a single clause in the Bill—except that which limited its operation to Ireland — which did not more or less refer to the Commissioner.
The Earl of St. Germanssaid, that every noble Lord who spoke on this Bill the other night, admitted that compensation was due to tenants in Ireland, who effected permanent improvements on the land they occupied. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) stated the other evening,
1204
that he did not consider the machinery of the Bill as constituting any part of its principle; and he also said that he did not consider the compulsory clause strictly essential to the efficiency of the measure. A better system of machinery than that proposed by the Bill might be devised in Committee; and he could not but express his surprise that noble Lords who admitted the principle of compensation refused to serve on the Committee, which would place them in a position to modify or improve the provisions of the measure. He hoped the noble Marquess (Clanricade), and other noble Lords, would reconsider the matter, and that they would not allow it to go forth to the people of Ireland, that the Members of that House were indisposed to enter upon the consideration of measures calculated to benefit that country.
Earl Fortescuesaid, that when he found that his name was proposed to be put upon the Committee, it was his intention to have applied to their Lordships for permission to have it withdrawn, on the score of the great personal inconvenience which, it so happened, serving on the Committee would cause him. But under present circumstances, and feeling strongly the importance of the Bill, he felt he would not be satisfying his own conscience unless he consented to give what aid he could to the Committee. At the same time, if any arrangement could be made in the nature of a pair, by withdrawing his name and that of a noble Peer of opposite sentiments, he would not object to such a plan.
The Earl of Rodensaid, he considered that the remarks of the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Lucan) relative to the constitution of this Committee were couched in very strong language; for it was impossible to conceive that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) would act, either in that House or elsewhere, in a manner which was not entirely honourable. He entertained very strong objections to the appointment of a Commissioner in Dublin, and on that ground he felt bound to oppose the Bill; but if it was the wish of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) he would consent to serve on the Committee.
The Marquess of Londonderrysuggested that, as the noble Earl had consented to serve, the names of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) and the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) might be mutually withdrawn.
The Earl of Devon,in an almost inaudible tone, observed that the Commission had

1205
found great difficulty with respect to the subject of compulsory compensation; but after full consideration, they had come to the conclusion that the Bill now before their Lordships would effect the desired object in the cheapest and most efficient manner.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid a few words in explanation as to the noble Peer alleged to have been shut in at the division on the second reading.
After a short broken conversation on the subject,
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the matter was not worth going into, and the conversation dropped.
Committee appointed, with the substitution of the Earl of Charleville's name for that of the Marquess of Clanricarde.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.
Lord Portmanmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
Lord Beaumontopposed it as useless and totally uncalled for. The measure only enacted that that should be done on compulsion by law, which was at present voluntarily by private agreement. He moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
The Duke of Richmondsupported the Bill. He thought that this was a favourable period for the enacting of some such measure. He did not believe that the Bill before their Lordships would tend to dissolve the ties happily subsisting between landlord and tenant. It was very desirable that the tenant should have some security. Much as he approved of leases, he did not think that was a subject upon which the Legislature ought to pass any positive enactment compulsory upon the proprietors of land; but he was of opinion that this Bill would, at all events, tend to secure some of the objects desired. He contended that the measure was one which would facilitate the improvement of this country, by means of, and through the tenantry, and that it would be only an act of justice towards them to give its provisions the force of law. There was now a great disposition on the part of the tenantry to improve their land, and that disposition would have increased but for recent legislative measures. The desire to carry out improvements, however, still pervaded a great body of the tenantry, and he thought they ought not to discourage it by refusing to consider this Bill, especially after the recognition of its general principle the
1206
other evening in the debate on the Irish measure by noble Lords on all sides. Though he did not altogether like the wording of the Bill in many respects, still, approving as he did of its principle, as it had been explained by the noble Lord who moved it, he should support the second reading.
The Duke of Clevelandobserved, that a similar Bill had been brought in last year by the noble Lord (Lord Portman), the principle of which had been approved, and it had been referred to a Select Committee, but was ultimately withdrawn on account of some technical objection. He thought, therefore, they were bound not to reject the second reading of this measure. He would not enter into the question of what was the best system of management—whether it was more advisable to let the land on lease or by tenancy at will; for his part he had always been in favour of the tenancy-at-will system. But he thought, to ensure confidence in the tenant, it was necessary that he should have every reasonable indulgence extended to him, and that he should be impressed with the idea that if he expended his money in permanent improvement, he should be amply compensated by his landlord. In many cases he was aware the Bill would be a dead letter, in consequence of the liberal manner in which the estates were managed, and the perfect good understanding that existed between the tenants and their landlords. But at the same time it could not be denied that there were many cases in which the measure would be most useful, and insure justice to the tenant; and so far from creating ill-feeling between the landlord and tenant, it would unite them together in one common interest, and promote good feeling between them.
Lord Ashburtonwas surprised to find the two noble Dukes supporting a measure which he believed, so far from producing harmony and good feeling between landlord and tenant, would make a lawsuit inevitable between every tenant who quitted his farm and his landlord. What was to be done in cases where the tenant held his land under lease, and where the improvements were made under the stipulations of the lease? Was it to be made a subject for arbitration what amount of compensation should be given to the tenant for those improvements which he was bound by his lease to make, and which were considered in the terms upon which the land was leased? The custom of the country and

1207
the common law of the country was sufficient for all the purposes for which this Bill was brought forward, and to ensure due protection to the tenant. He considered there was no necessity for the Bill, and should, therefore, vote against it.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that nine times out of ten interference of this description did more harm than good. All that this Bill proposed to give to the tenant he had already, by the custom of the country; it was, therefore, unnecessary. It might be said he had supported a similar Bill for Ireland, the principle of which was compulsory; but then the circumstances of the two countries were dissimilar. In Ireland the tenant was protected by no such custom as existed in this country, consequently some legislative measure for his protection was required. His objection to the measure was, that there was no occasion for it, and that legislative interference would, therefore, do more harm than good.
The Duke of Richmondobserved that there were many parts of England in which the custom of compensating tenants for liming, chalking, and such like improvements did not prevail, and he considered that the advantage should be extended to all.
Lord Portmancontended that the object of the Bill, so far from promoting lawsuits, was to give the tenant a summary mode of enforcing just claims, by arbitration. It was to afford an easy and summary remedy, and consequently, to avoid expensive lawsuits. The Bill was so worded, that it would give compensation only for those permanent improvements which were made by the tenant with the sanction of his landlord, and upon the understanding that he should be paid for them, but for which the amount to be paid was not settled; but which amount would, under the Bill, be settled by inexpensive arbitration, instead of by expensive suits at law. The Bill would not interfere with the stipulations of any lease, or give compensation for such improvements as were made under the conditions of a lease.
On Question, that "now" stand part of the Motion? House divided:—Contents 7; Non-Contents 11: Majority 4.
Resolved in the Negative.
House adjourned.