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 Richmond could 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 Besborough agreed 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 that he had informed his noble Friend that attendance was compulsory. The Earl of Malmesbury did 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 Brougham said, 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 Redesdale did 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 Clanricarde said, that undoubtedly all Peers ought to attend ; but if they were to summon Peers for the 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 Gardner then 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 Richmond repeated that the Lords Spiritual had attended the Committees without any excuse, and without pleading ignorance. The Duke of Wellington said, 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. 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 Chancellor said, 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 Lord Brougham said, he believed the were required for framing such a Bill. form now would be, to enter on the Jour-That work was now in the hands of pernals 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. sons 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. STATUTES AGAINST RECUSANTS.] Lord Beaumont wished to put a question to the The Earl of Ellenborough could not noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack help thinking that any Bill merely confined with reference to the Report of the Cri- to repealing certain Acts, and parts of minal Law Commissioners. Their Lord- Acts, would be extremely inconvenient. It ships were aware, that in consequence of was essential that the public should know what had taken place since the Bill passed how the law really remained; otherwise, through that House, supported by the noble the uncertainty consequent upon leaving it and learned Lord, repealing certain Acts vague or undefined, might lead to great against the Roman Catholics, it was mischiefs. It was a subject requiring exthought advisable to appoint a Commission treme consideration from his noble and to investigate the state of the laws, not learned Friend, and those whom he might only as they bore on Roman Catholics with employ. But he hoped that the new Bill, respect to the practice of their religion, when it was prepared, would be such as to but also on the position of Protestant Dis-enable all classes of Her Majesty's subjects senters and Jews. That Commission had to understand the law under which they fulfilled the duties entrusted to them in a were living. The Lord Chancellor said, the persons | to serve on it. He had already expressed to whom he had committed the framing of his opinion very decidedly on this measure, the Bill were the Commissioners them- and maintained, that if the compulsory selves, and they in every way deserved the clause were omitted it would be a dead confidence of their Lordships and the letter; if inserted, it would be the means public. of interfering between landlord and tenant Lord Brougham concurred with his in a manner prejudicial in the highest denoble Friend opposite, that it was of ex-gree, especially in that part of Ireland with treme importance that the new Bill should which he was connected. plainly state the law. Time should be taken to draw the Act, and it should be prepared during the long vacation. The Lord Chancellor said, 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 Monteagle observed, 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 Earl of Lucan gave 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 Clanricarde also 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 TENANTS COMPENSATION (IRELAND) three classes of tenantry-those having BILL.] Lord Stanley moved the appoint-leases likely to last for a considerable time, ment of the Committee on this Bill. The Lord Chancellor said, 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 Beaumont said, 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 London said, 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. those that would last but for a short time, The Marquess of Londonderry declined and those who were tenants at will. Those 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 re 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 protec tion 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 63s. or 56s. per quarter, for corn, was now but 47s. But how did this Bill pro-lating to the internal state of the country pose to deal with the fluctuations in the are not attended to, and that the views value of land? Why, by declaring the and votes of those connected with the landlord should never raise his rent until country are overruled by those not acthe whole value of the improvements was quainted with it. Now, I maintain this paid; and this, though the value of the Bill justifies that description. There was land by a rise in the price of produce might a petition respectfully, firmly, and calmly be greatly increased. It acted as a bar to drawn up, and signed by a number of noble the landlord and tenant coming to a fair Lords, supporters of the Government. agreement as to the value of the land. These are men, to whom the Government, These were tenants' and not landlords' ar- having no Irishman in the Cabinet, may guments against the Bill. But the great be naturally supposed to look for advice; argument against it was, that it would ex- but they reject their advice, they despise cite bad blood between landlord and te- their guidance, and force on Parliament a The tenant was the weaker party, measure opposed to the wishes of every and if tempted to a struggle he must come one who understands the subject; for my off worse. This measure was opposed by noble Friends near me (the Marquess of every party in Ireland. He had not read Lansdowne and Marquess of Normanby), the whole of the evidence taken before the though they voted for the second reading, Commission. He doubted whether any can hardly be reckoned upon as strenuous noble Lord had; but in what he saw of it, supporters of the measure. All the authohe found nothing new. The facts deposed rities out of the House-all the organs of to were brought out over and over again; all parties in Ireland, are opposed to this and he could not help thinking that if, in- measure. Everybody is favourable to the stead of issuing this Commission, they had consideration of the principle which it proa year ago referred the whole subject to a fesses to carry out; but you (the GovernCommittee up-stairs, there would now be ment) say you will not go into that queseffected a solid improvement in the law. tion, except on an understanding that The only authority for the present measure it is a violation of the rights of prowas the noble Earl at the head of the Com-perty, and which will never be admitted mission, as he understood that his Col-in any part of Great Britain. I move, nant. 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 Stanley considered 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 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 Lucan said, 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 |