Commons Sitting of 20 July 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Corrupt Practices at Elections; Sugar Duties; Renewable Leasehold Conversion (Ireland.)
Reported.—Ecclesiastical Unions and Divisions of Parishes (Ireland); Highland Roads, Bridges, &c. (Scotland).
3° Consolidated Fund (3,000,000 l.)
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Dr. Bowring, from the Town of Peel, in the Isle of Man, in favour of Insular Enfranchisement.—By Mr. Charles Howard, from the In-habitants of Brampton, in Cumberland, for the Adoption of Universal Suffrage.—By Mr. Pole Carew, from the Borough of Denbigh, for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Goulburn, from several Merchants of Liverpool, to take the State of the West India Colonies into Consideration,—By Mr. Fox Maule, from the Town Council of Perth, for Inquiry into the Excise Laws.—By Lord George Bentinck, from Merchants, and Others, interested in the Sugar Plantations in the Island of Mauritius, resident in London, against the Sugar Duties Bill.—By Mr. Cardwell, from the Brazilian Association of Liverpool, against the Admission of Foreign Refined Sugar.—By Mr. Reynolds, from Thomas Mackey Scully, of Airfield, Dublin, complaining of the Misappropriation of Funds in the hands of the Boyne Navigation Company.—By Mr. Cowan, from several Royal Burghs of Scotland, for an Alteration of the Law of the Court of Exchequer (Scotland).

INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
Report further considered.
On the question that the Amendments be read a Second Time,
MR. NAPIERopposed the Bill in its present state, because it would be as unjust to apply the Bill to a large portion of the property in Ireland, particularly in the north, as to apply the provisions of the Bill to the property in England. As the Bill came down from the other House, this objection could not be raised, and the sacred rights of parties who claimed under settlements were also provided for. Under the first set of clauses, the machinery was provided for protecting the rights of all parties; but under the second sot of clauses, added by the Solicitor General, while the rights of owners and incumbrancers were protected, the vested rights of parties claiming under settlement were sacrificed. If it were an object to encourage the sale of small estates, it was a matter of much importance that the person who purchased a small portion of land should have his title made good at once under an order of the Court of Chancery. But, under the second set of clauses, no title could be completed in less than five years. During that period no title could be made, nor could the money be paid out which had been paid into the Court of Chancery by
584
the purchaser, because the parties might come in and undo every thing that had been done. It had been supposed that all the expenses of the Court of Chancery could be saved by the second set of clauses; and if, by so doing, they could carry out the object of the Bill as well, that would be a most legitimate and proper object to attain. But when sales were made under the second set of clauses, in order that the money might be paid out under the order of the Court of Chancery, all the inquiries about the rights of parties which had been put forward a little earlier in the first set of clauses, must be gone through under the second set. There must be the same investigation under the second Act as under the first; and the expenses would be thrown on the estate in certain cases. Would it not be a wise course, if they found that the first set of clauses would carry out the policy of the Bill, to affirm that set of clauses, and pass the Bill? He approved of the clause which provided that the expediency of a sale should be ascertained, so as not to force the vested rights of parties unless upon such grounds as absolutely called for such an interference with private rights. The provision with regard to costs was also material, for it was important to prevent parties setting the Act in motion merely to make costs. But his objection was, that under the secondary clauses all the inquiry, so carefully provided for, was to be instituted after the sale was concluded. Suppose, then, it should turn out upon these inquiries that they had been instituted before the sale, such sale would not have been expedient. Why should there be two sets of clauses, the policy of which was wholly irreconcilable each with the other? If one was right, the other must be wrong. It was not wise nor just to compare landed property with moveable chattels. Then, with respect to the new clauses, although it was alleged that this measure was only to apply to those special cases in which land was inconveniently incumbered, the very first of these new clauses would enable the owner of every estate in Ireland, who had a judgment over him to the amount of 20 l., without notice to any persons having claims by settlement, to sell the property out and out, and so defeat the limitation of settlement, without the protecting care of the Court of Chancery being able to guard the rights of those persons. If this was good legislation for Ireland, why not for England also? The great objection he

585
entertained to the second set of clauses was this—that, if a man had a bonâ fide claim, he would proceed under the first set of clauses; but if he had a cloudy or fraudulent claim, he would proceed under the second set. It was dangerous legislation to let loose, in such a country as Ireland especially, the powers which were given by the second set of clauses. Any man who was a tenant for life in Ireland, with the smallest amount of judgment debt, would have a power, under the Bill as it now stood, of disposing of the entire property, without any protection being-given to parties claiming after him. Such an innovation would interfere with the most sacred relations of life; and, considering how lauded property was depreciated in Ireland, owing to the unsettled state of the country, to the visitations of Providence, and other causes, a few years should be allowed, in which something might be done in order that property might recover its value; instead of which, this large and dangerous power was given to tenants for life to deal with property irrespective of the rights of children yet unborn. He was satisfied that this authority was not intended to be given by the Bill. The purchaser was subject to have his title questioned for five years, and none but a large capitalist would invest his money subject to such risk, whilst the poor occupiers would be neglected. Meanwhile, the money would be locked up for five years, the incumbrancer not being able to get it, and all this merely to enable a party to defeat a family settlement. The clause respecting compensation provided that where proper notice should not be given, and there had been a collusion between a party and the solicitor, the person affected by such fraud should have a remedy by suit against the party or the solicitor. Suppose a case of fraud against a creditor, what redress was it to tell him to go and look after some attorney? On the other-hand, no respectable solicitor would advise a client in the matter, lest he should be liable to a suspicion of collusion, and subject to proceedings thereafter. This clause provided a compensatory machinery, but no substantial remedy. He therefore objected to those clauses; he hoped to modify them; and he had submitted to the Government the views which had occurred to him. He thought the latter part of the Bill was neither wise nor good, nor, when considered soberly, did he think that part of the Bill would carry out the policy of
586
the measure in concurrence with the views of the House of Lords. He moved that the Bill be recommitted.
The SOLICITOR GENERALmust begin the few observations he had to make in reply to the objections of the hon. and learned Member, by bearing his testimony to the great assistance which he had rendered in the discussion of this Bill. Every one was ready to admit that the condition of property in Ireland must be regarded as very peculiar, and there might, therefore, be provisions in the Bill which at first view were calculated to excite some degree of surprise; but be ventured to assert that nothing would be found in the Rill not justified by considerations of sound policy, nor would there be discovered in it anything that could not be supported by precedents in this country. People who had not paid any attention to the subject would be surprised to learn that at the period of the union, in the year 1800, the fee-simple of the laud in Ireland, was in the hands of only 8,000 proprietors, while at the same period the land of England was held by 200,000 proprietors. The chief purposes of the measure having already been fully explained to the House, it was not required of him then to apprise them, that one of its objects was to increase the number of small proprietors of land. One of the modes by which they proposed to accomplish that was to give to the incumbrancers a power of compulsory sale, when the Court of Chancery should have ascertained the rights of all the parties concerned, and that the sale should be proceeded with even though all the persons concerned were not consenting parties. There was also another power of sale given without the instrumentality of the court, when the parties gave unanimous consent. But in that case he proposed to provide that the purchase-money should be paid into the Court of Chancery to be divided amongst the several claimants. There was also a provision that the Court of Chancery possess possess the power of preventing the undue interference of parties who withheld their consent merely for the purpose of getting more money. The Bill would enable the Court of Chancery to see that parties presenting any obstacles to the progress of a sale did really otter a bonâ fide reason for demanding delay. In this country the effect of every well-drawn settlement and of almost every will was this, that practically it gave the tenant for life power to sell an encumbered estate. This Bill gave that power

587
when the owner found the estate encumbered; but it did not permit him to create incumbrances for the purposes of a sale, nor to promote its sale on the ground of any incumbrances to which he himself had given rise. Besides the existing provisions of the Bill, he proposed to add a clause requiring that absolute personal notice should he given to all persons in remainder, for the purpose of preventing fraud, by every individual who happened to be interested being made aware of the intended sale. It was, of course, understood that the first incumbrancer could have no interest in forcing a sale, for there would probably always be enough to pay him; subsequent incumbrancers might be apprehensive that there would not be enough to pay them; and the owner might fear that a very trifling residue would remain to him; but all the parties would find their advantage in obtaining the highest possible price fur the land when sold. Further, it was proposed that no purchaser should have a title to land if fraud in the purchase could he shown; fraud was always found to vitiate the contract. Fraudulent purchasers would be compelled to restore the lands they had acquired; and all persons cognisant of the fraud, such as the solicitors concerned, were to be liable for the consequences of the fraud. Also, it was intended to provide that the Lord Lieutenant should have power to appoint surveyors to estimate the value of estates sold under the Bill, and to see that proper prices were paid for them. It was likewise proposed that purchasers were not to get a title complete until five years should have elapsed after the sale; and, with reference to this point, he begged to observe that a similar clause was to be found in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act. It should not be forgotten that all the expenses of sale fell upon the land, and yet the owners of that land were the parties whom the Legislature desired to protect. He did not overlook the objection that had been raised to the clause which suspended the title for five years; but he hoped hon. Members would bear in mind that delay would have the effect of inducing purchasers to look closely into the title, and that within the five years there would be ample opportunity for those persons to come forward who had any claims against the estate. They could not create a middle class in Ireland unless they made it possible to sell land to the extent of 100 acres or thereabouts without a ruinous expense. To produce such an effect they
588
must pass such a measure as the present, emancipating the land in the hands of the owner, and thereby they would enlist a large class of persons in favour of order and good government. He implored the House to adopt such a measure as the present. Every disease which afflicted Ireland seemed to spring from land; which was unattainable by those who, if they could get it, would be the best cultivators of it; and unless they made laud marketable in Ireland, as it was not at present, every other measure they might attempt to pass for the relief of that country would be found utterly ineffectual. He should not be indisposed to extend a similar Bill to England, though he did not mean to say that evils to the same extent existed in this country as in Ireland.
MR. SADLIERwould support the Motion of the hon. Member for the university of Dublin. The titles of property in Ireland were exceedingly intricate, and it behoved the Government to consider well before they broke through those safeguards which the experience of courts of equity had raised up against the perpetration of fraud and collusion. The Amendment introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone far, in his opinion, to prevent the sacrifice of property which otherwise would have ensued under the provisions of the Bill as it originally stood. The practical power conferred upon the tenant-for-life in England to sell the estate, ought to be extended to the tenant-for-life in Ireland. One of the great defects of the law in Ireland was, that you could not institute a foreclosure suit in that country. A simple law conferring the power of instituting a foreclosure suit, would go far to confer upon Ireland all the advantages which a rational man would anticipate from the measure before the House. The hon. Gentleman entered into other details, and concluded by repeating his determination to support the Amendment.
MR. NEWDEGATE, as an English Member, objected to the anxiety displayed by the Solicitor General to extend this Bill to England. He believed in the necessity of a measure for Ireland such as this was when it came down from the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor and the House of Lords had met the necessities of the case wisely, effectively, and he would add justly, and they had produced a measure worthy of the high legal knowledge of the Lord Chancellor, and of that calm, careful, and patient investiga-

589
tion which their Lordships bestowed upon all questions upon which they legislated, and guarded with all the safeguards that their matured experience deemed requisite. He protested against the novel principle introduced into the Bill by the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not approve of the ample remedy which the wisdom of the House of Lords had provided for the case, but proposed another. His remedy came to this, and it was truly one peculiarly applicable to an Irish evil—you knock a man down first that you may pick him up afterwards and take the chance of curing his broken bead. He protested against the embodiment of any such principle in legislation; and whenever the Government should attempt to extend that principle to England, the attempt would prove the termination of their tenure of office; they would find themselves the scorn of the House, and they would be driven from those benches with the unmitigated and universal contempt of the country. He contended that the necessity of the case was met by the first part of this Bill, and that there was no necessity to append to it the principle of the hon. Gentleman, compelling the sale of all incumbered estates within five years, which they were told would rather enhance than be detrimental to the price. If there were any faith to be put in political economy—and the Ministry were political economists—to glut the market was not the way to raise the price—and this Bill would glut the market. The hon. and learned Gentleman had instanced the Railway Acts of England, under which gales were compelled, and said there was no difference in the two cases. But was there really no difference? Would the parties in the forced sales in Ireland, under this Bill, have any security for the value of their property? That was doubtful; but the capital of a railway company was ascertained by Parliament before the power to force sales was given. Care was taken that that capital should not be improperly disposed of, and everybody was secured. How stood the case here? By the clauses providing for the sale of property, introduced by the Solicitor General, if a fraudulent sale took place, and it were discovered within five years, the real proprietor might recover his property; but if it had been resold, he had no remedy, except against the party who had sold it in the first instance, and who, if the sale were a fraudulent one, could take care to be out of the way before the discovery took place.
590
The rightful owner would inevitably be deprived of his property, while the second purchaser would enjoy its possession in safety. The more he considered the principle of these clauses, the more objectionable they seemed. The hon. and learned Gentleman said they were necessary for Ireland, because there was no power of sale given in life tenures in Ireland, while in England there were general powers of sale in life tenures with the consent of trustees. But this Bill, instead of providing the supervision of trustees, and then permitting the sale as in England, abolished at once all trusteeships and all settlements under trustees. This was adopting a principle totally alien to the principle of English law and practice, and indicated, ill his opinion, a determination to deal with the property of Ireland in the most summary manner, when this principle, allowing property to be sold within five years, was introduced. He must say that the English Members, if they had any regard for the tenure of property as it existed in this country, would ill discharge their duty if they sanctioned such a principle. It was said that the adoption of this principle with regard to Ireland was a matter of policy; but that involved grave considerations. They were about to proceed recklessly to divide property; let the House be careful how it permitted this. That was the principle of morcelement which in France had produced such unhappy effects. They were commencing a disturbance of the rights of real property by rash innovations, and he warned the House that the safety of personal property would also be compromised by the measure. He believed the effect of the measure would be to loosen that feeling of respect which had hitherto happily prevailed so many years in this country for the rights of property. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also said, and he must confess be was greatly surprised when he hoard it—"If anything is to be done, we must not be too nice about guarding against fraud." He had not the slightest wish to misrepresent what the hon. and learned Member had said; but, accepting his own interpretation, did not the admission of any incumbrances show that the Bill created a liability to fraud? These incumbrances did not disfigure the Bill when it came down from the House of Lords. He would be no party to the passing of a measure which, there was every reason to believe that the House of Lords, if it maintained its consistency,

591
would not sanction; and he, therefore, felt it his duty to vote with the hon. Member for the University of Dublin. Before he concluded, however, he must notice an expression which had fallen from the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that all the evils of Ireland sprung from the land. It would be most unjust to allow such an assertion to pass uncontradicted. Were there not unhappily in Ireland differences of religious faith; did not an organisation exist most democratic in its nature; was there not a system of secret conspiracy flourishing in a majority of the Irish counties? The hon. and learned Member could not deny those facts; and when he attributed all the evils of Ireland to the tenure of land, he was guilty of an exaggeration and a misrepresentation, which it would not be right to allow to go forth uncontradicted. But if the tenure of the land in Ireland produced all these evils, why did they not exist in Scotland also? for the Government had this year confessed the faultiness of the tenure in Scotland, by the introduction of a measure to amend it. If, then, the tenure of the land produced all these evils in Ireland, he bogged to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman why they did not exist in Scotland?
MR. FAGANhoped the Government would persevere with this measure, and particularly with that portion of it for which they were indebted to the Solicitor General. The importance of the measure would be at once perceived, when the House remembered that the land of Ireland was borne down by 3,000,000 l. of encumbrance upon a rental which did not exceed 12,000,000 l., and particularly when it was considered that a large portion of the latter sum belonged to absentees whose land was not encumbered, and that, therefore, the whole of the encumbrance fell upon the resident proprietors. There were 34,000,000 of arable acres in England, which, by the labour of 1,000,000 persons, produced 150,000,000 l. per annum; while, in Ireland, her 14,000,000 of arable acres was cultivated by 1,100,000 persons, and only produced 36,000 l. per annum. He was pleased to find that owners and remainder-men were to be protected; and he hoped, as it was to be the only measure of the Session intended for the benefit of Ireland, the Solicitor General would manfully persist in it.
COLONEL DUNNEopposed the Bill, because he did not think that it had been
592
fairly introduced to the public or the House. As the Bill had been introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would have gone to the utter destruction of landed property in Ireland; and all the safeguards which had been since then added to it, had been the result of the suggestions of Irish Members. As to the principle of the Bill, he did not see why encumbered property in Ireland should be put upon a different footing from encumbered property in England. The Bill proposed to afford a remedy in cases in which the proprietors of land could not perform, the duties incumbent upon them. But did absentees perform these duties? Did the great London companies, who held land in the north of Ireland, perform these duties? Why, then, did they propose by this Bill to meddle only with those cases in which the non-performance of duties was attributable to the encumbrances pressing upon estates? He looked to the facilities sought to be afforded for selling land in small parcels as fraught with the greatest evils. Surely it was absurd further to apply the principle of division of property to a country suffering under evils so many of which were to be attributable to the already too great subdivision of property. But besides this, the Bill was most uncertain and obscure in its provisions. He had asked the other night whether a tenant for life could sell an estate under its provisions? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General did not give a distinct answer. The point, however, had been laid before a conveyancer; and his opinion was, that the Bill did entitle a tenant for life to sell the fee for his own benefit. He was sure that the measure would give rise to a vast deal of litigation, and that the expenses of conveyancing would not be reduced under the Bill. Allusion had been made to the disturbances and agitation unhappily existing in Ireland, as connected with the tenure of land. Now, he thought that no Irishman could deny that many of the evils which afflicted his country proceeded from bad government. Lord Clarendon had himself asserted that the system of government hitherto in force in Ireland was iniquitous. Let them look to the state of the country at this moment. Would any one say that the existing discontent rose solely from land? Were the men who were agitating—guiltily agitating that country—connected with land; or were the objects of their agitation connected with land? On the contrary, the disregard

593
which had been so often shown in this House of the rights of property was one of the main causes of the evils which now afflicted Ireland. He was prepared to support the Government in suppressing dangerous agitation; but he could not vote for the Bill, as he believed that nobody would he benefited by its provisions.
MR. PAGE WOODthought the present Bill the most important measure of relief which had been proposed for Ireland during the Session. It appeared to him that the apprehensions which some persons entertained as to the probable consequences of the measure were entirely groundless. The Gentleman who sat as Member for Kinsale at the commencement of the Session (Mr. Guinness), but who was not now a Member of the House, gave upon one occasion a striking illustration of the miserable condition of property in Ireland. He stated that he had acted as receiver for an estate which produced a rental of 20,000 l. a year, upon which only 200 l. had been expended for repairs during eight or ten years. That was one of the enormous evils which it was the object of this Bill to remedy. The present Bill differed from the Bill sent down from the Lords in matters of arrangement and management, but not in principle. The Lords' Bill enabled owners of estates, first incumbrancers, and persons holding the title-deeds, to sell estates by process of the courts. The defect of that arrangement had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Dundalk. Another defect of the Lords' Bill was, that under it no sale could be had unless enough property should be sold to pay off the whole of the incumbrances. That was equivalent to saying that no sales should take place in cases where it was most desirable they should occur, namely, in the cases of estates heavily encumbered. It would be almost impossible to effect the sale of an estate encumbered to the extent of 300,000 l. or 400,000 l; and he knew of such a case. The present Bill would effect the same object which was aimed at by the Lords' Bill, but in a different manner. Any encumbrancer would be empowered, upon giving notice to all parties interested, to put up an estate, or a portion of one, to sale, without being subjected to the inconvenience of applying to the Court of Chancery. It was supposed that this arrangement would open a door for fraud; but if persons were determined upon committing fraud, they could do so through the instrumentality of the Court of Chancery as well
594
as in any other way. The tendency of the Bill was to encourage the outlay of capital, and that must do good. The chief recommendation of the measure was that it would give the persons possessing peculiar rights a remedy which at present they could not obtain. It happened to him once to be concerned in an Irish suit, and his client was the fifth incumbrancer. The prior incumbrancers obtained receivers over the best part of the property; and when his unfortunate client's turn came, his receiver was put over 300 tenants, each of whom held five or six acres. It was hardly necessary to say that the receiver received nothing. Under the present Bill a person in the situation of his client would be able to obtain a remedy. But the grand object of the Bill was, that all persons interested in encumbered estates in Ireland, instead of having their property wasted by litigation in Chancery, would be enabled to sell their property, and have their rights to their money determined in a more ready and expeditious manner than by a decree of that court. Considering the melancholy state of Ireland, they would ill perform their duty to that country if they interposed one moment's delay in passing a measure which appeared to him to be one of the most remedial that had been proposed in the present Session.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman, like the Solicitor General, had given the House a very large and general description of the advantages of this Bill, but had not attempted to grapple with the question which had been so ably raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. No doubt existed as to the necessity of legislation for clearing away the difficulties by which landed property in Ireland was surrounded; and the only difference between them was whether this Bill would do that effectually, or whether it would not endanger the rights of property, and therefore tend to do moreharm than good. There were three classes of persons to whom this measure principally related—the owners, the remainder-men, and the incumbrancers, divided into the first incumbrancers and those who, unfortunately, came after them; and the House could not judge fairly of the operation of the Bill unless they looked as far as they could at the respective interests and positions of those various classes. The Solicitor General said no person could have so great an interest in the sale of an estate as the owner. No doubt that

595
would be so if the owner had a large interest in the estate; but he might, within the terms of this Bill, have the most limit-ed interest in it, as, for instance, an aged tenant for life of a heavily encumbered estate. There appeared to him to be no provision to guard against a collusive sale. Again, the estate might be sold when property was much depreciated; and when the money was paid into court, what chance would the remainder-men have of getting the surplus until the squabble between the incumbrancers for sharing the spoil was settled, and the expenses paid for out of the corpus? Then the purchaser was not to have a title for five years, and during that time his money was to be locked up in court; and if a suit arose it might last for twenty years, and there must be a receiver, thus aggravating all those evils which were now so much deprecated. The Solicitor General spoke of the advantage this measure would produce, by breaking up the fee of land in Ireland into small bits; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford said there was no evil so great as that of breaking estates into small pieces; and he illustrated it by saying that he had been engaged in a suit in which a receiver had been appointed over 300 tenants, holding five acres each, and that nothing could be got from them. They had on a former occasion heard the Solicitor General complain of there being only 8,000 freeholders in Ireland, and of the want of a yeomanry of a graduated kind; and he spoke of a mine of wealth being hid somewhere or other in that country, which this measure would bring out by breaking up estates into small pieces; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford, on the contrary, said, that by selling large estates capital would flow into Ireland. Both those arguments could not be right. For himself he really did not know to which he should pin his faith. The hon. and learned Gentleman, moreover, had not told them what was to become of the incumbrancers, and particularly the second and third incumbrancers. How would they treat those persons who had lent their money on the faith of a different law? The money was to be paid into the office of the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and after three months was to be invested in the funds, so that the incumbrancer who lent his money at 5 per cent was to be paid off' against his will, and his money was to be paid into Chancery, and could not be
596
touched until all litigation, which would be sure to come upon these estates, was settled. The best way to improve Ireland was to give security for life and property; but if they fancied they could attain that object by striking at the root of all property they would be mistaken. They could not get the machinery for working this Bill without the Court of Chancery; and that court, like all other courts of justice, would set its face against the injustice attempted to be perpetrated by this Bill. It was of no use to try and get rid of claims without investigating them; and if they shook confidence in the security of property in Ireland, they would go far to throw out of that country the amount of English property that was already invested there. Even as it was the Queen's writ did not run in all parts of Ireland; and, with the difficulty there would be in carrying this law into effect, there was but little chance of capital coming into that country. There was property now in the market in Ireland to the amount of millions sterling, but there were no purchasers. He sincerely regretted that these latter clauses should have been added to the Bill.
MAJOR BLACKALLobserved, that the only point in dispute was a matter of fact, whether the owner of a life interest in land had power to sell the whole estate. As he understood the Bill, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that there was nothing to prevent the owner of a life estate from selling, to the detriment of the remainder-man. He regretted to see a disposition to encourage small proprietors and middlemen, who were known to be most exacting, yet to whom it was proposed to give the fee of encumbered property in Ireland, by way of raising up a better proprietary. He should support the Amendment.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSconsidered that the Solicitor General had already explained what powers would be conferred by the Bill upon the tenant for life; and that he would have no right of disposing of the estate against the interests of the incumbrancer, or those in remainder, as the hon. Gentleman who spoke last had imagined. There had been peculiar care taken that all parties interested in the estate should have notice, and that they should not be substantially aggrieved in any way by the sale. The object and effect of this Bill was, as he understood it, to remove serious impediments and difficulties in the way of selling property encumbered by debt, and

597
in the hands of persons unable to improve it; and, after hearing the clear and intelligent exposition of the Bill, as it was then framed, by the Solicitor General, and, after knowing what had been done respecting the sale of land in this country, in a somewhat analogous case, he looked upon the cry attempted to be raised against the Bill, upon the ground of a disregard of the rights of property, and neglect of interests springing out of settlement, or the obligations of debt, as one wholly unfounded, and as having other purposes than those professed. The Bill, so far as it might be said to deal with security, or charges on estates, not contemplated originally by parties interested, was in strict analogy to the provisions of an Act, now acknowledged to be highly expedient, respecting the purchase of land by railroad companies, A company could buy the land without any obligation of seeing to the application of the purchase-money, so far as that might be in trust; and at once use the land for the purpose for which it was bought, and without any risk as to title. Of course, much of that land so used by railways had been liable to mortgage, and the subject of settlement; but nobody thought of charging the Legislature with the invasion of rights of property, on account of this Act. Whatever objection applied to the Bill before the House, as alleged by some Irish Members, was equally applicable to the other, which was also in force in Ireland, where companies had purchased land under the Compensation Clauses Act. If this Bill was to pass, as his right hon. Friend intended it, and not to be mutilated to defeat its object, it would be one of the most important Bills for Ireland—and in its beneficial effects in that country of great advantage to England—that had yet been proposed. He must also view it as an English question; and he would wish to awaken the attention of English Members and English electors to its bearing upon that vast and increasing evil which was each year becoming less tolerable to them—he meant the support of the Irish poor. The frugal and industrious ratepayers of this country were every year becoming more burdened by rates, and less able to support their own poor, in consequence of the Irish who were unable to procure employment in their own country being driven over to be maintained here. But did anybody for an instant believe that Ireland would not afford ample employment for all her people, and more besides, if her land
598
was properly cultivated—if it was only treated as was positively required to make it most profitable to the owner. Why, then, was this not done? Because the land was nominally in the hands of men who could not improve it. It actually belonged to mortgagees; or the rent was exhausted in paying charges upon it; or the tenure was such, that what was needed, in the first place, to make it more valuable, secondly, to give employment to the people, and thus chock the amount and flood of pauperism, was impossible to be done. This Bill had then in view to give facilities to the sale of land, giving people power that had it not before, to force the sale, und giving something like a ready and secure title to the purchaser—which, if really accomplished, would, as he firmly believed, induce many purchasers with capital and knowledge to embark in the speculation of cultivating the land, and employing the people. In short, such importance did he attach to the effect of making land more accessible to improving purchasers, and by every means rendering the commerce in land free, that he did not hesitate to say, that even this approach to it by this Bill was the only really remedial measure that he had known proposed during the last fourteen years that he had had a seat in the House. It struck at the root of the evil in that country, namely, the want of capital, and the non-employment of the people, and gave, therefore, the only hope that he knew of changing the social condition of the country. A great deal was said about redundancy of population, and the necessity of emigration, and the importance of public works; but all these things were said in ignorance or disregard of the fact, that the land itself in Ireland wanted all the people that it was proposed to send away, and that no money whatever could be spent with half the advantage that it could in cultivating and treating the land generally as was now done in some few places there, and usually in England. It might be safely said that the land in Ireland was not one quarter cultivated, and that if common intelligence, with capital, was employed upon it, the produce would be double. He, of course, spoke not from his own experience, or from what he heard said by people in this country, but from what had been again and again said by competent Irish witnesses upon the many inquiries that had been instituted on the state of that country; and most especially under the late Land Commission presided over

599
by Lord Devon. That Commission was appointed by the late Government; it was composed in a way to excite the confidence of landed proprietors themselves; and it was especially before this Commission that evidence was given of the miserable state of the culture of the land in that country, and of the vast field it offered for the employment of the people by the most ordinary and essential improvements. Let anybody read Captain Kennedy's evidence. Let them there learn the state of Lord Devon's property, when he undertook its management, and the results that had followed from it. Why, the people were there said to be redundant; the estate was said to be oppressed by people; but why? Because it was not drained, not enclosed, not treated in a manner essential for its profitable ownership. But his complaint, after draining and treating the estate as people do their estates in England, was, that there were not people enough! So it would be all over Ireland, if the same was done generally, but which never would be done if the land was for ever to be in the hands of encumbered proprietors, and if men of capital were to be shut out from its occupation. If he were not mistaken, Captain Kennedy had expressed an opinion that it would give bread to nearly 2,000,000 people for six years if the country was only properly drained. Even that preliminary to all good farming, then, while it enriched the country, would do more for supporting the people than all the schemes for emigration, and colonisation, and public works (paid for by the taxes) would do in the same time. He hailed, therefore, this measure as one calculated to attract capital to that country, and make Ireland more productive, and thereby to better the condition of the people; and as such it was a measure that deserved the cordial support of every honest and intelligent statesman.
MR. J. STUARTconceived that it was settled beyond dispute that the present state of the tenure of land in Ireland was one of the great causes of evil in that country; but he thought the present measure was calculated to continue those evils. Since the Bill came down from the Lords, clauses had been added to it which materially altered its character, and completely interfered with its avowed intention. The 28th Clause provided that no conveyance to a purchaser should prejudice or affect the rights of any lessee, tenant, or occupier in possession; that was to say, no middleman
600
was to be disturbed. No matter how many under-lessees there might be, the purchaser was to take his conveyance subject to them all. He contended, that it was a farce to talk of buying an encumbered estate if they were compelled to buy it, accompanied with the encumbrance of these lessees. The purchaser of an estate, under this Bill, would be put in possession of an estate in the occupation of men with whom he had nothing to do. The Solicitor General said, that a tenant for life could not make a sale under this Bill; whilst the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) expressed quite the contrary opinion. It was highly desirable that the conflicting opinions of the two hon. and learned Gentlemen as to the practical working of this measure should be set aside by a clear and intelligible enactment. The first set of clauses as they came down from the House of Lords would inevitably cause a vast deal of litigation; and the second set introduced by the hon. and learned Solicitor General would add to that litigation. The reason why Parliament was called upon to legislate was, that where estates were heavily encumbered, they might be easily and cheaply transferred to a purchaser. But this Bill would utterly defeat that desirable object, by entangling the purchaser in a complexity of claims which it would require years to settle in the courts of law. The 10th Clause provided that, as a preliminary to any sale under the direction of the Court of Chancery, there must be fourteen inquiries, which might occupy fourteen years. The end of such proceedings would be, that there would be endless litigation, and the purchase-money would go into the pockets of lawyers in the shape of costs. He believed that no man—not even an Irishman—would be so insane as to purchase an estate under this Bill. He meant no offence to the Irish Members. If they could frame a Bill which would give a purchaser what had been called "a railway title," or such as was given to the purchases made by railway proprietors, he, for one, would with pleasure vote for such a Bill. Such a measure would do wrong to nobody. If the Irish Members were content with the Bill, the most appropriate punishment that could be inflicted on them for their folly would be to pass it as it stood.
MR. MONSELLsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman, from the lofty eminence of his own intelligence, had affected

601
to look down with contempt on Irish blunders; but there never had been delivered a speech which afforded less justification for an assumption of superior acuteness than that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The learned Gentleman, and the other speakers against the Bill, had not taken into account the peculiar circumstances of Ireland. They might be very good arguments on an abstract question with regard to an utopia; but in the wretched condition of Ireland, they were not entitled to any weight. The real question for the House to determine was this—would the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, and as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin wished that it should pass the House, accompolish, or would it not, the objects they all had in view? It would be presumptuous for him (Mr. Monsell) to express his own opinion on a subject so encompassed with legal difficulties; but he held in his hand the opinion with reference to it of a solicitor in Dublin, which, with the permission of the House, he would read. That gentleman stated that the delay which now takes place in an equity suit would not be lessened under the Bill as it came from the House of Lords; the delay in the master's office would continue; and unless the clause introduced by Sir J. Romilly was allowed to stand, all the evils arising from encumbered estates would still continue. He asked if the hon. Gentlemen really knew the state of certain properties in Ireland, or if they were aware of the numberless cases in which estates had been wasted away in costs, and serious injuries inflicted, not only on the wretched occupants of those estates, but on their owners? The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, in the course of his observations, to the evidence taken before Lord Devon's Commission; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would be so good as to give him his attention, he would read a passage from the evidence of a gentleman who was not inclined to favour revolutionary ideas. Mr. Barlow, a Director of the Bank of Ireland, was asked—
"Are we to understand that it is your opinion that the impoverished state of the tenantry of Ireland in a great degree arises from the improverished state of the landlords? "
The answer was—
"Yes, in a great degree: when the landlord of an estate is overloaded with debt, he must exact from the tenantry the highest rent they can give, and he cannot assist them in improving the land;
602
the land must pass into the hands of capitalists, or the condition of the landlords must be changed, before we can expect to see much change in the condition of the tenantry."
When the House considered the condition of the tenantry of Ireland, must they not wish to provide a remedy for the present state of things? He was of opinion that not only would the condition of the tenantry be improved by this Bill, but that the condition of the owners of property would also be improved by it. The landlord was doomed to think, day after day, how he was to fulfil his engagements—he was in a perpetual struggle with adverse circumstances, and his condition was frequently more wretched than that of the most wretched tenant on his miserable estate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portarlington had spoken ill reference to absenteeism, and as to absentees not discharging their duties; but he would remind the hon. and gallant Member that a great deal of this absenteeism was caused by the condition of property in Ireland. There were a large number of gentlemen in Ireland of ancient families, and of great consideration in the counties to which they belong, who from their distressed circumstances are not able to maintain their position at home, and in despair fly to England or to France, where they live as they can on the miserable remnants of their properties. Their pride would not allow them to live in Ireland in a state different from that in which their forefathers lived. Then with respect to the objection of his hon. and gallant Friend to small properties, all this measure proposed to do was to remove the trammels on property; but it did not insist upon property being sold in small quantities. It appeared to him that the notion of small properties was confounded with the idea of small farms; but the two things were not to be mixed up together. Nothing, he admitted, could he more unfortunate than the condition of the miserable cottier in Ireland; but to say he disliked that system was no reason why he should not wish to see property in the hands of small proprietors who would farm that property themselves. This Bill, however, did not oblige them to have small properties. In conclusion, he begged to express his conviction that this measure was most necessary, and that the House, by passing it, would lay the foundation for the future prosperity of Ireland.
On the question that the words pro-

603
posed to be left out stand part of the question,
The House divided:—Ayes 197; Noes 52: Majority 145.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Forster, M.

Adair, R. A. S.

Fortescue, C.

Alcock, T.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Anson, hon. Col.

Glyn, G. C.

Anstey, T. C.

Goddard, A. L.

Armstrong, R. B.

Gore, W. R. O.

Bagshaw, J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bailey, J.

Greene, J.

Baines, M. T.

Grenfell, C. W.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Barnard, E. G.

Hastie, A.

Bellew, R. M.

Hastie, A.

Benbow, J.

Hawes, B.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Hay, Lord J.

Berkeley, hon. C. F.

Hayter, W. G.

Bernal, R.

Headlam, T. E.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Heneage, E.

Bowles, Adm.

Henry, A.

Bowring, Dr.

Herbert, H. A.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Heywood, J.

Brackley, Visct.

Hindley, C.

Brockman, E. D.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Brotherton, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Brown, W.

Hood, Sir A.

Browne, R. D.

Hornby, J.

Buller, C.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Bunbury, E. H.

Howard, P. H.

Butler, P. S.

Hutt, W.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Jervis, Sir J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Chaplin, W. J.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Charteris, hon. F.

Kershaw, J.

Christy, S.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Clay, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Clay, Sir W.

Lacy, H. C.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Langston, J. H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Lemon, Sir C.

Cobden, R.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Lewis, G. C.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Coles, H. B.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Corbally, M. E.

Lushington, C.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Courtenay, Lord

M' Gregor, J.

Cowan, C.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Mangles, R. D.

Cubitt, W.

Manners, Lord G.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Marshall, J. G.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Masterman, J.

Deedes, W.

Matheson, Col.

Denison, J. E.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Devereux, J. T.

Melgund, Visct.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Milner, W. M. E.

Duff, G. S.

Milnes, R. M.

Duncan, G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Duncuft, J.

Monsell, W.

Dundas, Adm.

Morpeth, Visct.

Dundas, Sir D.

Morris, D.

Ebrington, Visct.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Mowatt, F.

Ewart, W.

Mullings, J. R.

Fagan, W.

Noel, hon. G. J.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

Norreys, Lord

604

O'Connell, M. J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Smith, M. T.

Osborne, R.

Smith, J. B.

Palmerston, Visct.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Parker, J.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Patten, J. W.

Spearman, H. J.

Perfect, R.

Sullivan, M.

Peto, S. M.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Philips, Sir G. R.

Talbot, J. H.

Pilkington, J.

Tennent, R. J.

Pinney, W.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Price, Sir R.

Thompson, Col.

Pusey, P.

Thornely, T.

Raphael, A.

Townley, R. G.

Repton, G. W. J.

Townshend, Capt.

Reynolds, J.

Turner, E.

Ricardo, J. L.

Verney, Sir H.

Ricardo, O.

Villiers, Visct.

Rich, H.

Villiers, hon. C.

Richards, R.

Vivian, J. H.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Walter, J.

Robinson, G. R.

Ward, H. G.

Romilly, Sir J.

Watkins, Col.

Rumbold, C. E.

Wawn, J. T.

Russell, Lord J.

Willcox, B. M.

Russell, F. C. H.

Wilson, J.

Rutherfurd, A.

Wilson, M.

Scholefield, W.

Wood, rt. hn. Sir C.

Scully, F.

Wood, W. P.

Seymour, Lord

Wyvill, M.

Shell, rt. hon. R. L.

Young, Sir J.

Shelburne, Earl of

TELLERS.

Sheridan, R. B.

Tufnell, H.

Slaney, R. A.

Craig, W. G.

List of the NOES.

Archdall, Capt.

Howard, Sir R.

Barrington, Visct.

Hudson, G.

Bateson, T.

Ingestre, Visct.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Jones, Capt.

Beresford, W.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Blackall, S. W.

Mandeville, Visct.

Boldero, H. G.

Miles, W.

Brisco, M.

Newport, Visct.

Broadley, H.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Buck, L. W.

Packe, C. W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Rolleston, Col.

Chichester, Lord J.L.

Sadlier, J.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Sandars, J.

Dick, Q.

Sibthorp, Col.

Dodd, G.

Smyth, J. G.

Dunne, F. P.

Somerset, Capt.

Du Pre, C. G.

Spooner, R.

Farnham, E. B.

Stuart, H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Urquhart, D.

Filmer, Sir E.

Vesey, hon. T.

Floyer, J.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Fox, R. M.

Waddington, H. S.

Fuller, A. E.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Grogan, E.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Halsey, T. P.

Hamilton, G. A.

TELLERS.

Hamilton, J. H.

Newdegate, C. N.

Hayes, Sir E.

Henley, J. W.

Main question agreed to.
Bill to be read a third time.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL LORD JOHN RUSSELL moved the Second Reading.
COLONEL SIBTHORPhoped that the noble Lord would not at that hour of the night proceed with a Bill of so complicated a character, which in his judgment it was impossible properly to consider during the present Session. The period could not be far distant when a prorogation must take place, and, therefore, to suppose it possible to carry such a measure was out of the question. What had the present Government done since November? They had promised everything, but done nothing. He did not hesitate to say that a more incompetent, a more deceitful, or, as the hon. Member for Youghal had said, a more "hollow and treacherous" Ministry had never occupied the Teeasury benches. But what had that House done? Since the month of November, 70 public Rills had been introduced, of which 10 were withdrawn; and 44 Bills had been introduced by private Members, of which 15 had been withdrawn; and many of these Bills had been measures of great importance. This Bill, if it were to be read a second time to-night, could not pass both Houses at an earlier period than three weeks. He objected to it, therefore, because of the late period of the Session at which it bad been brought in; he objected also to its complicated machinery, and to its partiality. He objected to the Bill because there was to be a secret and a scandalous inquiry into the private concerns not only of the constituency, but of Members of Parliament, their characters and conduct, who were liable to be summoned before the Commission. He felt it to be his duty to reject this Bill in limine, and he should move that it be read a second time that day six months.
MR. BANKES, although he entirely concurred in many of the observations of his hon. and gallant Friend, could not concur in his present Motion; because, though he might object to the details of the Bill, he considered the principle of the measure to be so great an improvement upon the Bill which had been withdrawn, that he rejoiced at the discretion the noble Lord had used. It was but fair to state that their object had been, not to screen delinquency, but that the inquiry should be fairly and fitly conducted; and, now that they had a Bill which gave a hope of such fair and proper inquiry, they gave it a ready acquiescence. For himself, he was satisfied in giving his decided support to the present stage of the measure, though he believed they must look to another
606
Session of Parliament for the remedial operation of the Bill, which could have no operation this Session; and he hoped, therefore, when the noble Lord introduced this Bill, he had made up his mind not to withheld the writs for the places now deprived of representatives. As to the borough of Derby, it did appear to him that no case had been made out which would justify the House in withholding the writ; and unless very strong circumstances were shown with regard to Leicester, he should say the same of that borough. As to the time at which the present measure was to come into operation—though the noble Lord might be disposed to pass it with as little delay as possible—yet it was to be hoped that the Bill would not take effect during the present Session. He regretted that the noble Lord had not earlier turned his attention to the subject, for it scarcely was it becoming in him, as Prime Minister, to bring forward a measure which he did not fully approve. He hoped, however, when they got into Committee on the Bill, they would be able, with the and of the noble Lord, to remedy its defects. He would not, however, conclude those brief observations without protesting against treating being considered as equivalent to bribery. It might be necessary to restrain treating; but there was no necessity for confounding it with bribery. He had only to add, that he should support the Bill of the noble Lord.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, the hon. and gallant Member opposite had referred to him respecting the measure now before the House, and had accused him of bringing forward the Bill. Greater justice, however, had been done to him by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, who gave a more correct version of the facts. For many years past he had taken great part in the inquiries which had been instituted into that class of subjects respecting which it was now proposed to legislate; and he well knew the invidious nature of the task imposed upon those who undertook to bring forward measure of that class; it was, therefore, unwillingly that he applied himself to the subject. The hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House had told them that he (Lord J. Russell) did not agree with the arguments put forward by those who originally supported the Bill; and that he did not concur in the views entertained by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Flint boroughs. To this the only reply he thought it necessary to make

607
was, that, upon a subject of such a nature, it appeared to him most desirable to obtain as much agreement as possible; and, thinking the Bill sufficient for its purpose, he had consented to support it. As the hon. Gentleman opposite said they had no desire for bribery, he hoped they would support the Bill. He framed it in its present shape, believing it to be the best that he could under the circumstances hope to carry; and, as he had not been convinced by the arguments urged against the Bill, he could hardly do otherwise than persevere in proceeding with it. Though the hon. and gallant Member as well as other Gentlemen present were opposed to the Bill, yet he believed the great majority of the House were willing to go into Committee, and consider its details. This being, as he fully believed, the sense of the House, he considered it was not reasonable to move an adjournment of the debate. He had been accused of bringing forward the Bill on the 20th of July. But if he had not done it then, he must have brought it forward at a still later period of the Session.
MR. HUDSONobserved, that they were about entering upon an inquiry into the conduct of certain boroughs. If they showed that they were in earnest, he would be willing for his part to make a return of the expenses that he had incurred at the last election; and if other Gentlemen did the same, it would greatly facilitate the proposed inquiry. He could not understand why the boroughs regarding which petitions were presented, should be the only places subjected to investigation. He should support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lincoln; and he believed that the noble Lord himself would be glad to get rid of the Bill.
MR. MILESsupported the second reading. There had been a feeling in the country formerly that Election Committees did not do their duty; but after what had recently taken place the same feeling could no longer exist. He disliked the previous measures which had been introduced on this subject; but he thought such a Bill as the present necessary; and, without pledging himself to all the details, he hoped that it might be made a good Bill in Committee.
MR. ANSTEY, after some observations, consented to withdraw the Motion, adding that his objections to the principle of the Bill remained unaltered. If it passed, it would be a reflection upon the reports of judicial tribunals, that is to say, the Com-
608
mittees by whom the petitions from the places named in the schedule had been tried. Not one word had been said by the noble Lord or by the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) concerning the borough of Horsham. Yet it was a matter of notoriety that at the present assizes for the county of Sussex a qui tam action was pending, in which an informer was the plaintiff, and Her Majesty's Attorney General the defendant! It was not consistent with the dignity of the Government or its officers that such an inquiry should be left in such hands; and what did it suggest? Either that the noble Lord was not sincere in the wish he professed to scrutinise the malpractices of the late Ministerial Member for the borough of Horsham; or that the proposal of this Bill, recommended by the noble Lord, was backed from the additional consideration, that if it passed there would then he accorded to the defendant in that action a powerful reason for moving the court to postpone the trial. ["Hear!" and loud cries of "Divide!"] These were circumstances which those hon. Members who cried "divide" would do well to remember, because they afforded reasons for demanding the postponement of this Bill until a Sussex jury had given its verdict in the action against the Attorney General. On looking over the schedule in this Bill, he observed that the few boroughs in it which were charged with bribery and corruption were boroughs represented by the great Reform party opposite, the more immediate adherents of the Government. The inquiry which the Bill proposed was one that would last for a long period of time. It would be one commencing with the earliest time, and ending with the year 1848. But he could not avoid directing observation to one point. In some instances, as in the case of Leicester, the Committee had recommended that there should be further inquiry; and the recommendation was not acted upon. The Members returned were supporters of the noble Lord. In other cases, as in that of Great Yarmouth, the recommendation was acted upon; but the sitting Member in that instance sat on the opposition side of the House. Probably the noble Lord hoped to gratify the great Reform party with a small measure, in requital for the great disappointment he had recently given them, and so had reserved those cases which might please them; for, in the plentitude of his power, he had granted further inquiry into

609
cases in which the Committee had not recommended it. But he (Mr. Anstey) objected to the Bill on four grounds. In the first place, because it had an ex post facto operation, which was contrary to the spirit of English law. In the next place, because its operation was partial, being confined to certain boroughs and constituencies, and not extended to all. In the third place, because it was confined in its operation to those boroughs and other constituencies, the disfranchisement of which seemed to be desired by a certain party in the House, whilst every other was excluded. And in the fourth place, because its principle was not uniform, it proceeding in one instance upon a principle which, in another place, it denied; receiving hearsay evidence in one part, which it rejected in another. There seemed to be a suspicious inconsistency in leaving London out of the proposed inquiry. For if rumour told truth, the noble Lord had undergone enormous expenses in his election, in which hundreds of pounds went for nothing, and in which the entire expenses, he (Mr. Anstey) believed, were upwards of 30,000 l. Did the noble Lord mean to deny that the principal contributor to that fund was the great representative of the monied interest before which the noble Lord cowered? Did he mean to deny that rumour—and more than rumour, although there were laws of libel and slander which it was dangerous to infringe—could he deny that men had had the courage out of the House, on their responsibility to the law and to society, to denounce the fact, and to point to the very men who had received the rewards they had earned by voting for the noble Lord and Baron Rothschild? Would the noble Lord grant an inquiry into the condition of the city of London? Then the witnesses under his indemnity clause might come forward and identify themselves. But there seemed to be something of playing fast and loose in the affair. It seemed that mere rumour was sufficient, in some instances, to cause the institution of an inquiry for the purposes of disfranchising freemen; but it was not sufficient to set on foot an inquiry which might fix a stigma on the character and conduct of a great Minister of State.
The House divided on the question, that the word "now" stand part of the question:—Ayes 216: Noes 9; Majority 207.
[It will be sufficient on the division to give the Noes only.]

List of the NOES.

Anstey, T. C.

Somerset, Capt.

Archdall, Capt.

Urquhirt, D.

Halsey, T. P.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Hobhousc, T. B.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, W. N.

Hudson, G.

Mandeville, Visct.

Sibthorp, Col.

Bill read a second time.

PLACES OF WORSHIP SITES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
MR. BOUVERIE MR. BOUVERIE moved that this Bill he read a Third Time.
SIR J. GRAHAMthought this would be a good opportunity for showing to the country that, without needless prolongation of discussion, they could come to a decision upon an important subject; and, as the question had been several times debated, and he had so often stated his opinion on it, it would be inexcusable in him if he were to detain the House at any length upon this occasion. He was sorry the Home Secretary had left his place, because he fully relied on his support; but he saw the Lord Advocate, and was sure be would vote with him (Sir J. Graham) against the third reading of the Bill. A certain sect in Scotland, which had arisen only within the last five years, had built 750 churches, and desired to build about 30 more; and about 10 proprietors refused them the accommodation which they required for that purpose. To meet this case the proposition submitted to Parliament was, that any set of persons calling themselves a religious congregation might come upon the estate of any proprietor, and, subject to certain safeguards which he would not detain the House by enumerating, choose any site which they might think most convenient for their purpose. They were then to go to the Court of Session, which was to send the sheriff to inspect the locality; and, if that officer should be of opinion that the site selected was a convenient one, he had the power of setting it out, and the owner of the estate was compelled to take the price which might he agreed on for his own property, thus taken against his will; and, if the site selected should be close to his residence, he must nevertheless give it up. The other Dissenters in Scotland, except the sect in question, were opposed to the measure. What was the opinion of the Dissenters of England? The hon. Member for Stockport, speaking in their name on a former occasion, said that this measure was contrary to the voluntary principle, and that

611
they were opposed to it. Now, with respect to the Church of England—that Church in the plenitude of its power, and not withstanding what was termed its Eras-tian connexion with the State, never arrogated to itself any authority similar to that which was claimed for the sect for whose benefit this Bill was introduced. What would be the use of the power which it was proposed to confer upon the Free Church sect in Scotland? A case came recently before the Court of Session arising out of these circumstances. A short time ago, the proprietor of Dunsinane gave to the Free Church sect a portion of the village green. The proprietor subsequently died, and the Free Church proceeded to enclose the whole of the green. The villagers, looking on this as an encroachment on their rights, pulled down the palings. The case was brought before the Court of Session, and judgment was given for the villagers, against the Free Church. It was unnecessary to detain the House longer. The Bill was objectionable in principle; it was altogether unnecessary, and he recommended the House to arrest its progress. With that view, he moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill should be read a third time that day six months.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that his right hon. Friend had not given a correct description of the provisions of the Bill. When the appeal was made to the Court of Session, that tribunal had authority to award costs against the parties making the application, in the event of its being refused. If the Court should determine on granting the application, it would then send the sheriff to look at the site selected, and, if he disapproved of it, he was authorised to fix upon another which he might think better. The main fact upon which Parliament was called upon to legislate was this—that a number of congregations were in the constant habit of meeting for religious worship in places and under circumstances injurious to the health of the people and their ministers, and in a manner which was not in accordance with religious liberty. A congregation in one of the Hebrides, an island larger than the Isle of Wight, was unable to obtain a square' inch of ground for the erection of a church. It appeared to him that his right hon. Friend had somewhat altered his tone on this subject, for on the 8th of June he said, that "though he would not go the length of saying that legislation might not be necessary in the last resort, he objected
612
to the legislation proposed by the present Bill; he thought that the object ought to be effceted by private, not by public legislation, because then each case would stand on its own substantive grounds." The difficulties in the way of legislating by private Bills were invincible, and, after all, there was little technical difference between public and private Acts of Parliament. The investigation before the Court of Session would be more satisfactory than that which could take place before the tribunal to which private Bills were referred.
The LORD ADVOCATEintended to vote against the third reading of this Bill, because it was a general and not an exceptional measure. To say that justice might be done by leaving the parties to prosecute their remedy by private Acts of Parliament was a mere mockery and a denial of justice; but when, instead of making it applicable to one denomination, the measure was extended to all, he must object to it. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman, in speaking of the Free Church, which had unquestionably met with great grievances, and which he thought had been almost admitted by the right hon. Gentleman, had referred to any particular case; but it should never be forgotten, even by those who voted against the third reading of this Bill, that there was one parish in Scotland every inch of which belonged to a noble Lord, and not only had he refused a site, but had also refused to 500 parishioners, against whose character, good feeling, and propriety of conduct not one word could be said, liberty to worship God in the open air, even on a barren moor; and, if he were not mistaken in the fact, the noble Lord had taken out an injunction against their meeting there, and had obliged them to worship God during the whole inclement winter season on the high roads. That was a strong case, and he would mention this fact, that until such time as the noble Lord felt he was bringing too hard upon himself public observation, and they had proposed to receive the sacrament under the inclemency of those northern skies in the middle of winter, the noble Lord did not consent to give them a place for performing that solemn ordinance of their Church. They were advised not to accept that compliment, being told that the noble Lord would be obliged to give them a better place of worship; but that sect, so much abused for its violence (and he dared say there had been violence), did upon that particular occasion receive that

613
accommodation in the hope that from the action of public opinion the noble Lord might be brought to regard the Free Church with more favourable feelings, and might be disposed to grant them sites.
The House divided on the question, that the word "now" stand part of the question:—Ayes 59; Noes 98: Majority 39.

List of the AYES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Mangles, R. D.

Baines, M. T.

Marshall, J. G.

Bowring, Dr.

Matheson, Col.

Brotherton, J.

Melgund, Visct.

Buller, C.

Milner, W. M. E.

Bunbury, E. H.

Morpeth, Visct.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Morris, D.

Childers, J. W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Clay, J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Clifford, H. M.

Paget, Lord A.

Cobden, R.

Paget, Lord G.

Cowan, C.

Pechell, Capt.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Perfect, R.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Pigott, F.

Duncan, G.

Pinney, W.

Dundas, Adm.

Raphael, A.

Ewart, W.

Reynolds, J.

Ferguson, Col.

Rich, H.

Fox, R. M.

Scholefield, W.

Greene, J.

Smith, J. B.

Hastie, A.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Hastie, A.

Stuart, Lord D.

Henry, A.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Heywood, J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Hindley, C.

Thornely, T.

Hodges, T. L.

Ward, H. G.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Watkins, Col.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Wawn, J. T.

Locke, J.

TELLERS.

M' Gregor, J.

Beuverie, hon. E. P.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Du Pre, C. G.

Anstey, T. C.

Edwards, H.

Archdall, Capt.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Bagot, hon. W.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bailey, H. J.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Bankes, G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Barrington, Visct.

Floyer, J.

Benbow, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Galway, Visct.

Beresford, W.

Gordon, Adm.

Brackley, Visct.

Goring, C.

Bremridge, R.

Grogan, E.

Brisco, M.

Gwyn, H.

Brooke, Lord

Haggitt, F. R.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Halsey, T. P.

Carew, W. H. P.

Hamilton, G. A.

Chartres, hon. F.

Heald, J.

Christy, S.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Henley, J. W.

Cocks, T. S.

Hervey, Lord A.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Courtenay, Lord

Hodgson, W. N.

Deedes, W.

Hood, Sir A.

Dodd, G.

Hornby, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Howard, P. H.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Hudson, G.

Duncuft, J.

Legh, G. C.

Dunne, F. P.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

614

Lincoln, Earl of

Romilly, Sir J.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Rutherfurd, A.

Lockhart, A. E.

Sandars, J.

Lockhart, W.

Seymer, H. K.

Mandeville, Visct.

Simeon, J.

Masterman, J.

Smith, M. T.

Meux, Sir H.

Somerset, Capt.

Miles, P. W. S.

Spearman, H. J.

Miles, W.

Spooner, R.

Monsell, W.

Stafford, A.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Stuart, H.

Mullings, J. R.

Sturt, H. G.

Newdegate, C. N.

Thompson, Col.

Newport, Visct.

Urquhart, D.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Villiers, Visct.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Packe, C. W.

Waddington, H. S.

Palmer, R.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Pilkington, J.

Young, Sir J.

Powlett, Lord W.

Ricardo, O.

TELLERS.

Richards, R.

Graham, Sir J.

Rolleston, Col.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bill put off for six months.

BILL TO CONSOLIDATE THE METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONS OF SEWERS.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid, that he should certainly have been very happy to have extended the whole of the provisions of the Public Health Bill to the metropolis, and to have extended the principle of representation which was adopted in that Bill. But he felt great difficulty, in a community which comprised upwards of two millions of inhabitants, in having proper representation, or applying the provisions of the Bill; especially where the natural direction of the drainage was not found to correspond with the boundaries and divisions of unions, parishes, or districts. Under these circumstances, he did not find himself able to introduce such sweeping alterations in the present sewage commissions as to put them on the representative basis which he desired. The drainage of the metropolis was at present vested in seven commissions, besides the Regent-street Commission. It was now proposed to include the city of London in the guardianship of a general Commission, and to put it under the same rules as have been applied to the outlying districts. The provisions of the Bill would enable works of public drainage to be carried on by the united Commission; to which powers, in conformity with the Public Health Bill, would—as to house drainage and the removal of nuisances—be given. The principle would be adopted of spreading all charges for permanent operations over long spaces of time, say thirty years, so as to make the burden less felt. He also pro-

615
posed that the parties to be intrusted with sewerage operations should remain a Commission appointed by the Crown. The important work of devising drainage would he thus put in the hands of the best persons, able to undertake the responsibility; and it would be enacted that this Commission should report annually to Parliament. Thus the body would be brought under the direct control of the Legislature. He proposed also to limit the duration of the Commission to two years. These were the leading features of the Bill, for leave to bring in which he had now to move.
MR. C. ANSTEYwould divide the House against the Motion. The House divided, but only thirty-two Members being present, it stood adjourned at Two o'clock.