Lords Sitting of 4 June 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS,—1a Defects in Leases, 2a Landlord and Tenant.
Reported.—Apprehension of Deserters (Portugal).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Brougham, from Wim-borne Minster, Wellington, and Llanrwst, for Extending the Jurisdiction of County Courts; also from Finsbury, for the Establishment of Home Colonies.—From Bristol, Norwich, and other Places, against the Endowment of Roman Catholic Priests in Ireland.—From Roxburgh, and Edinburgh, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill,—By the Duke of Buccleuch, from Roxburgh, Edinburgh, and Perth, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill; also from Selkirk, against the Running of Passenger Trains on the Sabbath; also from Auchtermuchty and Perth, to remove from the Statute Book those Enactments under which the Rev. J. Shore has been Incarcerated; likewise to refer all international Differences to Arbitration by Neutral Powers.—By the Earl of Malms-bury, from Wales, for Protection from unrestricted Foreign Competition.—From Old Alresford, Bishops Sutton, and other Places, for the Repeal of the Malt Tax.—By the Earl of St. Germans, from Bolton, that Boards of Guardians may be Empowered to grant Superannuation Allowances to Poor Law Officers.—By Lord Stanley, from Frome, for an Alteration in Dispensing the Grants made in favour of Public Education.—From Sowersby, White-stone, and Thirsk, against the Granting of any New Licenses to Beer Shops.—From Lancaster, for the Adoption of a System of Secular Education, to be supported by Local Rates.

EDUCATION—THE NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
LORD STANLEYpresented a petition on the subject of national education; and, in presenting it, he trusted the noble Marquess opposite would excuse him if he repeated a question which he had put in the early part of the Session, with reference to the application of the fund for the Schools of the National Society. The petition was from the in-habitants of the deanery of Frome, and, after complaining of the operation of the
1080
management clauses under which the funds were distributed, prayed that the interference of the Government might be limited to two points—namely, that the site of school buildings shall be legally secured by trusts legally constituted; and, secondly, that the school shall be open to Government inspection within certain limits, as arranged in 1840. Early in the Session, he had put a question to the noble Marquess upon this subject, when he was informed that a correspondence was then going on upon the subject between the Government and the heads of the Church. He had now to ask if that correspondence had been brought to a conclusion, and whether terms had been agreed upon between the Government and the heads of the Church tending to remove the objections which were entertained by a large body in the Church?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas sorry that he could not state that that correspondence had been brought to a conclusion. He hoped, however, that it soon would be. As far as related to the Committee of Privy Council, it had come to an end. He was happy to be able to inform their Lordships, that certain arrangements had been made by that Committee which were deemed satisfactory by many distinguished Prelates of the Church, and even by many of the objectors to their former proceedings. There were, however, certain persons—but he believed that their number was not large—who still objected to the regulations and conditions which the Committee considered to be indispensable for carrying out the intentions of Parliament. He thought it proper that the correspondence should be brought to a conclusion before it was presented to Parliament; but if he should find that any considerable time was likely to elapse before it was brought to a conclusion, he would lay it upon the table as far as it had gone, as he was most anxious that the attention of both Houses of Parliament should be called to the subject.
LORD STANLEYobserved, that one reason which had induced him to put this question was, that he had seen that the vote on this subject had passed, sub silen-tio, in the other House of Parliament. He, therefore, thought, that the time had now come when their Lordships ought to under-stand what the conditions were upon which future grants to these schools were to be made.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, that as

1081
he was not aware of the intention of Lord Stanley to put this question to the noble President of the Council, he had not come down to the House prepared to make any observations upon it. One observation, however, had been made by the noble Baron which appeared to him to require an answer on his part. The noble Baron had spoken of the correspondence as a correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the rulers of the Church. Now, that was not quite correct. The correspondence had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Committee of the National Society. It was true that the Committee of the National Society comprehended several rulers of the Church; but he distinctly asserted, that the rulers of the Church were not responsible for the acts of the National Society, and that the Church itself was not responsible for them. He would say more than that; he assorted that great inconvenience had arisen from the notion that the National Society represented the Church. In the remainder of the noble Baron's observations he must express his own concurrence. He thought that Parliament should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the mode of expending the public money which was disbursed by its authority for the purpose of educating the poor, and on the conditions on which it was to be dispensed. He trusted that Government would attend to this point, and afford some explanation; for at present it seemed that the clergy had no choice save that of accepting the money on the terms of the Government. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that some years ago he had moved an Address to Her Majesty, praying that Parliament might have an opportunity of expressing its opinion with respect to one of the most important questions that could occupy the attention of the Legislature—the mode in which popular education could be promoted throughout the country. Certain it was that great dissatisfaction prevailed among a large portion of the members of the Church as to the conditions imposed upon the grants by the Committee of Privy Council; and he did not think that those apprehensions so entertained in the Church were by any means allayed. He did not think that these apprehensions were justly entertained; at least, he did not entertain them himself to the extent to which they were entertained by the parties to whom he alluded; but, he thought, consideration was
1082
due to the scruples which were felt; and, whether those scruples were just or not, Parliament should be put in possession of the Minutes of the Council before they assumed the shape of an Act of Parliament.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEexpressed his concurrence in the observation of the right rev. Prelate, that these Minutes should be before Parliament, in order that any errors into which the Committee of Privy Council might have fallen should be at once corrected. With that view they had been, and they would be, laid from time to time before Parliament.
Petition to he on the table.

LEASEHOLD TENURE OF LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Order of the Day for bringing up the Report of the Committee being read,
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, there were some Amendments which he wished to propose in the Bill, and moved that the reception should be postponed for a short time, as he had appointed to-morrow to meet with some gentlemen from Ireland who were interested in the Bill, and dissatisfied with some of its clauses.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, the Bill had already stood over for ten days; nevertheless, he had no objection to postpone it till to-morrow, if that would meet the views of his noble Friend.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he understood some of the provisions of this Bill were much objected to by the Irish Society of London, as it was believed that the operation of the measure would deprive them of the moral influence they now exercised over their tenantry in the discretion which the present law allowed them to exercise with regard to subletting, and which it was now proposed to oust them from, giving them instead a small pecuniary compensation, which they did not want. The Irish Society had some claim to the consideration of their Lordships, as, through the exercise of their discretion, they had been able to maintain on their estates the very best tenants in Ireland. They were desirous, before the Bill passed, to state these objections, either at the bar of the House, or before a Select Committee. If the noble and learned Lord would say that the Society had no cause for apprehension, he had nothing further to say to the passing of the measure; but if not, he thought the matter was worthy of consideration before the Bill finally passed.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not

1083
feel himself called upon to commit himself to a professional opinion; but of this he was certain, that his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor had most anxiously and deliberately considered the interests of all parties, and from the clauses which had in consequence been introduced, he believed that the apprehensions of his noble Friend were entirely unfounded. Further than this, the most ample opportunity had been afforded for the discussion of the Bill on the previous stages. He should most strenuously oppose the measure being sent to a Select Committee.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had presented a petition from the Irish Society on this subject. They wished to be heard by counsel against the Bill; but when his noble and learned Friend put the question to him, if it was not an unusual thing to hear parties at the bar on a private complaint against a public Bill, he was bound to state that that was a valid objection, for in all his experience he had never met with a precedent for such a proceeding. Nevertheless, he thought that some indulgence ought to be shown to this Society, for a more meritorious class of landlords did not exist. He was hopeful that their Lordships would give them relief at another stage of the Bill.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, the Bill had already boon discussed in two different stages, and in one of them the particular case now alluded to was noticed by the noble and learned Lord who brought in the Bill. He stated that he had taken into consideration the propositions made by the Irish Society, but that, after full consideration, he saw it was impossible to make any exemption on their behalf. No doubt it was still open to any noble Lord to bring forward the subject again, either now or at some future stage.
LORD STANLEYsaid, the discussion alluded to took place one night after a discussion on the navigation laws, and when there were only four noble Lords present.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, so far as he was concerned, he would be quite satisfied if his noble and learned Friend would put off the measure till to-morrow.
The EARL of LUCANsaid, no discussion had taken place on the Bill that was worth the name. He hoped it would be referred to a Select Committee only for one half-hour to dispose of this subject.
LORD CAMPBELLcould not agree to the suggestion.
The EARL of LUCANthen moved that the Bill be recommitted.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, it would be quite open to his noble Friend to move tomorrow that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and he thought that if the noble Lord wished to have the Bill fairly and candidly discussed, that would be a better course than pressing the matter further at present.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEbegged to remind the House of what they were about to do, before they proceeded to a division. The Order of the Day for bringing up the Report being moved, his noble and learned Friend was asked to defer the Report till to-morow, a request to which he immediately acceded, and their Lordships were now called upon to adopt the unprecedented course of resisting the postponement of the Order of the Day under these circumstances.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYsaid, that the noble and learned Lord first resisted the postponement on the ground of the necessity of pressing forward the Bill, and he now resisted the Amendment of the noble Earl for the very opposite reason, and on the ground that a postponement was necessary.
After a short discussion, the last Motion was withdrawn. Original Motion agreed to.

THE CALEDONIAN RAILWAY COMPANY.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he had a petition to present from certain proprietors of stock in the Caledonian Railway Company, stating some facts which, from their gravity, were entitled to their Lordships' most serious attention. He believed there was no principle which their Lordships were more disposed to maintain, in the ease of railway companies, than that the money subscribed on the faith of the Act of Parliament for the construction of railways, should be employed strictly in the way that the Legislature authorised: but in the case of the Caledonian Railway Company, this principle, according to the petitioners, had been entirely departed from. He was not going to impute any personal corruption or dishonesty to the directors in the misapplication of the funds. The directors were, he believed, personally above suspicion in the matter, and nothing could be further from his intention than to make any allegation reflecting in the slightest degree on their personal characters; but at the same time their Lordships were not, on that account,

1085
to overlook the mischief that had been done. This railway was one of the two great lines intended to form a communication between England and Scotland; after proceeding as far as Carlisle, it branched off in two directions, by lines leading off to Glasgow on the one side, and to Edinburgh on the other. The Committee had reported favourably of the line, and had recommended the Bill specially to the consideration of Parliament. The Bill was afterwards amended, and between 3,000,000 l. and 4,000,000 l. were authorised to be raised and appropriated for the great national purpose of forming a direct communication by railway between the capitals of the two countries. Out of these 3,000,000 l. or 4,000,000 l. the directors had, however, employed, in the purchase of shares in other railway companies, no less a sum than 381,000 l., every sixpence of which had been withdrawn from the purpose for which Parliament had authorised it to be raised. He held in his hand a list of the several railways, eleven in number, to the purchase of shares in which this fund had been applied. Now, how had the shareholders been dealt with? They knew nothing of these transactions—they were ignorant of the mode in which their money had been expended—and they now found themselves in possession of nearly 400,000 l. of shares of other lines that were not marketable, and on which they might be liable at any time to further calls. If such practices were permitted, their Lordships had better at once give up all control over the conditions they imposed in those Acts of Parliament, and in future there would be no need to apply a single sixpence to the purposes for which the funds were authorised to be raised, but the directors might be at liberty to devote the money of the shareholders, as they had done in this instance, to speculative projects of another kind. The shareholders stated in their petition that they had been excluded from a knowledge of the accounts until the month of February in the present year, when this misapplication of their money was first discovered, and no blame was, therefore, to be attached to them. It was for their Lordships to say whether these directors, or any others so misconducting themselves, were entitled to any favours from Parliament, and whether the prayer of this petition, which was against the second reading of a Bill now on their Lordships' table (Bill for the Lease of the Glasgow, Barhead, and Neilston Direct Railway), should not be acceded to.
1086
He was therefore resolved to take the sense of the House, on the second reading of the Bill to which he alluded, on the inexpediency of entrusting new powers to directors who had already so misconducted themselves.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the noble Lord had rendered a great service to the country by the zeal and perseverance which he had shown on this subject. Since he had himself brought the subject of railway management before their Lordships, he had been in communication by correspondence with a great number of shareholders, directors, and other persons interested in various ways in railway undertakings, and he could assure their Lordships that that correspondence was of the most extraordinary character. He had received many hundreds of letters, and had read a large percentage of them; and he would have road the whole of them but that he found all those which he did read of precisely the same character. They all presented the same melancholy picture of distress inflicted by these companies on persons who could not afford to speculate—persons living on small incomes, widow ladies, maiden ladies, and trustees of orphans who had exceeded their powers from the charitable motive of obtaining the means of better providing for those committed to their care, all of whom were persons least adapted for speculating or for gambling—for why should it not be called by its proper name? He could not describe to their Lordships the pain with which he read these afflicting details. The uniformity of their complaint was, that they had been taken in by speculators—now an attorney, now an engineer, now a surveyor, but, above all, by speculators who belonged to neither of those classes, but who were gamblers in the share-market, but who were not holders of shares except for the moment, and till they got to a premium, when they transferred them to some unfortunate person, who was ruined in the course of a year or two afterwards. He had been blamed by persons who were ignorant of what was passing on the subject, for having contented himself with making a statement only, and he had received letters asking him why he did not take the most obvious course, and bring in some measure on the subject. Why? For this simple reason, that a notice of a measure had already been given by his noble Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle), and he felt that it could not be in better hands. Why, it was asked.

1087
did he not lay the axe at the root of the evil by promoting a system of audit of railway accounts? That was the very thing he did; the whole of his argument throughout his statement was to promote a system of auditing railway accounts. He supported his noble Friend both last year and this in his effort to establish that system. He agreed with his noble Friend that those parties who violated the provisions of an Act of Parliament which conferred on them extraordinary powers, were not exactly the persons who were entitled again to come to Parliament for an extension of those powers. All such Acts of Parliament were in themselves a violation of the common law of the land; a violation of marriage settlements, of rights of inheritance, and of the enjoyment of property; and no extension, therefore, of their Lordships' high legislative authority to any parties ought ever to be granted unless they stood recti in curià. If what was alleged in these petitions as having been done by those parties did not actually amount to fraud, yet they were most unwarrantable and most unjustifiable acts, and he therefore hoped his noble Friend would persist in his intention of opposing the Bill that was now pending before their Lordships at as early a stage as it was practicable. He wished, however, to ask his noble Friend whether the parties had had an opportunity of being heard in answer to these allegations?
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the moment he received the petitions he put the parties in possession of the fact, and informed them that the Railway Committee would have the whole matter placed before them. The Committee was still sitting, and was open to the parties; and, if they felt desirous of being heard, the Committee could be called together and they might be heard to-morrow.
LORD BROUGHAMwas completely answered; and he heartily rejoiced that their Lordships would be able to oppose the second reading without the tedious and expensive formality of going into Committee upon the Bill.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEagreed with his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) that these transactions were of a most pernicious and ruinous description. They were not only illegal in themselves, but contrary to the covenants upon which the company obtained their powers from Parliament, and must be detrimental in the highest degree to the interests of the parties
1088
themselves. Their Lordships and the public owed a considerable debt of gratitude to his noble Friend for the labour he had bestowed, and the efficiency with which he had applied himself to such cases as the present. His noble Friend had said that he had no intention to impute anything dishonourable on the part of the persons implicated in this transaction; he (Lord Wharncliffe) thought it but justice to those parties to say, that whatever might have been the error committed by them in the management of the Caledonian Railway, there was this distinction between their cases and several others which had been brought before the House—that all those errors and acts of illegality had been committed by the parties with the sole view of promoting the interest of the proprietors, and not for their own personal advantage.
The DUKE of BUCCLEUCHhoped, as the noble Lord opposite had declared it to be his intention to oppose the Bill now pending, he would look carefully into its provisions before doing so, as its rejection might inflict very serious injury on the shareholders and the public. He concurred with what had fallen from the noble Lord who had just spoken, and was convinced that neither the chairman nor the directors had acted with any view to promote their own interests, and that, though they might have been in error, yet what they had done was intended to advance the interest of the company at large.
LORD MONTEAGLEdisclaimed having cast the least imputation on any of the parties concerned in this transaction, many of whom were friends of his own.
Petition read, and referred to the Select Committee on the Audit of Railway Accounts.
Certain accounts of the Caledonian Railway Company were ordered to be laid before the House forthwith.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.
LORD PORTMANmoved that this Bill be now read 2a. His Lordship said, that this measure had received very serious consideration in the other House; and he had undertaken to bring it before their Lordships, because, upon a former occasion, he had introduced a Bill himself, which was submitted to a Select Committee. That measure, however, was not proceeded with, owing to the difficulties of the subject. Since that period, a Select Committee of the House of Commons had taken evidence

1089
in relation to it, and the result of their investigations was a conviction that it was expedient to pass a Bill wholly permissive, allowing persons having limited estates to hind their heirs by agreement to grant compensation to tenants for improvements. The Bill was divisible into three parts. The first enabled parties having limited interests in land to enter into such agreements; the second made some improvements with regard to emblements; and the third allowed tenants to remove engines, buildings, and other fixtures erected by them. He would not conceal from their Lordships his opinion that the first part of the measure would require some amendment. It was proposed that parties having limited estates might enter into agreements with tenants to grant compensation for temporary improvements upon their farms, by the purchase and use of such manures, or of such articles of food for cattle, sheep, or pigs as might be specifically mentioned in the agreement, or for durable improvements by draining, marling, chalking, claying, or otherwise amending the soil, or by works of irrigation, or by the construction of new fences. In the case of temporary improvements no notice was required to be given by the tenant to the landlord of his intention to lay out money for which he should require compensation, except in the last year of a holding for a term of years; but in the case of durable improvements, the tenant was not allowed to execute any works for which he would be entitled to claim compensation, unless he furnished beforehand a statement in writing of the work to be done, and the estimated cost, and unless the landlord or his agent agreed, in writing, to its execution. This part of the Bill also contained provisions, which he considered very large, giving either party a power to terminate the agreement; so that if the bargain should turn out not to be satisfactory, the tenant could break it, and claim compensation from the heir, who, under the clauses as they stood, had no protection. It would, therefore, be necessary for their Lordships, in case they agreed with the principle of the Bill, to adopt measures in Committee, with a view to protect the interests of the reversioner. The excuse for legislating at all upon the subject was, that great injury was often done to farms by outgoing tenants, during the last two years of their terms. They neglected to improve, and ceased to expend capital; they "sheared" the land, as it was called, and left the incoming tenant to restore
1090
it to a proper condition. But there was another power to which he deemed it right to direct attention. In the case of land occupied by a subtenant, the original tenant was to have the power of making a bargain with the tenant in occupation, possibly to the extent of binding the landlord to pay the compensation which might be claimed at the expiration of the lease, or upon the death of the lives. In such eases, as the Bill provided no check upon the middleman, it would be necessary for their Lordships in Committee to devise some means for protecting the landlord from injustice in dealings between the first tenant and the occupying tenant. The next part of the Bill related to emblements, which, as their Lordships knew, were the profits of growing crops. For instance, a tenant of land, held under a lease for lives, ceasing to be tenant by the death of the last life, he having sown the seed in the ground was entitled to reap the crop. It had been found that where emblements were claimed, considerable damage was often done. The Bill, therefore, provided that where that was the case, the valuers should deduct compensation for use, occupation, and damage of the land, as a set-off against the claim for emblements. The last part of the Bill related to the removal of engines, buildings, and other fixtures, and it proposed to make the law uniform in this respect with the law relative to fixtures in trade. The tenant, therefore, was empowered to take them away, having first given the landlord the opportunity of purchasing. As the law now stood, the tenant was bound to leave them upon the soil. The object of the Bill was, then, as their Lordships would perceive, to assist tenants in the cultivation of the soil; but he was bound to repeat that it was not so perfect in its details as it might be made in Committee, with the assistance of the noble and learned Lord below (Lord Campbell), and of his noble and learned Friend now absent (the Lord Chancellor), whom he hoped shortly to see in his accustomed place.
The BISHOP of St. ASAPHasked if the Bill contained any provisions with respect to ecclesiastical property? It appeared to him, as it stood, that any person having a life interest in such property, might make bargains to bind his successors, just as any other landlord.
LORD PORTMAN, in reply, said, there was no direct provision of the sort.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, the Bill was absurd in some clauses, and injurious in the

1091
rest. It was absurd in those that were permissive, and unjust in those that were compulsory. It enacted, that persons might make agreements which they had the power to make already; whilst with regard to the compulsory clauses, anything more grossly unjust, or more likely to lead to fraud, could not have been framed. For example, a tenant for life was enabled to make an agreement with the occupier to lay out any amount of money whatever upon the land, and make it chargeable to the remainder-man within twelve years. So absurdly was the Bill framed, that though permanent improvements were divided from temporary improvements, the tenant might claim, eleven years after he had reaped the crop, compensation for the necessary outlay in the ordinary tillage of the soil. The expenses and profits of claying, soiling, marling, subsoiling, and every imaginable process in agriculture, were to be estimated and apportioned between landlord and tenant. The landlord was to keep a constant watch lest the tenant made an improvement, as he, the landlord, might have to pay for it; and the tenant was to have compensation for manuring a field or putting up a fence, all to run over twelve years. The remainder-man was thus liable for matters which were of common and daily operation; and the tenant for life might escape the whole of the burden which he ought to bear, by agreement with the occupier. He admitted, however, that the portion of the Bill which related to emblements was an improvement; but with regard to the subject of fixtures, he thought it would be better to leave it to be dealt with by special arrangements between the landlord and the tenant. Where there was a yearly tenancy, and a sum of money was laid out by the tenant, there was always an agreement by which the occupier did not lose; and wherever it was the practice to have yearly tenants, he found agriculture had advanced infinitely more than in those parts where it was the invariable practice to have leases. There were, however, other objections to the Bill. One was, that it would lead to an immense amount of litigation, and another, that there would be so much difficulty in the way of the valuers ascertaining the respective interests of the parties, that the good understanding which now prevailed between landlord and tenant would be destroyed. At the end of twelve years, how were they to estimate the value of so much manure applied to the land in
1092
that time, or any other improvement not durable? He repeated that the good understanding between landlord and tenant would disappear, especially where there were tenants at will, and both looked for justice from Acts of Parliament instead of mutual agreements. Under these circumstances, he should move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read the second time this day six months.
LORD CAMPBELLwas by no means prepared to agree to the Bill as it stood; but he could not consent to its rejection upon the second reading, because it contained some good provisions, and was capable of great improvement. He doubted whether the first part of the Bill could be practically applied. All such matters, he thought, were best left to individual contracts; but the other parts of the measure relative to emblements and the removal of fixtures, in which the existing law was defective, were improvements. He objected, then, to the first part of the Bill, because it would cause litigation; and he supported the last part of it, because, with some amendments, it would stop litigation. For these reasons he could not consent to its rejection at this stage. He suggested that it should be read the second time, and pass into Committee, where it could be discussed in detail. That being done, he reserved to himself the power of saying aye or no upon the Motion for the third reading.
The EARL of WICKLOWthought the Bill liable to objections, but these could be stated in Committee; and if his noble Friend could not then make the alterations thst were deemed necessary, it would be competent to move the rejection of the Bill on the third reading. He believed the Bill was capable of improvement, and would therefore support the second reading. His noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) said, it was already competent to parties to make agreements, and that this measure was not required. He forgot, however, that the Bill was necessary to meet the case of tenants for life; and he trusted, therefore, that he would not persist in his opposition to the second reading.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, the Bill gave power to charge the reversioner, and that was a principle which he, as well as the noble Lord (Lord Campbell), regarded as unjust. He thought it monstrous to allow one man to throw a burden upon the property of another.
On Question, that "now" stand part of the Motion,
House divided. Content 9; Not-Content 5:—Majority 4.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly.
House adjourned till To-morrow.