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 He must, therefore, move that his name be withdrawn.

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 com

The Earl of Wicklow said, 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 Londonderry observed, 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 Lucan thought 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 Stanley said, that the noble Earl

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 manywho 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 Com. mittee, 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 twentyone 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.

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 Clanricarde said, 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 Irelandwhich did not more or less refer to the Commissioner.

The Earl of St. Germans said, 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,

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 Fortescue said, 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 Roden said, 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 Londonderry suggested 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

manner.

The Earl of Charleville said 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 Richmond said, 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 Portman moved the Second Reading of this Bill.

Lord Beaumont opposed 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 Richmond supported 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 inc eased 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

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 Cleveland observed, 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 Ashburton was 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

of attempting to reconcile the differences of opinion which invariably arose whenever the privileges of the House became matter of discussion. He was aware that he should be opposed by two very different classes of opponents. By those, amongst whom were some of the most powerful Members of the House, who upon every occasion were anxious to maintain its privileges with a very high hand, who objected to any question being submitted to the consideration of a court of law which might by possibility involve the question of those privileges, and who, therefore, would regard the recommendation of the Committee as the result of weakness and pusillanimity. The other class, at the head of which he supposed he must place his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, were of opinion that there must be an unqualified submission on the part of the House-that having once agreed to submit to the decision of the Queen's Bench they ought not to do anything which might in any way question the propriety of that decision. To the first class he would point out some of the names of the Members who composed the Committee. Without any invidious distinction he would select those of the noble Lord the Member for London, and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and reminding the House of the stand which they had always made in asserting the privileges of the House, he would venture to ask whether their acquiescence in the course recommended, was not a guarantee that that recommendation had not been the result of any tame or timid abandonment of the privileges of the House? With regard to the other class, he would ask his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, how the course recommended by the Committee was at all inconsistent with the principle for which he contended? He was an advocate for the authority of the law, not for the infallibility of any particular court; and he (the Solicitor General) could not understand how his hon. Friend could consider that the control of the law was in the least degree affected by an appeal to a higher tribunal, in a matter clearly within its province, and in the regular course of justice. He was led to suppose that there would be a coalition on the present occasion of the parties who entertained these opposing opinions against the intermediate course which he was about to recommend to the House. But he trusted

that they, and the House generally, would feel that the matter was one of serious importance-was deserving of the deepest consideration-and would, therefore, hear with patience the observations he had to address to them. And, first, he must briefly recall to the recollection of the House the main facts of the case. It appeared to him entirely a misapprehension to suppose that any question of privilege, strictly so called, existed upon the present occasion. The question had arisen, not in the assertion of any privilege, but by the exercise of a power possessed by the House-a power inherent in the duties which it had to discharge, and which was essential to its high constitutional functions-he meant the power of requiring and compelling the attendance of all persons at the bar of the House for the purpose of being examined. That the House had a right to institute an inquiry into all matters of public interest, there could be no doubt whatever; and that the power in question was necessarily incident to that right, was equally undoubted: because, to deprive the House of the power of compelling parties to appear before it, would deprive it of the right itself, by taking away the means of exercising it. The House would not, therefore, be surprised to find, that from the earliest period this right had been exercised, had been acknowledged by the courts of law, and even by those Judges who were considered not the most friendly to its privileges. It was in the exercise of this undoubted power that the question originally commenced. In the course of an inquiry which took place into certain proceedings, in one of the numerous actions of "Stockdale v. Hansard," which had been commenced by Howard the attorney, it was necessary, in the opinion of the House, to require his attendance at the bar. He appeared, admitted the fact charged, submitted entirely to the House, acknowledged his error, received a reprimand, and was discharged. In a very short time after, he repeated the offence by commencing a fresh action. It was impossible the House could submit to be trifled with in this manner; and it was, therefore, decided that an inquiry should be immediately instituted, and Mr. Howard be desired to attend at the bar of the House forthwith. There can be no doubt that he endeavoured to avoid the service of the order, and had, therefore, been guilty of a contempt of the authority of the House. The House, on the evidence which was before it, might at once have proceeded to