Commons Sitting of 19 June 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. FRANCIS BARING, an Account of the Number of Persons who have obtained Certificates from the Society of Apothecaries to practise as such in England and Wales, in each year, from 29th March, 1825: of the Money received by the Society for such Certificates, and how appropriated, during the same period: and of the Number of Prosecutions for Penalties: also what Sums have been Expended in support of a Botanical Garden, Lectures, and other Means for promoting the Knowledge of Botany, Materia Medica, and Pharmaceutical Chemistry.
Bills. Read a third time. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, Woollen Trade Act Repeal; National Debt; Dwelling House Robbery.—Committed;—Parochial Rates Exemption.
Petitions presented. By Sir ROBERT INGLIS, from Borough-bridge, Diocese of Chester, against the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. LITTLETON, from the Gun Lock Smiths of Darlaston, for Relief.—By the Earl of Belfast, from Carrickfergus, against the Disfranchisement Bill for that Place.—By Lord TULLAMORE, from the Corporation of Penryn, complaining of a Petition presented against them, and Contradicting Statements made therein.—By Mr. Sergeant PERRIN, from Dundalk, for a Commission with Power to Improve the Ports and Harbour of that Place.—By Mr. MARSHALL, from Leeds, for Amending the Law of Settlement Act.—By Sir RICHARD SIMEON, from the Isle of Wight, for compelling the use of one uniform Bushel throughout the Country.—By Mr. PEASE, from Darlington, for Modifying the proposed Measures of Government so as to secure to the Country the present Banking System.—By Mr. PEASE, Mr. PHILPOTTH, and Mr. KEMYSS TYNTB, from several Places, against the General Register Bill.—By Colonel LBITH HAY, from the Shipowners of Peterhead, against increasing the Rates on Marine Policies for nine or twelve Months.—By Mr. ROPBUCK, from certain Inhabitants of the City of London, for the Liberation of Robert Taylor, and of Richard Carlile.—By Mr. JAMES OSWALD, from Edinburgh; and Colonel LEITH HAY, from several Places,—for Alterations in the Royal Burghs (Scotland) Bill—By Mr. CHICHESTER, and Mr. KMYSS TYNTE, from three Places,—for Amending the Sale of Beer Act; and Mr. ROEBUCK, from Tiverton, against the Repeal of the same Act.—By Colonel TORRENS, Mr. GODSON, and Mr. MARSHALL, from several Places,—for placing the Retailers of Beer on a Footing with Licensed Victuallers.—By Mr. COLLIER, from the Merchants and Shipowners of Plymouth, for the Exemption from paying the Merchant Seamen's Sixpences to Greenwich Hospital.—By Mr. PRICE, from Waterford, for the Mitigation of the Criminal Code.—By Mr. HARLAND, from Durham, for Abolishing the House and Window Taxes.—By Mr. PRYME, from Reading, in favour of, and Colonel TORBENS, from Bolton, against, the Rating of Tenements Bill; and from Canterbury and Huntingdon, for Granting to the Inhabitants the choice of Corporate Officers—By Mr. HAWES, and Mr. DANIEL GASKELL, from a Medical Society, and from Wakefield, against the Apothecaries Bill.—By Lord ALTHORP, and an HON. MEMBER,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.

ST. GEORGE'S STEAM PACKET COMPANY.
Lord Sandon,in moving the third reading of the St. George's Steam Packet Company's Bill, stated, that in the original Bill there were some clauses to which objections had been made, as they gave a
994
power to that Company over several others; but as the Bill stood at present, it was simply to enable the Company to sue and be sued, and to make some other regulations for the management of its concerns. The only reasonable objection that could now be made to it was, that it placed the Company in competition with others; but in his (Lord Sandon's) opinion, so far from its giving the Company greater powers than others were invested with—it, in fact, contained less provisions to that purport than other Companies had. It would be a new line of policy if the Legislature were to discourage the formation of Joint Stock Companies, but he would wait until he heard what objections were to be offered against the Bill before he presumed to go at any greater length into the subject.
Mr. Wallacesaid, the object of the Bill throughout was to give the St. George's Steam Packet Company the power to increase their capital to an immense extent, though it was not yet subscribed. The Bill had for its chief object to obtain a monopoly of the transmission of goods and passengers across the Channel. He contended that the preamble, which stated them to be a Joint Stock Company, was not proved. They claimed to be an Irish Company, but on reference to the list of subscribers, he found the balance as nearly as possible between England and Ireland, for he found that eighty-seven of the subscribers belonged to Ireland and seventy-four to England. It could not, therefore, be called an Irish Company. It could not be said, that his objections were made with the view of protecting Scotch interests, for he found that the English subscribers belonged chiefly to the western coast, namely, from Cornwall round to Liverpool—so that it was very natural that the inhabitants on that coast, including Wales, would not offer any objections to the Bill. The Company claimed the power of chartering all other vessels that professed to go on the same line as their vessels, and therefore a monopoly would be established, by which they might charge what prices they pleased. A more predetermined system of monopoly was never heard of. It was a frequent ground of complaint against encouraging the accumulation of large masses of wealth by any one Company; but the present Bill would have the effect of enabling the Company to accumulate very great wealth, as it would enable them

995
to increase their capital by 30,000 l., and to form a sinking fund from various sources, of 80,000 l.; and that, too, in the face of the Standing Orders of Parliament, which required a certain sum to be already subscribed. It would act as an exceedingly hard measure on all the other Companies, if, indeed, it did not entirely prevent those Companies' vessels from navigating altogether. The St. George's Steam Packet Company was already a very powerful Company. He had no doubt of the respectability of the subscribers; but he felt hound to oppose the Bill, conceiving it to be an injurious monopoly. He concluded by moving that it be read a third time that day six months.
Mr. Fergus O'Connordeclared that the Bill came before the Committee originally in the most exceptionable form, such as must have convinced any man of the motives of the promoters. The hon. Member stated the advantages derived by competition, since the original establishment of steam-packets between Liverpool, Bristol, Dublin, Cork, and other places in that Channel. It was stated, he said, that the Bill was intended to facilitate commerce; but this could not be the case when the effect of the monopolies already existing was to keep the freight of Irish produce to this country, of pigs in particular, as high as 30 s. per ton. The noble Lord who moved the third reading of the Bill had said, that it asked for no immunities but such as were possessed by other companies; but this was no argument, as the House was not bound to follow a bad principle; and that, too, just at she time when the House was doing away with other corporations. This Bill did, in fact, go to establish a corporation on the high seas. [Lord Sandon: It is a Joint Stock Company.] Whatever it might be called, it was in effect a corporation. Although much altered in the Committee, the Bill was still, in its present form, as likely to be of as much injury as in its original shape; and, he should, therefore, second the Amendment of the hon. member for Greenock.
Mr. Wilson Pattenasked what monopoly the Bill would give which was not enjoyed by the Company already? As to the bye-laws of the Company, they would not be at all affected by the passing or rejection of the Bill, the provisions of which merely gave the Company the power of
996
suing and being sued as a body. He would admit that several petitions had been presented against the Bill; but the clauses of which these petitions complained, had been expunged; and he could now see no objection to the Motion of the noble Lord, that the Bill be read a third time.
Mr. Anthony Lefroyobjected to the Bill as giving to the Company a much greater capital, and consequently, reducing the scope for competition, by which alone the public could be benefited. From Water-ford and other places, petitions had been presented against the Bill, which objected to it as a whole, as well as to certain clauses which had been expunged.
The Earl of Ormelieconsidered that, although the Bill only asked for an increase of 30,000 l. to the capital of the Company, it was still most objectionable in principle. As far as the Bill went, it was pro tanto a monopoly; for the provision for suing and being sued was a privilege beyond the common law. Not a single public ground had been adduced in support of the Bill, upon which alone it should be granted. The object and the practice of the Company had been to throw out every competitor, and the parties now came to Parliament to enable them to perpetuate the system. He drew a marked distinction between bills for Steam Packet Companies, and those for Railways: in the former, all parties could plough the ocean without hindrance; in the latter, it was necessary that the sanction of the Legislature should be given before the grounds of private individuals could be cut through.
Major Beauclerksupported the Amendment. Every one would see, that the consequence of giving a monopoly to this Company would be, that they would run down all smaller Companies; and it appeared to him extraordinary, that this Bill should now be pressed forward, at a lime when the House was anxious to do away with all monopolies. He therefore, hoped that hon. Members who were opposing monopolies would not give their sanction to this Bill.
Mr. Jervissaid, the House should protect the public, and take care the public should have as cheap and expeditious a conveyance from one part of the country to another as possible. It had been said that what the Company were seeking to do by this Bill they could do without; but

997
their comings to this House for powers which they could not do without proved quite the reverse. In his opinion, this Company ought not to be countenanced in keeping up their unnatural coalition, which would have the power of ruining other Companies, and prevent the public from having a cheap, and what was more material, a safe conveyance. In his opinion, no sufficient reason had been given why they should have a privilege which they could not have without the assistance of the House. But it had been said this Company was composed of different persons who had subscribed their money to keep up the concern. It was merely in effect this—that certain persons who had been proprietors of vessels, were willing to contribute their vessels, to keep up the competition, and to that extent, and to that extent only, they were willing to become shareholders. These individuals wished to have the assistance of the House to carry on their coalition, and that being the case, he should certainly give his support to the Amendment.
Mr. Baldwinalso felt it his duty to oppose the third reading of this Bill, because it would have the effect of completely putting down all sailing vessels trading between England and Ireland.
Mr. Barronthought that no man, after reading the Resolutions of the Company itself, could doubt that their object was monopoly, and that they would, as a matter of course, do away with all minor companies, by which the public would be exceedingly injured; and not merely the public, but all the great outports of the United Kingdom; and that this company would charge whatever price they pleased. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.
Lord Sandon,in reply, hoped the House would not be led away by the vague cry of monopoly, which in no way whatever had been proved as to this Bill. The Bill had been subjected to the adverse investigation of a scrutinizing Committee for many days; and the Company did not claim a limited liability. On the contrary, every proprietor would be liable to the whole amount of his property.
The House divided on the question, that the Bill be now read a third time—Ayes 24; Noes 47: Majority 23.

CLAIMS ON THE. DANISH GOVERNMENT—ADJOUREND DEBATE.
Mr. Parker Mr. Parker moved the Order of the Day for the resumption of the Debate on the claims of English subjects on the Danish Government.
Mr. Grotesaid, that he had some time ago presented a petition upon the same subject from claimants in the City of London. He thought that a clearer case had never been established than by the petitioners. The claims arose from the confiscation and sequestration of the property and book-debts of British merchants by the Danish government, which sequestration was resorted to in consequence of a prior act of seizure of Danish property in British ports by the British Government. Immediately afterwards, the British merchants made a representation of their case to the British Government, and were told that their claims should be duly considered in the event of a treaty of peace being concluded. In 1814, however, when that treaty was made, so far from those claims being provided for, it actually legalized the confiscations of the property by the Danish government. The British Government had declared, that the original sentence of confiscation was wholly at variance with the law of nations, and had urged in 1809 as a reason for not then pressing on the Danish government the necessity of paying the claimants, that the treaty of peace had not been concluded; and yet when that treaty was signed, not a word was inserted even to recognise the claims. He thought the case one of great injustice. Up to this horn the claims had been suffered by successive governments to remain untried and unattended to. When he referred to what had been said by Mr. Goulburn in the year 1828, he thought the country had every reason to complain of the neglect and delay that had taken place. He must, in conclusion, express his regret that no one of his Majesty's Ministers was present to signify to the petitioners the intentions of the Government.
Lord Morpethadded his testimony to the reality and justice of the claim. He thought, however, that in the present state of the finances of the country, when the House considered the great claims that had been made upon it during the present Session, and the splendid exertions about to be made in the cause of benevolence and justice, the present Session was not a suitable time to press upon the Government any claim, however well founded. He joined in the regret expressed by the

999
hon. member, for London that no member of the Government was present, and hoped that the intimations which had been made to them from so many quarters, backed by the speeches of so many Members of that House, would induce them to take the claim into their serious consideration before the expiration of another Session.
Colonel Leith Haybelieved, that there never was a case brought before the House in which the merchants of this country had been treated with greater injustice than in the case of the petitioners. In his opinion, although the present Government was not identified with the transactions that occasioned the claims of the petitioners, it was their imperative duty specifically to perform the terms of the contract which had been entered into. There never was a class of his Majesty's subjects who had been treated in a more unworthy manner for the last twenty-five years, than the petitioners.
Mr. Mark Philips,as a commercial man, felt called upon to support the prayer of the petition. When he looked to the fact, that 1,200,000 l. had been received as droits, and when he recollected the small amount of those claims, he could not help thinking that they ought to have been settled long ago. In his opinion the petitioners had been most grossly ill-treated; and if no previous Administration had thought the subject worthy of consideration, he hoped the present would, not taking into consideration the statute of limitations.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that no lapse of time would justify Ministers in not granting to the petitioners that justice to which they were so deservedly entitled. At the end of the French war the emigrants from France obtained a compensation for their confiscated property, and surely the settled Government of England could not be less just than the Government of France. The Government had then more than ample funds in their hands for this purpose, and he thought if the debts of branches of the Royal Family were paid out of it, the petitioners' case was deservedly entitled to the consideration of his Majesty's Government.
Mr. Stricklandwas old enough to recollect the circumstances which gave rise to this claim, and that on that occasion what was called the law of nations was stretched too far. it was considered by the Danish Government to have been an not of
1000
enormity; and he considered that the British Government, after having received 1,200,000 l. by the confiscation of Danish property, was bound to see, that no act of injustice was committed, in consequence of that confiscation, on British merchants. Government was simply called upon to pay about a tenth of what had been received; and he thought the moral maxim was as applicable to nations as to individuals, that, "Honesty is the best policy."
Mr. Cobbettprotested against the principle of the people of this country, or of any other, being called upon to make good the losses of merchants, whether arising from a state of war or otherwise. If, as had been stated, the money received from the sale of the Danish property went to the members of a certain family as droits of the Admiralty, he (Mr. Cobbett) would say, that such members of the Royal Family as had received the money should be called upon to refund it. He protested against any portion of it coming out of the hands of the people of this country.
Mr. Tennysonhad understood, that in consequence of a long negotiation on the subject between the British and Danish Governments, the former became bound to indemnify the present claimants. The British Government was therefore called upon to satisfy those claims upon every principle of justice; and when the question came regularly before the House, he should feel himself called upon to vote for the liquidation of these long out-standing debts. He thought, however, that this discussion would be entirely useless unless his hon. friend, the member for the city of London, gave notice that he would move for a Select Committee, or bring forward some precise Motion on the subject, which had now been hanging over for several years. Public justice required that some inquiry into the subject should take place; and he was sure his Majesty's Government would give every opportunity for such a discussion.
Mr. Prymehoped the hon. member for the city of London would bring forward some specific Motion on the subject.
Mr. Marshallsaid, it appeared to him this was not merely a case of great hardship, but of gross injustice; and he had yet to learn that any government could deny that these claims were just. He had heard no one as yet state that they were otherwise than just and if that were so, he felt confident such claims being just,

1001
the House would see that they were amply satisfied. The country, whatever may have been the way in which the droits of the Admiralty had been distributed, had appropriated the money by Act of Parliament. The country was in possession of the fund out of which these claims ought to be satisfied, and he hoped that some hon. Gentleman would, in the early part of the next Session, bring forward the question whether, aye or no, these claims were to be paid.
Mr. Denisonthought these claims were just against the Government, against the country, and against the Parliament; and it was but an act of justice that they should be speedily satisfied.
Mr. Parkerintimated that if Government did not, during the recess, take some step in this matter, it would be brought before Parliament in a substantive and specific form next Session. There were assets, out of which the money ought to have been paid—it was no fault of the petitioners that it had not been—and if something more decisive were not done, the subject must be renewed in that House.

GENERAL REGISTRY.
Mr. William Brougham Mr. William Brougham moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the General Registry Bill. As he had explained its details at great length, on a former occasion, he would not now trouble the House with any further remarks upon it.
Mr. Ayshford Sanfordsaid, that it appeared to him that the learned Gentlemen practising in London, and supporters of the present Bill, had not looked to the manner in which business was transacted in the country. They were acquainted with the practice of the Metropolis, but knew little or nothing of that of country practitioners. Those who brought forward the Bill, therefore, did not take into account the additional expense and inconvenience that would be occasioned in the country by a plan such as the present. Equitable mortgages would be impeded by means of it, and he did not think it advisable to throw obstructions in the way of agriculturists obtaining temporary loans. Many persons would be unwilling to seek for loans, if the present privacy with which they could be effected should be destroyed by a registry. They would be apprehensive of their credit suffering, and refrain from accepting accommodation. He thought that the evils of a want of a
1002
general system of registration had been greatly exaggerated. If a registry of landed property had been made at an earlier period, before the great subdivision of land, it might have been attended with advantage, but now it could only produce vexation and inconvenience. Suppose that an accident occurred by which the index to the registry should be out of order, the effect would be to throw all the landed property of the country into inextricable confusion. He had gone into the Select Committee to which the Solicitor-General's Bill on this subject was referred, with every disposition to give the plan his support, but his opinion changed in consequence of the information he had acquired, and he found himself compelled to oppose the Bill. It was presumption, perhaps, in him to do so, but his opposition was backed by that of the highest legal authorities, to whose opinion that House had often bowed. As he considered the measure dangerous to the property of the agricultural classes in particular, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Hodgsonseconded the Amendment, and said, that the subject would not suffer much by the delay of another year. He would, in one respect, prefer local to metropolitan registers; namely, that in case of riots or insurrection no buildings would be more likely to be attacked by the mob than that which contained the muniments of the nobility and gentry of England. It was easy for hon. Members to say, that the expense would be but small, but he had never heard any of those Gentlemen give an estimate of the expense. He was sure it would not be less than 1,000 l. a year to each county in England; and he would ask if Parliament was prepared, in the present state of the finances, to vote such a sum of money in order to forward a measure that would benefit the landed proprietors only? But did the landed proprietors call for such a measure? On the contrary, all the petitions that had been presented on the subject were against the measure, and none of them were in favour of it.
Mr. Prymesaid, that the first objection he had to the measure was the expense to which it would expose the public; but his principal objection to it was, that individuals would be put to great expense in transactions in which the sums concerned were very small. The Bill was opposed

1003
by all the solicitors in the country, who were good judges of its probable effects. It was part of a system for having all the business of the country transacted in London; a system which he thought erroneous in policy, as he considered it much better that the county towns should be the centres of the business of the district in which they were situated, forming as it were small metropolises, instead of having one central place, to which everything should be carried, and every sort of business, either by agency or otherwise, transacted. He would give the Bill his most decided opposition.
Lord Morpethmerely rose to ask his hon. and learned friend opposite a question on the subject. This Bill rested upon authorities so high, and was supported by arguments many of which he was ready to admit were very strong, that his opposition to it would be in a great degree regulated by the answer he should receive from his learned friend to the question he was about to put. He begged to ask his learned friend, if he should persist in pressing this Bill through in the present Session, in which at such an advanced period it was hardly likely to pass, whether he would consent to except from its operation the counties of the northern circuit? In Yorkshire, they had a registry with which they were very well contented. It was true, that the other five counties had not a registry, but it was to be recollected that it was from this part of England that the most vehement objections had been made to this Bill, and that the most vehement opposition to it had proceeded. He hoped, therefore, that those counties would be excepted from the operation of the Bill, while it might be tried as an experiment in the other parts of England.
Mr. Gilbert Heathcotemost earnestly hoped that no experiments would be made in other parts of England, for the benefit of Yorkshire. If the three or four counties forming the northern circuit were excepted from the operation of the Bill, he hoped he should be allowed to put in a claim of exemption for the county of Lincoln, in which there was also a strong feeling of opposition to the measure. In many of the districts of that county, the opposition was very strong; and it was strongest among those classes who were best acquainted with its probable operation.
Mr. Lynchsupported the Bill, as necessary for the protection of purchasers. The
1004
highest law authorities, both ancient and I modern, were in favour of such a measure I as this, and it was one that was absolutely I necessary for the protection of purchasers. One great advantage attending the establishment of a general registry was, that it would secure the evidence of title-deeds, for, when they were lost at present, estates became unmarketable. At present the law afforded no security to the purchaser of lands against the operation of Crown debts; by this Bill that security would be afforded, inasmuch as the Bill provided that all Crown debts should be registered, as well as other liabilities affecting property. The purchaser at present could know nothing of the liabilities to which the property might be subject; but this convenience would arise from the provisions of the measure now before the House; namely, that the purchaser would be empowered to lodge a caveat with the registrar, which would prevent the registration of any new deed that might interfere with the rights of the purchaser, with reference to the property sought to be affected by it. As to mortgage transactions, "a man entitled to an estate worth 50,000 l. borrowed a sum of 20,000 l. upon mortgage, and gave up possession of the title-deeds, and stipulated not to pay it off for five years. He wanted another sum of 10,000 l. in the mean time; the estate in question was ample enough for the purpose, but no one would lend it to him, no one would lend, because no one could have security if he did. He could not have the legal estate—he could not have the deeds all that he could rely on was a notice to the first mortgagee. That notice might be lost; but what was more, the owner of the estate might go to a third person—might prevail on that person to lend him another sum, without informing him of the second mortgage. The third mortgagee might afterwards discover the second mortgagee. He went to the first mortgagee, paid him off", got the legal estate, and squeezed out the second mortgagee. He would only ask, ought such a system as this to be allowed to continue? AH this would be remedied and cured by the registry. With respect to the protection afforded by assignments of terms of years, created out of the estate, and kept distinct from the inheritance by being assigned to a trustee, the purchaser (where there are such terms) could not be certain that he had got the assignment of the oldest term, and, if he had not, the

1005
intervening incumbrancer might even after the purchase, obtain such assignment, and oust him. He could not be certain, that the term had not become merged in the inheritance by the union of the term with the inheritance in the same person. He could not be certain that he had got an assignment from the proper representative of the person in whom the term was vested. Questions arose daily, as to whether the probate of the will or letters of administration to the estate of the person in whom the term was vested, had been taken out in the proper Ecclesiastical Court, for, if not, the assignment was of course invalid. He could not be certain that the Judge before whom the cause was tried might not direct the Jury to presume a surrender of the term; and if the purchaser should get over all those difficulties, he might be deprived of the benefit of the term by having notice of the intervening incumbrance, not merely direct or express, but constructive notice. It had been urged against this measure that its operation would be liable to errors, but he must remind the House that no such errors as had been suggested, could in the least degree affect the title to an estate; the title would remain the same. The whole system of indexes proposed by the Bill was perfect, and it was impossible that any error could arise. The argument as to the expense which would be incurred from the adaption of the proposed plan could not be maintained, as he was convinced that any expenses which might arise would be considerably less than had been anticipated and estimated by the opponents of the measure. On the whole, he hoped the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill, and that at least it would be allowed to go into Committee.
[The Gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place. While strangers were out, a short debate took place. Mr. Harvey declared that he was friendly to any system which would simplify the transfer of property. At the same time, he could not consent to the second reading of the Bill, unless the hon. and learned Member who had charge of it, would consent that its further consideration should he postponed. This view was supported by the Marquess of Chandos, Mr. Tennyson, and Mr. Strickland, and it was opposed by Sir Robert Peel, the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General.]
On readmission to the Gallery,
Mr. Tookewas addressing the House. The hon. Member objected, at this period of the Session, to a Bill of so much importance being proceeded with. He conceived that it was impossible at this period, that a measure of this nature could be so matured as to lead to any beneficial results. By a postponement of the question until the next Session, some time would be afforded for a conversion of the opponents of the measure, by a further consideration of its merits, and to such a conversion he was perfectly open. He must, however, avail himself of this opportunity of disclaiming the animadversion which had been thrown upon that branch of the profession, to which he had the honour to belong, namely, that their opposition to the measure originated in interested motives. He denied on behalf of the profession, the justice of any such imputation, and he would most humbly throw into the scale his practical knowledge and experience in making this declaration. He would also suggest to the hon. and learned Member opposite, and to the House, that the measure was not one which pressed on them and further, that if good could be anticipated from it, that benefit would improve by delay, and he could not but think, that the House would act with an improvidence unworthy of it, if it came to a decision in favour of the principle of a Bill, which it was obvious, from what had transpired, was not yet sufficiently matured.
Mr. Tennysonobjected to the Bill being proceeded in with precipitancy, and maintained, that the landed interest of the country ought to have time to know and understand its proposed provisions, before it should be permitted to pass into a law. The landed interest ought to be communicated with, and with this feeling, if the hon. and learned Member, who had moved its progress, would consent to its being now read a second time and sent into Committee, then to be reprinted and widely circulated through the country, and brought: forward in the next Session, he would support the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion; but if the Bill was to be persisted in during the present Session, he should oppose the second reading.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that the simple question before the House was, whether the Bill should be now read a second time; and as he had looked with some anxiety as to what would be the result of a Reformed Parliament, he regarded

1007
with some solicitude the present question. Indeed, he should be much mortified if the Reformed Parliament should declare itself against and reject a measure which experience had proved to be beneficial all over the world; or, in other words, to reject that which had been tried, and found beneficial to the public interests in Scotland, Ireland, France, and the colonies. Without entering into the details of the Bill, he would come at once to the objections which had been suggested. It had been said, its provisions were not sufficiently known, and that, therefore, it ought to pass to another Session. That was not the just way to get rid of the subject. No further delay could be necessary; the Bill had already been brought forward in three Sessions of Parliament; it had been most extensively circulated amongst the Magistrates at Quarter Sessions; it had been openly discussed at public meetings, convened for the purpose in various parts of the country; its merits and demerits had been fully discussed; petitions had been sent up and presented to the Legislature against it, and the House was now as fully competent to judge of it as by possibility it could be in another Session. He therefore would entreat his hon. and learned friend not to abandon at the present stage this Bill, which he hoped, before the present Session closed, would receive the assent of that House, of the House of Peers, and of his Majesty.
Mr. Stricklandwas opposed to the Bill. He had been upon the Select Committee up-stairs; and though he would admit, that there had been a majority in the Committee, yet a great diversity of opinion prevailed upon the provisions of this Bill. The county he had the honour to represent would be materially affected by the Bill. In that county, after much labour and expense, a registry had been completed, and all that labour and expense would be thrown away by the operation of the present Bill, and the system, which had been found to work well, would be made to give way to all the inconveniences which were presented in the measure now before the House. The present measure was full of inconveniences, and differed entirely from the system of registration which had been pursued, and found to work well in Yorkshire, in Middlesex, and in Dublin. The Bill contained the monstrous proposition, that all men's title-deeds were to be placed in London, for the inspection of every man
1008
who should make it his business to attempt to discover flaws in them. Would that House pass a measure which would compel a man, in making a settlement of his estate, to submit his title-deed for public inspection at Charing-cross?
Mr. Peasewas of opinion, that a Member should support the views of his constituents, and he was happy to be able to support the views of those who sent him to that House. He had presented petitions against the measure from all the towns of the southern division of Durham, and he could assert that nine-tenths of the freeholders of that division were against this measure. The evils to be guarded against were precarious and distant, the evils of the Bill itself were certain, and would immediately arise. The whole expense of the building would have to be paid by fees, the Clerks would have to be paid by fees; the expense would be great; and if one of these Clerks should make a mistake by taking the wrong John Brown out of ten thousand John Browns, and an estate of 10,000 l. or 15,000 l. were to be lost, who would pay for that? In his opinion, the injury it would cause would be incalculable. All the title-deeds would be sent to London; but were hon. Members aware that parcels were sometimes lost? Then again, let the House see the expense of that. Some provision was made for the postage; but he should like to know what the postage would come to of a set of title-deeds, such as he received a few days ago, which filled the whole box of a gig? The country would never be satisfied with the enormous expense. He spoke not so much of the Gentlemen present—many of whom might willingly pay a few pounds for security—but of the great number of small landholders in the community. To the small freeholders it would be a positive injury. He had lately had something to do with executing conveyances, and more than 100 had passed through his hands, in not one of which the fee-simple was more than 30 l. There was not one petition in favour of the Bill. It was said, that the opposition to it in the country had been got up by country Solicitors. If it was meant that they did not like to lose their business, he thought their objections perfectly proper. He believed that Gentlemen there did not know how country Solicitors carried on their business; but he could say, that in general, when they assured their clients that a title was good, the clients took it, and it was better

1009
to take a title under those conditions, than endeavour to vitiate it. No evil in practice resulted from that. The whole of the county of Durham protested against the Bill. It was alleged that it was calculated to prevent fraud—he did not say it was not; but there were other and more simple means, and the evil which it was by its cumbrous machinery to guard against was of such rare occurrence, that a respectable Solicitor of Durham had stated, at a public meeting at Durham, that he never knew an instance of fraud.
The Attorney Generalsupported the Motion. The Bill was only to establish the general principle of registration, which they all seemed to agree in. Even the hon. member for Yorkshire liked registration in Yorkshire, and why should not that which was good in Yorkshire be extended over the whole kingdom? The present Motion only went to sanction the principle, and all the details might be discussed in the Committee.
Mr. Duncombereminded the House that the general principle of the Bill, which the second reading would sanction, was the principle of metropolitan registration. The whole of his constituents were against the Bill, and he should give it his most decided opposition in that stage.
Mr. Murraysupported the Motion. The principle of registration had been tried in Scotland for upwards of 100 years, and been found to give great satisfirction. They were not then to decide on the details, but only on the general principle, to which even the hon. member for Yorkshire was favourable.
Mr. Cayleywas determined to oppose the Motion, because he knew that every one of his constituents considered him pledged to oppose it.
Lord Sandonhad a petition to present against the Bill from Liverpool, most numerously and respectably signed. For his own part, he approved of the general principle of registration, but objected strongly to making it metropolitan. He did not like concentrating wealth and business in London; on the contrary, he thought it was better to diffuse them as equally as possible through the country. He should prefer a district registration. At the same time he should vote for the second reading, with a determination on his part to make it into a scheme for a district registration, in the Committee.
Mr. Wasonwas sure that it would not
1010
be possible to do anything with the Bill this Session.
The House then divided on the Question that the Bill be read a second time—Ayes 69; Noes 82: Majority 13.

List of the Ayes.

ENGLAND.

Adam, Admiral

Althorp, Lord

Agnew, Sir A.

Baring, F.

Bannerman, A.

Barnard, E. G.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Campbell, Sir J.

Dalrymple, J. H.

Childers, J. W.

Ewing, J.

Evans, G.

Fergusson, R. C.

Ewart, W.

Gillon, W. D.

Fort, J.

Hay, Sir J.

Forster, C.

Jeffrey, Right Hon. F.

Grey, Sir G.

Johnston, A.

Grote, G.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Hall, B.

Kennedy, T. F.

Hawkins, J. H.

Maxwell, Sir J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Maxwell, J.

Horne, Sir W.

Murray, J. A.

Hyett, W. H.

Oliphant, L.

Kennedy, J.

Oswald, R.

Lamont, Captain

Oswald, J.

Langston, J. H.

Stewart, R.

Leech, J.

Stewart, E.

Lefevre, C. S.

Wallace, R.

Lennard, T. B.

IRELAND.

Lushington, Dr.

Browne, D.

Ord, W. H.

Fitzgerald, T.

Potter, R.

Lamb, Hon. G.

Romilly, E.

Lynch, A. H.

Romilly, J.

Maxwell, T.

Sandon, Lord

Perrin, L.

Scholefield, J.

PAIRED OFF.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. E.

Hume, J.

Strutt, E.

Kerry, Earl of

Thicknesse, R.

Peel, Sir R.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Pendarves, E. W.

Vernon, G.

Penleaze, T. S.

Walker, R.

Rippon, C.

Warburton, H.

Whitbread, W. H.

Whalley, Sir S.

TEILERS.

Wood, Alderman

Brougham, W.

SCOTLAND.

Buller, C.

Abercromby, Rt. Hn. J.

List of the Noes.

Aglionby, H. A.

Divett, E.

Attwood, M.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Bethell, R.

Fenton, Captain

Blamire, W.

Fielden, J.

Boss, J.

Finch, G.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gaskell, J. M.

Cayley, Sir G.

Gaskell, D.

Cayley, E. S.

Goring, H. D.

Chandos, Marquess

Halcomb, J.

Chapman, A.

Hardy J.

Chaytor, Sir W.

Harvey, D. W.

Chetwynd, Captain

Hay, Colonel

Cobbett, W.

Heathcote, G.

Cornish, J.

Henniker, Lord

Curteis, E. B.

Hodges, T. L.

Curteis, H. B.

Howard, P. H.

Darlington, Earl of

Ingham, R.

1011

Ingilby, Sir W.

Todd, R.

Jermyn, Earl

Tooke, W.

Jervis, J.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Johnstone, Sir J. V. B.

Tynte, C. K. K.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Tyrell, C.

Lister, E. C.

Villiers, Viscount

Lowther, Lord

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Lowther, Colonel

Wason, R.

Marshall, J.

Wilks, J.

Parker, J.

Williams, W. A.

Parrott, J.

Williams, Colonel

Pease, J.

Wood, Colonel

Pelham, Hon. A. C.

Yorke, Captain

Philips, M.

Young, J.

Phillips, C. M.

TEILERS.

Pryme, G.

Hodgson, J.

Richards, J.

Sanford, E. A.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

PAIRED OFF.

Ross, C.

Gladstone, W. E.

Ryle, J.

Herbert, Hon. S.

Sheppard, J.

Lambton, H.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Strickland, G.

Molyneux, Viscount

Talbot, J.

Ossulston, Viscount

Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C.

Ramsden, J. C.

Thomson, P. B.

SEPARATISTS' AFFIRMATION.
Mr. Pryme Mr. Pryme moved, that the House should resolve into a Committee on the Bill for substituting the Separatists' affirmations for their Oaths. The hon. Member explained the hardships those persons were subject to at present on account of their refusing to take an oath. They were prevented from being merchants, because they would not take Custom House oaths. They could not exercise their calling in Corporations, because they would not take the oath to the Corporation. They were sometimes deprived of their elective franchise, because they would not swear that they had not voted before. If they were half-pay officers, they could not receive their half-pay because they would not swear. They were subject, in short, to a variety of other similar hardships which fell no them because they would not swear.
Mr. Halcombethought, that before the House conceded to the Separatists' privileges which were not enjoyed by his Majesty's subjects in general, it ought to know something of who and what they were. In the known character of the Quakers they had some guarantee, but the Separatists were wholly unknown to him. He would be obliged to the hon. Member to state who and what the Separatists were. Upon looking at the Bill, he could not see that any parliamentary ground was laid for dispensing with the taking of oaths in the case of the people called Separatists,
Mr. Warburtonthought it a sufficient ground for passing the Bill, that the Member who introduced it, stated that the persons to whom it referred entertained conscientious objections to taking oaths.
Mr. Murraysaid, that he was acquainted with many Separatists, and knew them to be a respectable body of persons, who adhered literally to the precept in the Gospel, which recommended that men should not swear. The Bill, which was intended to allow these people to take their affirmation instead of an oath, would be a boon to society in general as well as to them, for at present their scruples prevented them from giving evidence in Courts of Justice, which might lead to the punishment of the guilty or the acquittal of the innocent.
Mr. Goulburnthought, that the House ought to be in possession of better information respecting the people calling themselves Separatists before the Bill was passed. He had looked into the most recent works describing the religious sects in this country, and he could find nothing about them. If the House showed a disposition to grant privileges such as that proposed by the Bill to all persons who said they entertained scruples to take oaths, it would tend to encourage unnecessarily dissent from the Established Church.
Mr. Prymesaid, the Bill contained a clause which enacted, that if any person should falsely pretend in a Court of Justice that he was a Separatist in order to avoid taking an oath, he should be liable to the penalties of perjury.
Bill committed.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.
On Clause 95—giving power to the Commissioners to agree with the patron for yearly allowance being read,
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that one unjustifiable proposition was embodied in this Bill—that of taxing the clergy, even though the lay impropriator was the person to derive advantage.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the object of the Bill certainly was to tax the Church for the purposes of religion, and it could not be objected that the income of a clergyman should be augmented though the tithes were in the hands of a layman.
Mr. Shawsaid, that he had before, when the principle of the Bill was under discussion, objected to the clergy alone being taxed for the rest of the community, but that point being carried against his opinion, it was still but just that when by law the lay impropriator was bound to provide for the service of the Church, that the funds of the clergy should not be taxed for what another was legally bound to pay. He hoped the noble Lord was now prepared to assent to the proposition which he had before promised to take into consideration—namely, the allowing a summary remedy by petition against the lay impropriator who was bound by the express conditions of the grant or patent under which he held the tithes to maintain an officiating clergyman. That mode of summary relief had been recommended by the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Inquiry, as was the case in respect of charitable donations, and under the 22nd Clause of the Bill then under consideration, the same remedy by petition was given against the clergy for enforcing payment of the tax. He might here be permitted to mention some cases of lay impropriators deriving large incomes from tithes, and contributing little or nothing to the support of the Church. In Doneraile, in the county of Cork, 1,000 l. a-year was received, and but 13 l. paid. In Drum downey, 800 l. was received, and 6l. 13 l. 4. paid—the same in Ballybeg, and from the parish of St. Catherine's, Cork, the lay impropriator derived 2,000 l. a-year, and did not pay 1s. for the support of the Church or the performance of divine service. He was not at present drawing any distinction between tithes and other property in the hands of laymen, but merely asking on the part of the Church, whether the lay impropriator was by the grant under which he held expressly bound to pay?
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, there were very few such cases in England; and begged to know from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) whether they were of frequent occurrence in Ireland—as, if so, he thought the proposition of the hon. Member was a very reasonable one?
Mr. Shaw: Such cases were of frequent occurrence in Ireland, as the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Inquiry reported. He hoped that the noble Lord would assent to his proposal, and introduce a clause providing a summary remedy.
Lord Althorpsaid, he should feel obliged to the hon. Gentleman for preparing such a clause. He would not object to its introduction.
Mr. Shaw: he would willingly prepare the clause and submit it to the noble Lord.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid that, if the lay impropriator received tithes without doing duty in return, the clergy received large sums for doing next to nothing.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, that the lay impropriators were bound by law to contribute towards the maintenance of the Church, for they derived all the profit from the tithes; and if it were even true, which he denied, that the clergy did little in return for their incomes, it was unquestionable that the lay impropriators did nothing towards the service of religion in the parishes from whence they derived their incomes. There could not be a more zealous or exemplary body of men than the Irish clergy.
Sir Robert Inglisurged the necessity of the lay impropriators contributing, as by law they were bound to do, to the maintenance of the Church and the support of the officiating clergy.
Clause, with verbal Amendments agreed to; and the Clauses to the 118th agreed to. House resumed. Committee to sit again.