If landlord and tenant could not agree, let them separate, but let them do so without the cumbersome interference of that House. The words "with the full consent of the landlord," ought to be introduced in the 4th clause. MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said, he could not let pass the observations which had been made in this debate without entering his protest against them. With regard to the 4th clause it contained all that justice required, in providing that the tenant should in no way injure the buildings belonging to the landlord, and that he should leave them in as good a condition as they were in when he entered. That provision protected the landlord from injury; but he saw a disposition in that House to refuse the tenant any just concession as to his rights. [No, no!"] Then let them agree to this clause. He had seen many Bills brought forward for the establishment of tenant right, and they had every one been rejected. He believed the desire of the landlords was to keep the tenants in that state that they would have no rights of their own, and thus keep them in a state of submission to the landlords. MR. BUCK thought the Bill would be very injurious unless words were introduced to prevent the buildings being erected without the consent of the landlord, MR. HUME considered the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford) was fraught with danger. The rights of property were the basis of society, and it was dangerous to interfere with them. MR. SPOONER said, that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) mistook the object of the Bill. The object was to enable landlords who had not the whole estate to make agreements. COLONEL DUNNE said, the hon. Member for Rochdale had spoken of the feeling of the landlords. As an Irish landlord he believed the Irish landlords were willing to adopt the principle of this Bill, and to allow their tenants the value of any unexhausted improvement. upon the Attorney or Solicitor General; but if this duty were imposed, there ought also to be a provision enabling the Attorney General to pay the umpire for his trouble. VISCOUNT GALWAY suggested that the provision for appointing an umpire be struck out altogether. MR. HENLEY suggested that it would be better to leave the law as it at present stood. He, therefore, thought it would be better to strike out the clause altogether. MR. SPOONER said, he had practical experience of the evil of the present state of the law. He was an executor of a deceased clergyman who had farmed 400 acres of glebeland, and he was obliged to keep on the farm in order to make the most of the emblements; and, consequently, until the growing crops were disposed of, the new clergyman was deprived of hisincome. This was an evil which ought to be remedied. SIR GEORGE GREY said, that he thought the executor could dispose of the crops either by valuation or by public auction. The difficulty was, therefore, imaginary, for the parties could make an arrangement. Clause struck out. Clause 3. MR. GRAINGER said, he hoped the Committee would not alter the law as it at present stood, which placed the landlord and creditors on the same footing. Now, it was proposed to give the landlord an advantage which would prevent any execution creditor from having any remedy by distress against corn growing on the land. He therefore hoped that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mullings) would not press the clause. MR. MULLINGS said, the clause was necessary to prevent the landlord from losing his rent, and he should therefore press it to a division. SIR GEORGE GREY said, he understood that the rights of creditors would be materially affected by the clause. MR. MULLINGS denied that the clause would affect the rights of creditors. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, if House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in one execution creditor could come in and the Chair. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2. SIR GEORGE GREY considered that as this clause was likely to cause litigation he should object to it. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that by this clause the duty of nominating an umpire was, in certain cases, thrown have a preference over other creditors, that might be a reason for altering the law of debtor and creditor. It appeared to him that it would be better to adhere to the existing law, which was fair both to the landlord and the execution creditor. MR. FRESHFIELD said, that the rights of landlords had recently been materially narrowed. He defended the clause, because he thought it would give them a [ of the landlord necessary for the tenant to fair protection against execution creditors. remove any buildings or fixtures which he MR. HENLEY said, he was afraid that might have put up. the clause would force landlords to put in distresses quarterly when they were apprehensive of losing their rent. MR. GRAINGER said, that if landlords put in distresses quarterly, the effect would be, that before long the whole law of distress would be abolished altogether. He must protest against any system which would give an unfair preference to landlords over other classes. Amendment proposed: "In page 3, line 28, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words with the consent in writing of the Landlord for the time being.'" Question put, "That those words be there inserted." MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD opposed the insertion of these words. The Committee divided:- Ayes 82; Noes 23: Majority 59. MR. BRIGHT said, that the preference given to landlords had excited great discussion in Scotland and England. The report of the Devon Commission went, he thought, to the same effect; and he sug-lowing new clause::gested that the law should be left as it was, inasmuch as any attempt to bolster it up by a new enactment might lead to its being abolished sooner than it might otherwise have been. Several verbal Amendments were then made in the clause, which was then agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill. MR. MULLINGS then moved the fol COLONEL DUNNE said, that in Ireland anybody could seize crops except the landlord, who was continually cheated by fraudulent acknowledgments. MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY objected to the retention of the words "or other wise," which might be construed to give landlords other remedies beyond distress. MR. TORRENS M CULLAGH could not assent to the alteration of the law of distress proposed in the clause. By the Act of 1846, the power of seizing the growing crop was in Ireland taken from the landlord; but it was left to the ordinary creditor having an execution against the goods of the tenant. It was stated that facilities were thus afforded for collusion, as against the landlord. If that were so, the remedy should be sought in the opposite direction, and the right of seizing the unsecured crop had better be taken away altogether. Undoubtedly it would be fairer to take it from both creditor and landlord, than to leave it to one, and not to the other. So long as the creditor retained the power, the landlord would seek to regain it, and so long the farming class would feel that they were in danger of having the old harness of prædial vassalage fitted on them as before. Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill." The Committee divided: Noes 41: Majority 30. Ayes 71; Clause agreed to. MR. MULLINGS moved the insertion of words, rendering the previous consent "That if any occupying tenant of land shall quit, leaving unpaid any arrear of tithe rent charge for or charged upon such land, which he was by the terms of his tenancy or holding liable to pay, and the tithe owner shall give or have given notice of proceeding by distress upon the land for recovery thereof, it shall be lawful for the landlord, or the succeeding tenant or occupier, to pay any such arrear and any expenses incident thereto, and to recover the amount or sum of money so paid over against such first-named tenant or occupier, or his legal representatives, in the same manner as if the same were a debt by simple contract due from such tenant or occupier to the landlord or tenant making such payment." ed. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. House resumed; Bill reported as amend The House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BILL. LORD BROUGHAM observed, that if any of their Lordships were anxious to make themselves masters of the provisions of this Bill, they could not do better than read the very able pamphlet which had just been published in explanation and defence of it by a distinguished member of the English Bar, Mr. Hazlitt. It was a concise and accurate analysis of his noble and learned Friend's Bill for the registration of assurances now before Parliament, The Registration of Deeds in England, its Past Progress and Present Position. He had read it himself with great satisfaction, and he might even say with much instruction. He could not speak in too high terms of its accuracy and luminous perspicuity. LORD LYNDHURST stated that considerable alterations had been made in the Bill since it was last before their Lordships, and as he had received the reprint of the Bill, as amended, only an hour ago, he would suggest that the further consideration of the measure be postponed. LORD CAMPBELL would, with the permission of the House, explain the alterations that had been made, and which, he trusted, would satisfy his noble and learned Friend. But, before doing so, he wished to take this opportunity of concurring in the testimony which his noble and learned Friend had borne to the admirable manner in which Mr. Hazlitt had explained the advantages of the Bill, and to the fair and manly way in which he had met the objections. With regard to the alterations to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded, one referred to the qualification of the persons who should be selected by the Crown to hold office as registrars. The alteration proposed that the registrar should be a barrister of seven years' standing; but it was proposed that the assistant registrars might be attorneys or solicitors. Another alteration was that an appeal was to be allowed from the decision of a single Judge to the whole Court in which he sat, so that in no case should the decision of one Judge be final. Another alteration went to remove an objection which had been urged against the existing clause, that it tended to impede commercial transactions. By the new clause the registrar would be enabled to grant the holder of an estate a certificate, which being deposited with his banker, he would be able to raise such a sum of money as he desired on the instant, and without further formalities. Another alteration he might mention provided that instead of a stamped copy of the title deeds being lodged with the registrar, the lodging of an unstamped copy would be sufficient, so that the holder of an estate might, if he pleased, keep his title-deeds in his own muniment room. These were the principal alterations in the measure, which he hoped would meet with the approbation of his noble and learned Friend. LORD LYNDHURST said, he was sa tisfied with his noble and learned Friend's explanation, but much, of course, would depend upon the terms in which the clauses were worded. After a few words from the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, which were wholly inaudible, Amendment made: the Report to be received on Monday next. House adjourned to Monday next. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, June 19, 1851. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Church Building SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL BILL. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." SIR JAMES DUKE rose to object to the new schedule of tolls which he found the Government proposed to introduce into the Bill. The Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred, had approved of the schedule which had been originally inserted, and it was only an hour previously that he had made the discovery that the Government was about to propose another schedule in Committee of the House, by which some of the tolls would be increased 100 per cent. SIR GEORGE GREY said, the Government had no objection to the original schedule of tolls inserted in the Bill, if the City preferred it; but the reasons in favour of the schedule about to be proposed would be stated at the proper time in Committee. SIR JAMES DUKE said, it was a question which concerned not the City or the Corporation of London alone, but the public at large; and as the question was one which required careful investigation, he, on the part of the public at large, recommended the Government to leave it to the Select Committee. He asked the right hon. Baronet to allow the Bill to be referred back to the Select Committee. MR. CORNEWALL LEWIS said, that there was no intention on the part of the Government to press their schedule of tolls if was objected to. It would be for the Committee to decide upon the question when it came before it. He must observe, however, that the tolls were more moderate than those proposed by the City; but there would be no objection on the part of Government to have them revised by the SIR JAMES DUKE wished to know whether he was to understand that the schedule was withdrawn? ["No, no !"] As to the tolls proposed by the City, it should be remembered that they were framed with the view of defraying the expense of removing a neighbourhood of several hundred houses constituting one of the greatest nuisances in Middlesex. In a short time the tolls would have been reduced, and until then the City surrendered the whole of its income. The tolls proposed to be established under the Bill would be permanent. The question of tolls ought to be referred to the Select Committee. SIR GEORGE GREY said, that the time to oppose the schedule would be when the point came before the House in Committee. It would be quite out of place to discuss its merits upon the question that the Speaker leave the chair. He thought there were no grounds shown for referring the question back to the Select Committee at that time, especially as a Committee of the House was the proper tribunal for deciding on a question of tolls. ments in the market would or would not remove the objections raised against it in its present form. That opportunity, however, had been refused to the Corporation; and he, therefore, hoped that the Government would not press the present Bill, but would allow the Corporation to prove, as they could if they were allowed, that all the objections to the present market could be removed, and that all the space that was wanted could be given. There was nothing so difficult as to change markets. They might do away with Smithfield market; but they would have other markets springing up that would be still more objectionable. He, and those who, with him, opposed the present Bill, did not object to other markets; on the contrary, he had himself voted in the Committee for the enlargement of the Islington market, a proposition which was negatived only by the vote of the Chairman. Some objections had been made to a petition, signed by 80,000 persons, against the removal of Smithfield market; but there was one petition, which he himself knew to be genuine, which bore the signatures of 7,500 electors of the city of London; and surely it deserved the most serious consideration. He trusted that the House would admit that he was asking only what was reasonable in requesting that the Corporation should be allowed an opportunity of showing that they could remove all the objections to the present market. Almost every grazier and salesman approved of the present site, and the only complaint urged was on the score of want of room, and that ground of complaint would be removed by the plan proposed by the Corpo SIR JAMES DUKE said, he should then move that the House resolve itself into Committee that day six months. He was surprised that the Government should exhibit such an anxious desire to press forward a measure which had been approved in the Committee only by the casting vote of the Chairman. It might, indeed, be said that the majority of independent Members on the Committee was against the Bill, for a Member of the Government was on the Committee, and it was under-ration. stood he had but one duty to perform there, namely, to vote in support of the measure under all circumstances. Any unprejudiced Gentleman, who would take the trouble to read the evidence taken before the Select Committee would admit that what was proved there was scarcely sufficient to justify the shutting-up of a single butcher's shop, much less so serious an interference with the rights and privileges of the city of London, which they had enjoyed for centuries. He thought that the preamble of the Bill had not been proved. When the measure was originally referred by the House to a Select Committee, he believed that the House was under the impression that the Corporation would have an opportunity of showing, before the Committee, whether their proposed alterations and improve The Bill before the House provided that the market should be removed to a distance of five miles from its present site, and that no other market should be established within a distance of seven miles from St. Paul's. Such an enactment would very materially increase the price of meat, so that there the question concerned the entire public. But, again, the public felt dissatisfied that the site for the new market had not as yet been pointed out. Why should not the Government frankly declare at once where the site was to be? Then the Commismissioners who were to have the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill were not named. Why should they not be named at once? No doubt they were Gentlemen of great respectability whom the Government had determined upon appointing; but he wanted to know who they were. He such a supposition. He stated that no should again press upon the House the approximation even had been made by the consideration that the Bill was not re- Government in regard to it, and that there quired. Let the House pass any Resolu- could not be any attempt made to fix upon tion it might please for the regulation of a site until the House should have decided cattle driven through the streets of Lon-between the plans proposed by the Corpodon, for that was the chief subject of com- ration and the Government. He now begplaint. Let them resolve that cattle should ged to repeat that statement; and he was not be allowed to be driven through the totally at a loss to think why there should streets at certain hours, and all the other be such a suspicion entertained by any one objections could readily be obviated. as that the Government had determined upon a site which they wished to keep seThe hon. Baronet (Sir J. Duke) It Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Ques-cret. tion, in order to add the words, "this could divide the House on his Amendment House will, upon this day six months, re- if he pleased; but the question had already solve itself into the said Committee," in- been fully discussed, and a large majority stead thereof. of the House had decided in favour of the present Bill, and against that which involved the plan suggested by the City. The Bill had since been considered in a Select Committee, and approved of. was not correct to say that the approval of the measure was decided in the Committee by the casting vote of the Chairman, for the Chairman, on that occasion, voted only as a member of the Committee, and not in virtue of his office. The Committee had made some valuable alterations in the Bill, by one of which they had tied up the hands of the Government for a limited time, in order to see whether the City would adopt the option given to them of administering the provisions of the Bill, and would take the new market under its own control, as he hoped they would do. MR. HUME took that opportunity, as he wanted to leave the House, of stating that the coming forward of the Government with a proposition of additional rates, appeared to be an attempt to take by surprise the whole community. He thought the new schedule ought not to be pressed until it had been sent back to the Select Committee. It appeared that the Bill before the House had been assented to only by the casting vote of the Chairman of the Committee; and therefore, under all the circumstances, he thought it would be the best plan for his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, and for the Government to submit the new alterations to the Select Committee. As to the question of site, he thought the Government ought to state whether they had as yet fixed upon any place as the site for the new market, and, if they had, to declare where it was; for he did not like to see Government going on mysteriously: where there was mystery there was always a suspicion of something wrong. MR. STAFFORD complained that a new schedule of tolls had been adopted by the Government without the cognisance of the Select Committee, which, nevertheless, was to be abandoned if the City opposed it. The question of tolls was the main question, because money was proposed to SIR GEORGE GREY was sure his hon. be raised on their mortgage to build a new Friend could not have been in the House market. This was a question, therefore, when the objection to the new schedule not so much for the City as for the public, was first raised. The Government had no especially for those who were engaged in interest in pressing it; but the Committee the supply of fresh meat to the market, of the whole House was the proper and and it could be looked on in no other light legitimate tribunal for settling the ques- than as one of the utmost importance. tion of the tolls. If the Corporation could The House, it was true, had already afthen show any valid objection to the sche-firmed the principle of the Bill; but the dule, the items could be separately discus- principle of the Bill had nothing to do with As to the charge made by his hon. these tolls. They were now coming to the Friend, of the Government acting mysteriously, there seemed to be some sort of suspicion during the discussion upon the second reading, that the Government had already agreed upon the site of the new market. He (Sir G. Grey) had then declared that there was no foundation for sed. details; and they already experienced the difficulties attending the contemplated removal. The right hon. Baronet acknowledged that he had not yet selected a site, but surely the public had a right to complain that the Government had not selected a site for the proposed new market. There |