Commons Sitting of 4 August 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—3° General Board of Health (No. 4); Canterbury Association.

EXHIBITION OF 1851.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLappeared at the bar, and said: Sir, Her Majesty has been pleased to give the following gracious answer to the Address recently presented to the Throne from this House:—
"Her Majesty has received the Address of the House of Commons, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct, in such manner as to Her may seem fit, that the Crystal Palace be preserved until the 1st of May next:
"It will be necessary to consider carefully the engagements of the Royal Commissioners; and Her Majesty will direct inquiry to be made into various matters of detail, which must be ascertained before any decision can be made upon this subject.

PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. HENRYmoved the postponement of the Committee until the following day.
MR. J. GREENEconsidered the Bill before the House worse than the present law. The six months' specification, which was the cause of so much of the evil and robbery that existed with respect to patents, remained as bad as ever. The right of the inventor remained unascertained, and he was still obliged to come as a suppliant for what was his right. He objected to the provisions for provisional and secret registration, and considered that the appointment of examiners would lead to vexatious and arbitrary interference with the industry of the country, while, as their decision would not be final, it would not stop litigation. A somewhat similar system had been adopted in France, but it was found so unsatisfactory that it was soon abandoned; and in America they had an examiner; but although he had very slight powers, his authority was considered dictatorial, and all parties were dissatisfied with the system. The Society of Arts had gone fully into the subject, and their able Committee had given a full and

1849
clear report upon the evils of the present system, and their remedies, and they condemned, without reserve, the appointment of an examiner with such dictatorial powers as those proposed in the Bill. All the other societies that had inquired into the subject had condemned the appointment of an examiner. The only exception was that of the Financial Reform Association, who recommended an examiner, with very limited powers; but as that Association had commenced its consideration of the question by doubting the right of inventors to a property in the discoveries of their genius or their ingenuity, he (Mr. Greene), therefore, did not place much value upon the decision of that Association. The Attorney General and the law officers of the Crown had gained great credit from the House and from the country for a willingness to give up a portion of their emoluments. Now, there were at present about 500 patents a year granted; and there could be little doubt that under the new plan of centralisation that number would be increased to not less than 1,000, so that at a fee of 5l. for every patent, the receipts from this source would be some 5,000 l. He believed that in order to carry out the plan proposed by this Bill, a very numerous staff of examiners would be requisite, because in some cases it might take a person from a fortnight to a month to complete his examination of a single invention. In France an inventor handed in his drawings and specification, and received a receipt stating the exact time they were received; but at the same time they guaranteed him nothing, but left him to establish his rights if they were called in question. Now, if that were the case, they might have offices for Scotland and Ireland at Edinburgh and Dublin, where these receipts could be granted, and the inventor would be spared the trouble and expense of coming to London, which would be entailed upon him under the present Bill. Then, if any claim were made which infringed upon the right of any registered patent, it would become a question for a court of law; and he should approve a clause constituting the Attorney General public prosecutor in such cases. Feeling that the Bill was an inroad upon the industry of the country, he should vote with the hon. Member for South Lancashire if he pressed his Motion.
MR. LABOUCHEREthought the matters referred to by the hon. Gentleman ought rather to be considered in Committee than at the present stage of the Bill.
1850
There was no doubt that the greatest variety of opinion existed in this country with regard to the patent laws. He had communicated with a great number of individuals throughout the country on the subject, which was one of great intricacy and difficulty, and he did not know any question on which he had found such wide differences of opinion existing. A committee of the Society of Arts, composed of most eminent and distinguished men, and presided over by the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), had been appointed to consider this subject; and, at the commencement of their inquiries, they thought they had a very easy task before them. He believed, however, that in the end they differed very widely as to the patent laws which ought to be enacted for this country. Though this Bill varied considerably in form from the measure sent down by the House of Lords, it did not differ from it essentially in intent or substance. A petition, expressing the opinion of the Society of Arts on the matter, had been presented by the right hon. Member for Manchester, and the petitioners stated that, though this measure was not in all respects such as they desired, they yet believed it would effect an immense improvement on the existing law, and they considered it most important that the Bill should be passed this Session. He (Mr. Labouchere) was satisfied that great disappointment would be occasioned to the public if this measure was not passed. He would venture confidently to assert that this Bill, which had received most careful and attentive consideration in the other House of Parliament, would effect great improvements in the present law, by providing a more economical and simple mode of procedure and much more efficient machinery than now existed for carrying out the law of patents.
MR. J. L. RICARDOadmitted that the Bill was an improvement upon the present law; but he should oppose it, because the House and the country had had no opportunity of considering it. The Bill consisted of fifty-four clauses, and it was rather too bad to bring it in within a few days of the termination of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) would not, he was sure, contend that it was to be a final measure; and the colleague of the right hon. Gentleman at the Board of Trade (Earl Granville) had more than doubts as to the wisdom of any patent laws at all; but whether or he, he

1851
(Mr. Ricardo) could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the subject would be mooted next Session, and that a Committee would be moved for. That being the case, he should be glad to know what would be the course taken by the Government if this Bill were passed, when such a Committee should be moved for.
MR. LABOUCHEREthought it would be premature to pledge himself now to the course to be taken by the Government on a question of this kind in the next Session of Parliament. The Government would in the meantime have some experience of the working of this measure, and if a fair case could be made out, he had no doubt that no objection would be made to the appointment of a Committee.
MR. W. WILLIAMSbelieved the provisions of this Bill would afford encouragement to miserable and paltry inventions, which would have the effect of trammelling our manufactures to an enormous extent. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would abandon any measure on the subject until next year.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it might be supposed, from the objections urged against this Bill, that it effected some marvellous alterations in the substantive law of patents; whereas, the fact was, that with the exception of the clause respecting the introduction of the inventions of foreign countries, about which there might be some doubt, the Bill did not at all alter the substantive law on this subject, but merely the machinery by which a patent might be obtained. He was surprised that the hon. Member who had last addressed the House should object to greater economy and cheapness in obtaining patents. The hon. Member said, indeed, that the manufacturers would be injured by the taking out of patents for worthless inventions; but did he not see that such inventions would not be worth taking up, and the patents would therefore fall to the ground? The Bill enabled a man who imagined that he had hit on some valuable invention or discovery to obtain protection for six months on payment of 5l., and thus go into the market and obtain the assistance of either scientific persons to perfect it, or capitalists to carry it out; whereas, at present, it cost 109 l. to take out a patent for England alone.
MR. MUNTZsaid, that forty-five years' experience in manufacturing had convinced him, that if a man took out a patent that was worthless, every body infringed upon
1852
it, and that in fact it was not worth protecting. He did not altogether approve of the Bill, but should support it because he and his constituents thought that it contained many improvements on the present law.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYrepresented a manufacturing community, and was informed that they considered it a great improvement upon the law as it now existed. He had given the Bill his best consideration, and was also of that opinion. He should support it, but at the same time he must say that he entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Stoke, that it would be well if there were no patent laws at all.
Amendment withdrawn.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 (Commissioners may appoint Examiners).
MR. J. GREENEproposed the omission of the words by which the appointment of examiners was authorised.
Amendment proposed in page 2, line 23, to leave out from the word "it" to the word "shall," in line 27.
MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, he should support this Amendment, unless the Government consented to the introduction of a proviso to the effect, that no person who was a patentee, or held a beneficial interest in any patent, or who acted professionally in respect to the obtaining of patents, should be eligible.
The ATTORNEY GENERALcould not consent to this Motion, as he believed that the appointment of examiners was one of the most important provisions in the Bill. No doubt the appointment of examiners had failed when tried in other countries, but that was because their decision was rendered final. What was requisite in the person to examine into the claims of inventions was, great scientific knowledge, united with a judicial character and position. Now it was difficult to combine these two things; and either, without the other, would fail to inspire the public with confidence. This Bill sought to provide for the necessary combination of qualities, by intrusting the judicial investigation and inquiry, and the sifting of the evidence, to the law officers of the Crown, to whom it had hitherto been intrusted; while the examiners, who would be men of scientific knowledge, should report to them, or act as their assessors, in deciding upon points involving scientific questions.
MR. J. L. RICARDOwould vote against the clause, unless a provision was introduced into it, that no patent agent or patentee should be appointed examiner.
MR. LABOUCHEREthought there was great propriety in the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo), and his hon. Friend the Attorney General would consider the point before the next stage of the Bill.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that his own opinion was in favour of the clause; but he thought it would be desirable to consider the subject a little before it was introduced.
MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, that if the Government would not then accept his proviso, he would move it.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, that there could be no doubt as to the propriety of adopting that part of it which related to patent agents; but he did not see why because a man accidentally held one patent, he should be precluded from examining another of a totally different description.
MR. J. L. RICARDOreplied, that he did not see how it could be arranged that an examiner of a patent should only examine patents in which he was not interested.
MR. J. GREENEcalled attention to the temptations which were held out to the examiners of fraudulently communicating the information which they had acquired by means of their office, and which they ought to keep to themselves.
SIR DE LACY EVANSthought that, if possible, no person who was a patentee or connected with patents should be appointed an examiner.
The ATTORNEY GENERALhad no doubt that the Commissioners would take the greatest care not to nominate to the appointment any person who was concerned in patents, if they could possibly avoid it.
MR. MUNTZasked how it was possible to ascertain whether a man was dabbling in patents? He was opposed to the appointment of examiners, and should not vote for the present clauses unless he was assured that this clause was an essential part of the Bill, which he did not want to lose.
MR. J. L. RICARDOthen stated that he would modify his proviso with respect to the appointment of a patentee as follows:—" Nor shall any examiner be entitled to act in respect of any patent in or against which he may be interested."
MR. J. GREENEsaid, that the evident
1854
want of confidence in the truthfulness of the examiners which the Government had displayed by admitting that (it was necessary to give some such guarantee to the public as that contained in the proviso of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo), only afforded him additional reason for pressing his Motion.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the hon. Member was not justified in saying that the Government distrusted the truthfulness of the examiners; but they desired to give the public every guarantee against possible malversation on the part of these officers.
SIR DE LACY EVANSthought that the Bill should provide for the observance of strict secrecy by the examiners.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it would be very easy to frame a provision that any publication except according to the regulation of the Commissioners should make the party liable to a severe penalty.
MR. WESTHEADbelieved that it would be doing an injustice to the Lords Commissioners and to the Gentlemen who might fill the office of examiners to suppose that they could be so meanly base as to abuse their trust.
MR. LABOUCHEREstated, that the Government considered this clause an essential part of the Bill.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 2: Majority 44.
The following words were added to the Clause:—
"And no person so appointed shall act professionally, or otherwise practise in any matters relating to patents for inventions, nor shall any examiner be entitled to act with respect to any patent in or against which he may be interested."
Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 5 agreed to.
On Clause 6, empowering the Treasury to provide officers and clerks,
MR. J. L. RICARDOasked, whether the payment of the officers' salaries would be provided for out of the fees or not?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the fees had been reduced to the lowest amount possible; and it was a question whether the fees thus lowered would meet the exigency of the case; he thought they would.
MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, that it appeared that the fees were to be paid into the Consolidated Fund; and that then the

1855
Lords of the Treasury were to pay the salaries under the Act. He thought that a Bill proposing to establish a charge upon the Consolidated Fund should be founded upon resolutions in Committee.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, that the fees authorised to be levied by the Act were to be paid into the Exchequer; and, by Clause 44, the Lords of the Treasury were to fix and pay the salaries of the officers. No charge upon the Consolidated Fund would be created; but the expense would come annually under the review of Parliament in the shape of a vote in the Estimates. It was considered that this was the fairest principle to adopt; and that being so, there was no necessity for founding the Bill upon resolutions in Committee.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, of all the monstrosities he had ever known in that House, and he had known many, he had never heard of one equal to that. The hon. and learned Gentleman had taken great credit for cheapening the process of patenting, and now it appeared the public were to pay for it. They were granting privileges to a class of persons at the expense of the public.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the fees, no doubt, had been made as low as possible, and if it were found that they would not realise as much as would pay the expenses, they would, no doubt, be raised; but the cost would be laid annually before Parliament, and the House would thus have every opportunity of checking any improper expenditure.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 7,
MR. J. GREENEsaid, he hoped that provisional registration would not be pressed; and he contended that a man should be called upon to give a valid and perfect description of his invention before he received any protection for it.
MR. MUNTZ, on the other hand, complained that it required so perfect a specification as to make him think the old law, which allowed six months for the general description at first put in to be completed, was preferable. As this clause and Clause 9 now stood, a person might petition, and his specification being secret, another person engaged upon the same kind of invention, better calculated, perhaps, to make it perfect, might spend a great deal of money, in ignorance that there was any person before him.
MR. SPOONERsupported this objection.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the object of this clause was to give an inventor six months to perfect his invention. He would not, under this clause, be allowed to obtain protection for his invention while it was in a crude state, but must give a general and correct outline of the nature of his invention; and if he did not, the examiner would not give his certificate. He must reduce his vague idea into substance—into what a scientific man conversant with the subject would say was a fair description of the invention, and of the manner in which it would work. And then, by this clause, protection, on payment of a fee of 5l., would be given to the inventor, to enable him to complete it, or to obtain any assistance required to carry it out. Formerly a man could obtain protection for an invention for six months by merely giving its title; and it was then found that the six months were employed in filching from the inventions of others; but it was found that the practice introduced by the law officers, of requiring a general description of the invention, had worked well, preventing pirating, while it enabled the invention to be matured.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that, as the law now stood, when a person petitioned for a patent, the Attorney General ordered advertisements to be published, in order that persons having objections to the granting of such a patent might come forward and state them. He understood that this public notice would now be postponed for six months. It might happen that two or three persons had turned their attention to the same subject, and had all petitioned, each being in ignorance of the others having done so. And, under this clause, they would go on working at considerable expense for six months in the same ignorance. He thought that means should be provided of knowing what patents were before the Attorney General.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that if, on consideration, he did not think that this point was sufficiently provided for by Clause 13, he would introduce a provision for this purpose.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report progress.

CLAIMS OF DON PACIFICO.
MR. URQUHARTbegged to know if the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would consent to lay upon the table of the House the papers con-

1857
nected with the settlement of the claims of Don Pacifico?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I have no objection to do so.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, that the different Foreign Governments concerned in arranging the affairs of Don Pacifico had rewarded their Commissioners with honours and distinction; and the British Government not having acted in that way towards the Commissioner employed by them, it had been rumoured through the Continent that the British Government were not satisfied with the conclusion of the negotiations, and considered that the affairs had not been arranged in a way that was satisfactory to them. He begged to ask his noble Friend if there was any foundation for such a report, and whether the British Commissioner had given satisfaction in the discharge of his duty?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhad no difficulty in informing his noble Friend that the manner in which the British Commissioner (Colonel Johnson) had performed the duty imposed upon him on that occasion, was entirely satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government. His investigation had been characterised by assiduity and diligence; he came to the conclusion that the Government themselves would have come to if they were in the same situation. His noble Friend must be well aware that the customs of Governments differed as to conferring honours and decorations on public servants. Foreign Governments lavished, he was going to say, those rewards; but they almost ceased to be rewards when they were given in such a profuse manner, and it was not the habit of the British Government so to give them.

BUENOS AYRES.
MR. URQUHARTbegged to ask for information respecting the new phase of the relations between Buenos Ayres and France and England?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied, that the question was a very simple one, so far as this country was concerned. It was well known that a treaty of peace and reconciliation was concluded and ratified between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation more than twelve months ago. A similar treaty had been negotiated by the French admiral, Le Predour, on behalf of France. On that being sent home, certain objections, relating more to form than to substance, were stated, and the treaty was retransmitted to M. Le Predour, to be again
1858
submitted to the Buenos Ayres Government. A new treaty was thereupon concluded between Admiral Le Predour and the Argentine negotiator; that had been sent back to France, and was now under consideration by the French Government. It required the assent of the Assembly; and he understood that, in consequence of the great pressure of business, the treaty could not be brought under consideration before the prorogation of that body.
MR. URQUHARTinquired, whether the French and British Governments had a thorough understanding on the matter?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied, that the French and British Governments embarked in the interference on a common and identical principle; that principle being to endeavour to restore peace in that quarter of the world, and as a basis to maintain the independence of Uruguay. He was not aware of the French Government having changed their opinions.

RAILWAY BETWEEN CAIRO AND ALEXANDRIA.
MR. URQUHARTwished to ascertain from the noble Lord the course which the British Government intended to take with respect to the formation of a railway between Cairo and Alexandria, and whether the making of that railway would not saddle Egypt with a foreign debt? He also desired to know whether the English Government were bound to give the Pasha of Egypt any compensation for the formation of that railway; and whether the proposition laid down in the treaty of the 15th of July, 1841, for securing the integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire, and by which a hereditary succession was secured to the Pasha of Egypt, was to be affected in any way that would interfere with the rights of the Sultan; and whether the discrepancy of opinion that had taken place between the representatives of the British Government at Constantinople and Alexandria was the result of their own proper motion, or the result of instructions from home?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In the first place, with regard to the railway, I believe the Pasha of Egypt intends to construct, out of his own revenues, a railway from Alexandria to Cairo. It is the opinion of the Government that such railway is an expedient undertaking; that it will contribute to the prosperity of Egypt, and be advantageous to all other countries that have commercial intercourse with that pro-

1859
vince. The English Government never entered into any engagement or guarantee of any kind in regard to the construction of that railroad; but, undoubtedly, it is the opinion of the English Government that the Pasha of Egypt is entitled to make that railway out of his own funds, according to the terms of the firman granting to him the hereditary investiture in 1841.
MR. URQUHART: Then, as to the discrepancy?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: If the hon. Gentleman will tell me what he means by discrepancy, I will answer him.
MR. URQUHART: One supporting the Pashalic interest; the other supporting the Sultan.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Both act under instructions from the same source, and their acts are necessarily in the same spirit, and to the same purpose.
MR. URQUHART: Will the noble Lord tell me whether the conditions laid down in the treaty of 1841, for establishing the hereditary Pashalic in the family of the Pasha, are to be interpreted as interfering with the authority of the Porte?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: That firman laid down certain conditions on which the family of Mehemet Ali were invested with the hereditary Pashalic of Egypt, and there is no change in those conditions; of course, they must be observed by the Sultan on the one hand, and the Pasha on the other.

THE PAPAL STATES.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYrose to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to a communication which was reported to have been made from the Court of his Holiness the Pope to the Court of Vienna. It was said that his Holiness had, through his Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, expressed a wish to the Cabinet of Vienna, that it would concert measures with the Court of Naples for the purpose of replacing, as soon as possible, the French garrison at Rome by a mixed garrison of Austrian and Neapolitan troops, or, more properly speaking, perhaps, Austrian troops alone; and that the avowed object of this change was the extinction of all hopes of a liberal government being established in Rome, or justice being done to the Pope's subjects. Reference was also made in this document to the interposition of England, which was repudiated on the ground that England and Prance had no right whatever to prevent the Pope
1860
from being the gaoler of his own subjects; and it was stated at the end of the document that it was the immediate object of the commission that the Austrian Ambassador should press it upon the noble Lord, and upon influential Members of Parliament. He (Mr. Anstey) wished to know if the noble Lord had reason to believe that any such document had existence as that which was said to have been so addressed by the Court of Rome to that of Vienna; whether any document of that nature had been communicated, either in part or in whole, by the Court of Vienna to the Court of St. James's; and whether any application had been made on the part of the Court of Vienna to the British Government in the terms of that document—namely, for the expulsion of the Italian, Hungarian, and other refugees from London, and the prevention of the Italian loan, which was said in the same document to be now negotiating in London?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No communication whatever of the nature of the supposed note had been made by the Austrian Government to the Government of this country, and the result of such inquiries as Her Majesty's Government had made on the subject tended but to confirm them in the opinion that that note, like another which had also appeared in newspapers on the Continent, was a pure invention. He said, "like another which had appeared," because he might as well take this opportunity of stating that there was another note which was said to have been presented by the Governments of Russia, of Prussia, and of Austria, to the Italian Governments, assuring them of their support to put down any internal convulsions that might occur. Her Majesty's Government made inquiries with regard to that note, and he believed that there was no foundation for the report of the existence of that note any more than for the one to which the hon. and learned Member had referred. No application had therefore been made to Her Majesty's Government in the spirit of that note. With regard to the other question—as to any application that had been made for the expulsion of foreigners now resident in this country, of course it might reasonably be supposed that Continental Governments looked with some degree of anxiety—and he believed that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department did on a former occasion say that there were foreign Governments who looked with some degree of anxiety—at the proceed-

1861
ings of foreigners in this country; but nothing had passed which amounted to the "application" which the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. Of course, if any application of that nature were made, it is obvious the answer would be that the law of this country gives no power to Her Majesty's Government arbitrarily to expel any foreigner who resides here, and does not violate the law of the land.

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MANAGEMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
Clause 1 (Power of Ecclesiastical Corporations, with approval of Church Estate Commissioners, to sell, enfranchise, or exchange Church Lands, or to purchase the interests of their Lessees).
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, an alteration had been made in this clause to meet the views which on a previous evening had been expressed by many hon.
Gentlemen who addressed the House on behalf of the interests of the lessees. The Bill, as the House was aware, was merely a permissive Bill, to enable lessees and the parties who held church property to come to such arrangements as they might think fit, with the approbation of the Estates Committee of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The Estates Committee would not have the making of the bargain between the parties; but all the arrangements entered into would be submitted to them, and must receive their approbation. It had been asked, on the part of the lessees, that there should appear some recognition in the Act of their peculiar position in reference to their property—not of any definite terms to be imposed upon them, or that they should impose on the capitular bodies—the terms of the bargain were to be left to the parties themselves who come into the agreement; but that, for the guidance of the third party who was to approve of the arrangement, their equitable right arising from the continued power of renewal attaching to the peculiar nature of their tenure, should be acknowledged. The words by which he proposed to carry this object into effect had been taken from the report of the Committee of the House of Lords, wherein they said it was desirable that regard should be paid to the just and reasonable claims of the lessees. In another passage the same claims were described as claims almost amounting to a right from the long-continued practice of
1862
renewal. The words he proposed to introduce into the clause for the guidance of the Commission in giving their sanction to the agreements which might be made under the Bill, were, after the words Estates Commissioners, "who shall pay due regard to the just and reasonable claims of the present holders of lands under lease, or otherwise, arising from the long-continued practice of renewal." This would not give to the Estates Commissioners any power, either of concluding a more favourable arrangement for the tenant as against the Ecclesiastical Commission, or of imposing any burden on the tenants, but would leave them free to sanction an arrangement where they saw that in justice the amount to be received by the Commission for the enfranchisement was less than what might, in the strict letter of the law, be demanded. He moved that the words he had read be inserted.
Amendment proposed—
"In p. 1, I. 12, after 'Commissioners,' to insert the words' who shall pay due regard to the just and reasonable claims of the present holders of lands under lease or otherwise, arising from the long-continued practice of renewal.'"
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. PIGOTTcould not understand who the parties were that were pressing on the Bill at this advanced period of the Session; but to many hon. Members it was matter of astonishment to find the noble Lord persevering with it under the circumstances. If the measure were so beneficial as it was represented to be to the lessees, the noble Lord would experience very little difficulty in carrying it through in the next Session of Parliament. Numerous lessees had had no time afforded them to consider its provisions; and, therefore, it was the more important that it should not be further pressed at present. If he were in order, he would move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
COLONEL SIBTHORPprofessed himself willing to support the Motion for reporting progress. It was the undoubted duty of the Government, in his opinion, to afford sufficient time for the claims of the parties most interested in the provisions of the Bill to be substantiated. There was something exceedingly suspicious in the haste with which the measure was being passed through the House.
MR. HEADLAMdid not wish to prejudice the case of the lessees by throwing out the Bill; but neither did he wish to

1863
affect them in any way they might think prejudicial. The course he should take was, that he should vote for the introduction of the words which had been proposed by the Solicitor General, and which he thought very material—then press the Bill through Committee, taking care to make the Bill as good a Bill as possible, and on the third reading to settle the question whether or not it would be desirable to proceed further with it in the present Session. It seemed to him that many provisions were embodied in the report on which the Bill was founded, which would operate harshly against the lessees. They had enjoyed for a series of years the practice of renewing their leases on certain fixed terms; and that practice would have been continued had it not been for an alteration in the law. The House interfered, and deprived the Bishops of their interest in the renewal of leases, and then the property was placed in the hands of the Church Estates Commissioners. After all that was done, it became very doubtful whether the leases would be renewed. He did say it was the bounden duty of the Committee to see that the interests of thes lessees were not prejudiced by the proposed course of legislation. This Bill was simply and purely permissive; but if a permissive Bill went to postpone a compulsory one, it would operate injuriously in the long run. He thought the Bill ought not to pass into law without some distinct promise on the part of the Government that this Bill should be considered merely a temporary measure—that it should at a future time be superseded by a compulsory measure.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, his constituents were very much interested in the Bill before the Committee. He was surprised that a measure involving interests so multifarious and important should have been brought forward at so late a period of the Session, when many Members who represented the interests of the lessees of Church property were absent, and when the body of lessees at large were unaware of the manner in which Parliament proposed to deal with their interests. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam), that, although the Bill was permissive, it ought to be followed by a compulsory one. He (Lord Harry Vane) thought some guarantee would be given to the interests of the lessees by the words which had been proposed by the Solicitor General.
1864
He submitted, as a matter of simple justice, that the Legislature was bound to pay a due and equitable regard to interests of such great magnitude and such long standing; and he thought it essential, therefore, that the words proposed by the Solicitor General should be embodied in the clause. It was difficult to know what would be the precise operation of the Bill, but he agreed with those who seemed disposed, on the part of the lessees, to assist its progress through the Committee, and he trusted it would come out of the Committee in a shape which would not prove injurious to the interests of the lessees.
SIR JOHN DUCKWORTHsaid, he had certainly given his support to the earlier stages of the Bill, because he thought it exceedingly desirable that some improvement should be introduced into the management of ecclesiastical estates; but he confessed he had done so with a good deal of doubt and hesitation. He had understood that this Bill was introduced by the Government as a sort of compromise between the Church and the lessees. One of the essential properties of the Bill, as such compromise, was its being permissive; but he did say that the rules which the Solicitor General had in view, by the introduction of the proposed words, tended to enforce the arrangements intended to be made between the parties, and gave a compulsory character to those arrangements. That being so, he must confess it would be his painful duty to give his support to any Motion that might be made to stay the further progress of the Bill. He contended against a perpetual right of renewal, and he was of opinion that no such right existed, though an equitable right of renewal might arise from the exercise of the right of renewal for a long series of years. He would suggest that the measure should remain as it was before—entirely permissive; and that the agreements to be made between the parties should be made by themselves, and then submitted to the approval of the Church Estates Commissioners. He was indifferent about the party directly interested in the property, either as lessees or otherwise, as compared with the 'regard which he felt for the interests of the Church and the laity in general.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Duckworth) seemed to he surprised that any opposition to the Bill should come from the representatives of the lessees. The real ground of oppo-

1865
sition to the Bill, so far as he (Sir B. Hall) could understand it, was that it should have been brought in at so late a period of the Session, and pressed through the House with such indecent haste. Millions a year, almost, were involved in this question, and that was one consideration which had rendered it so difficult a subject on which to legislate. It was a question which the other House of Parliament had taken no less than fourteen weeks to consider. Hon. Members were told that this was merely a permissive Bill; but it was very well known that if this Bill was allowed to pass into a law, it would form a precedent for future legislation on this subject, which would prejudice the interests of the lessees most materially. He thought it very desirable that the Committee should agree to the introduction of the words proposed by the Solicitor General, and, having passed the clause in which it was intended to introduce them, and thus recorded the opinion of the Government and the House, they should cease legislation for the present, leaving the clause as an instruction to Government and the Church Estates Commissioners for future legislation on the subject. When they found the report on which the Bill was based holding forth such a doctrine as this, that "neither bishops nor the capitular bodies were bound in obligation or law to renew their leases," when they saw such a monstrous proposition as that laid down, could they wonder at the alarm which had been felt among the lessees of church property? and they ought to look very carefully at any Bill which proposed to legislate on this subject. It was not fair on the part of the Government to come down with their whole force to the House that evening to push this Bill forward, seeing that they knew very well this was a part of the Session when they could carry almost any measure. He ventured to suggest that they should agree to the words proposed by the Solicitor General; and that being done, the sooner they broke up the Committee the better. He was of opinion that, as respected enfranchisement, the Bill, permissive though it was, would not be attended with any good result. By a petition which he had presented that very night, it appeared that in the county of Middlesex and the neighbouring counties the Bishop of London was lord of no less than eighteen manors, and he had had the power of enfranchisement fur a considerable time; yet out of
1866
7,000 tenants, and although he had been repeatedly asked to enfranchise, the bishop had only enfranchised sixty since the Copyholds Enfranchisement Bill had passed. He (Sir B. Hall) would, therefore, ask what good was to be expected from a permissive Bill of that kind? In the manors of Hornsey, Hammersmith, and Fulham, though there was a great desire among the inhabitants to build shops and improve the value of their property, yet they were prevented from doing so to a considerable extent by the bishop refusing to enfranchise.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, his position with respect to this Bill was changed since the Solicitor General had proposed to introduce the words in question. He was now perfectly prepared to go on with the Bill, and having thus given the Bill some degree of consideration, the House would be enabled to see whether it would be right to go on with it or not. He thought the noble Lord and the Government had been rather harshly charged with wishing to hasten on this measure unduly. He did not think they were fairly amenable to that charge. With respect to the interest of the lessees, he (Mr. Aglionby) had ample confidence in the Church Estates Commissioners. He thought they would not be guilty of an act of spoliation towards any one interest; and he believed they would do justice to all parties; but it would be very hard to throw the settlement of that wide field of claims upon them without any indication of what was the feeling of the Legislature; he, therefore, had no hesitation in saying that he would support the Amendment. He had consulted a great number of lessees on this subject, and they agreed that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was not at all to blame for going on with the Bill, and that it was likely he was consulting as well the interests of the Church as of the lessees.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the proposed Amendment was, in truth, the hinge of the whole Bill. He did not understand how the insertion of the words in question could have much to do with making a convert of the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby). When this Bill was first proposed, that hon. and learned Member opposed it, mainly on the ground of the lateness of the Session; that objection could not have been removed by the fact of an alteration affecting the whole principle of the Bill being proposed many days subsequently. The Committee,

1867
however, could have very little doubt as to the cause of his hon. and learned Friend's change of opinion in that respect. Since the Bill was first proposed, it seemed that a large number of persons had arrived in town who took an interest on the side of the lessees. Now there had not been a corresponding arrival in town of those who took a peculiar interest in the enlargement of the Common Fund, and of the increased efficiency of the Church. He (Mr. Cardwell) was not going to say whether the words which it was proposed to introduce were right or wrong, and for this reason—that the Government had taken a statement partially out of the report in question, and inserted it in the Bill. Early in the Session a Bill was introduced for a general and comprehensive settlement of this whole question. That Bill was considered in a Committee of the House of Lords, who reported against it, and ended by recommending a purely voluntary and permissive Bill. He admitted that the words which were now the subject of debate, were contained in that report—they were taken from two parts of that report, and from different pages of it. The Committee did not put those words down in the Bill, and, he submitted, their insertion was a total change in the Bill—a total reversal of the policy which the Committee of the House of Lords recommended. He would ask, did it not constitute a material alteration in the law as regarded the relation between the Church and the lessees? Was not this a step on the part of Parliament towards the recognition of the interest of the lessees? If it was a change in the law, was it right at this period of the Session to make so important a change under the circumstances in which they stood? He did not think it was the interest of the Church that those bargains should be driven between the Church and the lessees; he thought a truly liberal policy would dictate an opposite course; but he did not see how the House could legislate on this subject before they had read the evidence on which that report was founded. The Committee had two courses open to them to take: either to make a general comprehensive and compulsory Bill, with full advice, ample information, and plenty of time; or, if they admitted they had not full advice, ample information, and adequate time, then to pass such a Bill as, while it enabled the parties, both being agreed, voluntarily to make their own bargains, did not indirectly change the legal
1868
relation between the parties, established it might be improvidently.
MR. EVELYN DENISONobserved, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell), in stating that the words of the Amendment were taken from the report of the Lords, did not accurately describe the history of that passage of the report. When the Royal Commission was issued in 1845 on this subject, the Commission, in speaking of the management of church property, went on to say, "due regard being had to the just and reasonable interests of the present holders of such property, under lease or otherwise." Those words were in the Commissioners' report, and they were also adopted in the report of the Lords' Committee. These words being so sanctioned, he considered them to be open to as little hostile observation as possible, when adopted by those who took that view of the subject. He begged to point out to the notice of the hon. and learned Gentleman a paragraph contained in the report of the Committee of the House of Commons which sat on this subject, which stated that it was the opinion of the Committee that no satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at on the subject of the arrangement between the lessors and lessees of church land, except by the intervention of Parliament. What had happened since? A change had taken place in the composition of the Ecclesiastical Commission as to that part of it which had the management of the estates. Those Gentlemen had declined to adopt the rules laid down and adopted by the authority of the House of Commons, and up to the present time they have declined to make any new rules themselves. Whenever any application was made to them on the subject, their answer was, that they were waiting for the intervention of Parliament. Surely, therefore, nothing could be more reasonable, when the Estates Commissioners were called upon to express their opinion with respect to the transactions that were to take place between other parties, than that they should require to have some directions as to the steps necessary for them to pursue. The Estates Commissioners said—"We cannot act in relation to these parties, with whom we are not put into immediate contact. As between the lessors and the lessees, we can have no rule or guide to direct us in our course." How could such a Commission give weight to transactions between other parties, when they felt themselves utterly unequal to arrange

1869
matters which had been put into their own hands? He thought it most important that no measure should pass that House which did not include in it some direction to the Estates Commissioners as to the course they were to pursue in regard to this matter. He considered the Amendment absolutely necessary, and he should give it his support.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwas of opinion that the words sought to be introduced by the Solicitor General, threw on these three Gentlemen a discretion most unfair and unjust towards them. The Committee were pretending to do that which, in point of fact, would leave matters in the state they were in before. If he understood this Bill rightly, it applied to every species of property, including, for instance, houses and mines. The House of Lords negatived the dealing with houses and mines, as well as rent-charges and annuities, which he should propose to be inserted if the Bill was to proceed. His firm conviction was, that the Committee must approach the real pith of the case, and lay down clear and distinct rules under which those different classes of property should be treated; and, till they did that, they would not make any beneficial altesation in the law.
COLONEL SIBTHORPbelieved the best way would be to put a stop to the further progress of the Bill during the few days that remained of the present Session. His twenty-four years' experience had taught him that if they allowed a Bill to go through Committee, it was in effect passed altogether. With this feeling he should move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
SIR JAMES GRAHAMhad not thought it consistent with his duty to support the further progress of this Bill, on the former occasions on which it had been under discussion. He was of opinion that the importance of the Bill was too great, the period of the Session too far advanced, and the attendance in the House too thin for the consideration of so important a subject. Much more strongly was he of that opinion now. He had not been in the least prepared for the proposal made by the Solicitor General. This was a matter of the greatest importance. The hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) had justly said, that it involved the in-
1870
terests of the lessees with respect to property of great value and variety, and also the interests of the community, members of the Established Church. This was a Bill, in fact, affecting the partial spiritual destitution of the people; and thus regarded, it surely was a Bill which ought to be considered in a full House. It was to be remembered that in 1845, six years ago, general rules were laid on the table of the House by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which, in the most express and distinct terms, laid down the principles on which they had up to that time administered, and subsequently administered, the affairs of the great trust confided to them. He was glad that on the last occasion when this Bill was before the House, he had refrained from following the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. J. A. Smith), because he had been deeply wounded by certain expressions which fell from that hon. Gentleman, and at the time he might have replied with hasty warmth. The hon. Member had said, that those general rules embodied principles which he thought were dishonest. He (Sir James Graham) would now enter into a friendly expostulation with the hon. Member in respect to that expression. His hon. Friend affirmed that the general rule enunciated by the Commissioners established two different tables of value, to be allowed as between the lessors and the lessees; the interest of the one being estimated at 5 per cent, and the interest of the other at 3½ per cent; in other terms, that a difference of the price was fixed, which measured the difference between the fee-simple value and the leasehold value of the property. No doubt the Commission was composed of fallible men, who might have erred in judgment; but he could not believe his hon. Friend, on quiet deliberation, would really say that they would act dishonestly. He could not think it primâ facie evidence of dishonesty that a man should be a prelate of the Church—that he should have risen from the humblest ranks of the people, and have become distinguished by his piety and his learning, and by the favour of the Crown have been exalted to the highest station. Independently of the ecclesiastical members of the Commission, was it to be said that such men as Lord Harrowby, Lord Chichester, Mr. Hobhouse, Dr. Nicholl, or Mr. Lefevre, would approve of general rules binding their discretion to a principle which honesty forbade? He (Sir J. Graham) had, up to this time,

1871
been a party to those general rules, and, to use the words of the hon. Member for Chichester, he did not think that, consistent with honesty in the discharge of a sacred trust, any other rules could have been adopted. What were the real interests at stake? There were the interests of the lessees on the one hand, but there were the interests of the great body of the Church on the other. He had stated before, and he should never miss an opportunity of declaring, that he was decidedly opposed to the distinction between the "episcopal" and the "common" funds, which had too long prevailed. He believed that by this distinction an undue temptation was held out to the right reverend Prelates of the Church, who were allowed a nominally fixed but really a fluctuating income, by being called upon to pay a fixed sum to the Episcopal Fund; but who took their chance of what more they could receive out of the Common Fund. The Government ought to put an end to such an arrangement. To the utmost extent consistent with law and equity, they ought to do their utmost to increase the amount of the Common Fund, which was available for the spiritual wants of the people of this country. He had never once varied from the opinion that, considering the extent to which dissent had spread in this country, and considering that the House of Commons was not the representative exclusively of the Church of England, but was the representative, at the same time, of various classes of Dissenters, it was impossible to expect that the spiritual wants of the Church could at any future period derive assistance from the general taxation of the country. He held that the property of the Church itself must be applied under the direction of Parliament to meet her own spiritual wants. Then they came to the question—what was the present condition of the Church? He would refer only to the second report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That report showed that there were dense masses of the population for whose spiritual wants no provision had been made, and that although great efforts had been made within the last ten years to meet those wants, in this metropolis and elsewhere, still the growth of the population outstripped all these exertions. In point of fact, then, the spiritual destitution of the country at this moment was as great as it had been at the time the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were appointed. Could there, therefore, be a more sacred trust
1872
than to keep up the fund set apart for this purpose? The question was, What was the law and the equity of this case? Of the law there could be no doubt. He was not now prepared to admit that there ought to be any equitable considerations such as those which had been suggested. His hon. and learned Friend below him (Mr. Cardwell) had said, that in this report of the Lords there were mentioned several different cases of dealing with property at the will of the lessors, which negatived either the legal or the equitable pretension of the lessees. There might be such claims. He was not prepared to negative them. All he said was, that Parliament, up to this time, had never, either directly or indirectly, given its sanction to the proposition. Was this a light matter they were discussing? He had only by accident seen the report of the Lords. He had not seen the evidence. But the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who was a lessee, and the advocate of the lessees, had told them the measure of the value of this point. They were now discussing what the hon. Gentleman had told the Lords was a question for years, of the fee-simple value of the leaseholds of the Church. They were discussing what were to be the transactions as regarded property, which was to be estimated in millions. All at once, therefore, and without inquiry, he could not agree to a principle not heretofore sanctioned by Parliament. There were other objections. The regulations binding on the discretion of the Commissioners had been for six years on the table of the House. No attempt had been made to interfere with or to negative them. Last year the Committee over which the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. E. Denison) presided, and of which he (Sir J. Graham) had been a member, in making their report on this subject, had advised that an Estates Commission should be appointed. They did more—they had advised that the Ecclesiastical Commission should retain the power of laying down the principles in reference to which the Estates Committee was to proceed; and that advice had been adopted in the Act of last Session. Surely the Legislature had then had an opportunity of entering a caveat against these regulations. It might be right to say now, for the first time, that power should be given to sell the property of the Church. That was the provision which came down in this Bill, as unaltered, from

1873
the House of Lords. He would not negative it—he would not sanction it. He simply protested against considering that principle in the last week of the Session. But they proposed to add a principle still more important. The words introduced at the instance of the Solicitor General gave not only the power to sell, but asked that in the process of sale a favourable consideration should be extended to the claims of lessees. He would not say now that under strict regulations such a permissive power, favourable to the lessees, might not be exercised advantageously to the whole Church, as well as to the lessees. He was by no means prepared to say that, after consideration, he would not give his consent to that proposition. But, looking to the vast interests at stake, and considering that they were now dealing with the spiritual wants of the people, compared with which their other wants were as nothing, he could not conceive it to be right that the House should come to a decision of such vast importance without due care and deliberation.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLowned that it appeared to him that if it was right to consider at all the question before them, and he did think it was right, in conformity with the expressed wishes of the House of Lords, it was at the same time perfectly right to consider on what terms they could agree to the Bill. It seemed to him that it was not very fair in hon. Gentlemen to say that they were ready to consider the Bill, but that they were precluded by the late period of the Session from considering the alterations proposed by the Government. He found now, from what he had heard, that the lessees had had greater reason to complain than he had supposed. What he had understood was, that the ecclesiastical corporations, on the one hand, were to be empowered to make their arrangements with the lessees on the other, for the purchase of property; and that the Church Estates Commissioners were to have a superintending control; so that neither the Church nor the public were injured. But from the course of the debate it had appeared that nothing but a strict legal right that could be enforced in a court of equity, was to be attended to; and that the Estates Commissioners were to have no other power than to say yes or no whether an agreement came within the strict law and equity of the case. This being so, he felt bound to support the view of the Solicitor General, enforced
1874
with the opinions of several of those who represented the interests of the lessees. What was proposed was—not what would be compulsory and binding with regard to the Church Estates Commissioners; it was only giving them a certain latitude to consider certain things—that they might have regard to just and reasonable claims arising from long practice of renewal. There was no question as to the character of those Commissioners, or as to their fitness for their office; two of them were appointed by the Crown, and one was appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury; however appointed, no one had found fault with the individuals selected. They, in considering the just and reasonable claims of the lessees, could not be expected to go beyond what they should think were fair and reasonable pretensions. The whole question, therefore, resolved itself into this—whether the House of Commons was now to say that nothing beyond a legal and equitable claim—that was to say, equitable, not in the sense of being fair and reasonable, but in the sense of a claim that could be enforced in a court of law—should be granted in any case to a lessee. He confessed, for his own part, that he would have preferred to this Bill the plan proposed by the Commission appointed by the Crown, and which, in the shape of a Bill, had been placed before the House of Lords. But, having failed in obtaining the sanction of the House of Lords to that plan, it did appear to him that they were not in a condition to carry out this Bill unless they took care that the interests of the lessees should be in some degree regarded. It was a question for hon. Gentlemen to consider whether there should be any option or discretion respecting certain claims arising from long practice of renewal. He was quite ready to say with his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), that it was most desirable that the Church should obtain her further revenues from her own funds, and that there should be no application to that House for aid from the general revenues of the country; but, at the same time, he did not know that it was more objectionable to seek funds from the State, than to seek additional funds by dealing harshly and contrary to what was just and reasonable in regard to the lessees of church property. He would with these views support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. In doing so, it was only saying that the House agreed to the Bill on certain conditions, not compulsory, but conditions that

1875
the Ecclesiastical Estates Commissioners should have power to consider in each case what arrangement was most equitable for the parties. It would be for the House of Lords afterwards to say whether the Bill deserved approbation on these terms. If the House of Lords should not think so, then, of course, in the next Session, they would have to consider whether they could frame any other measure on the subject. Unfortunately there did not seem any great prospect of agreement with respect to any compulsory measure. In any compulsory measure there would have to be some such element as that which the Solicitor General had proposed. From that principle, he (Lord J. Russell) was not prepared to depart.
MR. J. A. SMITHwithdrew the unwise words which, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) had mentioned, he had used on the former occasion of this Bill being discussed. He begged to retract them most fully, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the tone and the spirit in which he had spoken of the matter. He hoped, however, the right hon. Gentleman would permit him to say, that though he withdrew the expression, he retained the opinion; for he most certainly thought the rules in question were unfair. He was fortified in his opinion by what had occurred in the Committee that sat about four years ago, when several of the Commissioners were examined, including the Bishops of London and Lincoln; and the conflicting result of that examination brought conviction to the mind of every Member of the Committee, not excluding the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, that it was impossible to act upon the rules. He had also reason to believe that the Church Estate Commissioners had refused to act upon them, because they thought them unfair. In the ordinary affairs of life it would be considered unjust that, in the estimation of the value of property, the seller should be estimated at one rate, and the buyer at another; and, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he still adhered to his opinion that, in that respect, these rules were unfair. In justice to himself and to many other gentlemen who took the same views, he must protest that they were as strong and earnest friends of the Church as the right hon. Baronet himself. Therefore, he, for one, was not prepared to sacrifice the interests of the Church for the benefit of the lessees of that Church; but, on the other hand, however great the spi-
1876
ritual destitution of the country, and the want of the people for further spiritual instruction might be, he was not prepared to sacrifice the just and reasonable rights of the lessees even for so important an object. He could not consent to he frightened out of what he believed to be the just and reasonable rights of the lessees by any such legislation, or even by the sincere respect he entertained for the Church to which he belonged.
MR. CAYLEYthought that the House would agree with him that the observations of his noble Friend below him were more truly exponent of the wishes of the Church and its friends, than those of the right hon. Baronet. Could dissent be increased by any means more effectual than by committing an act on the part of the Church of gross injustice? The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and whatever might be said of them or of their motives in the discharge of their duty, he had no doubt they would reconcile it to their own consciences. But no one could doubt that the rules they had laid down, outraged the sense of propriety in every Member of the Committee. It was said that this was a permissive Bill; but who was to be the umpire? The Members of the Ecclesiastical Commission were persons of estimable character no doubt; but the bias of their minds had been seen, and all the conclusion that could be come to was, that more had been left to the Secretary or the Solicitor of the Commission than would have been left had the number of Commissioners been fewer; for with the fewer number came the higher responsibility. The value of the property in question was probably not less than thirty millions sterling, of which the Church now possessed, or did practically now possess, not more than one-fourth. Then, could any one think it was fair or reasonable to take from the holders of that property an amount which, if the rule of the Commissioners were followed, would, probably, be twelve or fifteen millions sterling? He should call it an injustice of the grossest kind. And what was the ground for it? Church extension. But Parliament should have repudiated the principle before. Over and over again it had been repeated and reiterated that the just and reasonable claims of the lessees should be respected, and that the moral certainty of renewal should be always considered by those who dealt with them. Because they wanted the money they had no right to take

1877
it from those who came the easiest within their power. He should certainly vote for the introduction of the words proposed by the Solicitor General. He did not claim credit to himself for more disinterestedness than other people had, nor wish to conceal that he was himself a lessee. But in the year 1833, before he was a lessee, and before he had any expectation of becoming a lessee, he had expressed the same views upon this question, quite as strongly as he had expressed them now.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that having before stated his opinions, he should not have risen on this occasion had not the right hon. Baronet remarked that he (Mr. Spooner) was a lessee under the Church. He was such a lessee to a very small amount; but had the value being greater, he trusted that his conduct in that House would not have been entirely guided by his own interest. He was desirous both to promote the Common Fund of the Church, and to protect the vested interests of the lessees. With regard to the instructions brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, had this question not been mooted, he should have been willing to accept the Bill, resting upon the report, without the insertion of those words; but after the turn the debate had taken, and when the right hon. Baronet told them that the rights of the lessees were not to be recognised, he could not do so; for if the Bill should pass, the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman being negatived, the moral certainty of renewal would be taken away from the parties in possession; and they were bound in justice to restore those parties to the same situation in which they would have been had there been no legislation. But there was another important consideration—the interest of the Church. If the Bill was thrown out because it recognised the just and reasonable claims of the lessees, a spirit would be stirred up which would be found very difficult to manage in another Session; and, if the lessees were set against the Bill, more injury would be done to the Church than any benefit they sought to confer by legislation. He implored the House to pass the Bill with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman without delay. It involved no principle beyond that recommended in the report, and only did an act of common justice.
MR. BARROWobserved, that the great value which the right hon. Baronet had remarked attached to the property in
1878
question, had been mainly created by the capital and exertions of the lessees. All the buildings and inclosures and improvements he had ever known, had been built and made by the lessees. Then he asked if the lessees had not a fair claim to a portion of the value, and whether they had not a right to have that claim considered when their money had been invested in the confidence of a long-continued renewal?
MR. HENLEYsaid, that everything he had heard strengthened the conviction he had entertained that the measure ought not to be proceeded with this Session. No one denied the justice of the Amendment; but it was said that the Amendment would change a permissive Bill into a compulsory one. But the difficulty was, that the House was asked to come to a determination upon imperfect information, and to decide a great question in a hurry. That was what he had complained of on Friday, and he felt it still. Without the introduction of the words proposed, the Commissioners would not have the power to give to the claims of the lessees that favourable consideration which it was admitted by all they ought to have. But the House was called upon to discuss those words without being prompted by the usual motives, and without knowing what was the opinion of the parties most concerned. He hoped the noble Lord would not press the Bill. It was not fair to ask the House to adopt this or that form of words, if, as had been suggested on the other side, the Bill was to be thrown out afterwards. That was a serious consideration. It had, he understood, been suggested on the other side to the noble Lord, to let the Committee come to those words and then to stop. Would it not be wiser to stop at once? There had not been time to consider what the effect of the words might be, and they might not satisfy either the one party or the other. To insert the words and then get rid of the whole Bill, would not be a very creditable position; while, as he thought, they might stop now with credit.
The SOLICITOR GENERALthought the bearings of this Bill, and the circumstances under which it came before the House, were not sufficiently considered when it was so repeatedly stated that it was being pressed forward with undue haste. The subject had engaged the attention of Parliament for a long series of years. It had been considered by Com-

1879
mittees of both Houses, and ultimately by a Commission, specially appointed for the purpose of inquiry; and in the directions to that Commission it was laid down as a principle to pay due regard to the just and reasonable claims of the lessees. On the report of the Commissioners a Bill was introduced into the other House, and was sent before a Select Committee. That Committee could not agree upon the principle of the measure, but were unanimously of opinion that it was a question which it was not right to leave untouched by the Legislature. Believing that it was neither fair nor just to the lessees to allow the Session to expire without facilitating arrangements between the parties, the Committee (representing, as it did, all interests in the question) were unanimous in coming to a conclusion that this Bill ought to pass in the present Session. The Bill was not introduced by Her Majesty's Government, but on the recommendation of that Committee; and if the hon. Member for Liverpool was right in the assertion that by the introduction of the words proposed by him (the Solicitor General), the whole principle of the Bill would be changed, he could only say the Bill then must be founded on most unjust principles; but he found that in their report the Committee stated, as a reason for recommending this Bill, that it would probably afford opportunity to parties to agree between themselves, and thereby give the foundation, and be a guide hereafter for a compulsory enactment. To accomplish that object, surely the parties must be allowed to meet on terms of fairness; and it would be monstrous for one party to come prepared to deal upon that principle alone, which would exclude the views of the other party from consideration. It was perfectly clear that the lessees, neither in law nor equity, had any right to enforce a renewal of their leases; it was equally clear that though the lessees had no right either in law or equity, they had a distinct moral right to have their claims considered. Those two propositions had been admitted throughout the whole inquiry; but without the insertion of these words the Estates Commissioners would be precluded from sanctioning any arrangement which recognised that equitable view of the lessees' interest. If, then, the Bill was allowed to pass without those words being introduced, it would be worse than useless; only those bargains could be ratified by the Commissioners that were founded on the strict
1880
letter of the law, and they would form the criterion for a compulsory Act. He believed such a Bill would be one which he ought not to support. He could not perceive any reasonable ground for the allegation that the principle of the Bill would be changed. He believed the Bill was intended to do what he wished to do by this addition to the clause; and, looking at the words, they did not give any power to do more than carry out the principle, which had always been admitted, of recognising the equitable rights of the lessees. When he was told this was a very late period of the Session to introduce such, a measure, he replied that unless steps were taken to put the question in an amicable train for settlement, it would be as far removed next Session as this from any settlement at all. He believed that delay would be most disastrous to the interests of the Church, and that the exasperation exhibited by some who had advocated the interests of the lessees, would go on increasing every year the question was allowed to remain open. It was a difficult question; but because it was a difficult question, he wished to see the experiment tried, how far the parties could come voluntarily to some arrangement, and how far it would be conducive to the true interests of the Church to allow those moral considerations to which he had referred to be taken into account.
MR. JOHN STUARTwished to have time for deliberation. From the Land's-end to the Tweed there was scarcely a parish in which there was not property of this kind; and hon. Members might be sure their constituents would require an account of their conduct on a matter so important to their interests. The Solicitor General said they were considering a Bill from the House of Lords; but they were not—they were considering alterations proposed by the Solicitor General, which had not been sanctioned by that House. He believed the alteration was a good one; but there had been no time to consider its real effect and meaning. The hon. Member for Exeter said it would change the whole character of the Bill. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire said it would not. The inconsistency could only be accounted for by the fact that there had been no reasonable time for consideration. He (Mr. Stuart) looked upon this as a great national measure, and not as any Government measure; and it would be no disgrace to the Government if they allowed

1881
sufficient time to have it properly considered.
MR. ALCOCKquite admitted the principle of the Bill was most desirable, giving as it did facilities for the enfranchisement of church property, and he thought it no less desirable for the tenant than for church property itself. But he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the total omission of the sub-lessees, who were not even alluded to. In the heart of Southwark were sixty-five acres of church land, closely built over, and held by two lessees under the Bishop of Winchester. Those two lessees sublet every morsel of it to some 300 sub-lessees, and one of these sub-lessees, renting only to the amount of 100 l. a year, had laid out 8,000 l. on his small portion, because the property was considered almost equal to freehold. He gave this instance to show the magnitude of their interests; but no notice was taken of the sub-lessees in this Bill, and he had therefore placed in the hands of the Solicitor General a clause to that effect.
The SOLICITOR GENERALwas understood to say that the clause should receive his attention.
MR. ALCOCKproceeded to observe that although the Bill might be permissive to the church proprietors and to the lessees, it was not at all permissive to the sub-lessees. The lessee might, by arrangement, enfranchise the land, and turn round to the sub-lessee and say, "This is now my freehold land; there is no permissive act between us." If he understood the Solicitor General would be willing to consider the interests of those parties, he (Mr. Alcock) would not trouble the House; but unless perfect security was given them, he should oppose the Bill at every stage.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the case of the sub-lessees was like that of the tenant-farmers. The words now before the House were merely the recognition of a principle that had never yet been acted on. If due time were given for consideration, such allowances might be made for the rights of the lessees as would avoid injustice to them, and save the property of the Church from confiscation. A meeting was called on this subject a short time since, which was attended by twelve gentlemen from the city of London, and twenty-four gentlemen from the country, and they separated without drawing up a petition to Parliament, because they were con-
1882
vinced that the House of Commons would not proceed with the Bill without further information. Under all these circumstances, he urged the Government to allow time for the definition of the rights of the parties that were affected by this Bill.
On Question, "That the Chairman do report progress," the Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 58: Majority 38.
The Amendment of the Solicitor General was then agreed to.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked the Solicitor Generul if the leases of farm lands and tithe rent-charges were affected by this Bill? and called his attention to the report of a Committee upon this subject.
The SOLICITOR GENERALreplied, that the report referred to by the hon. Baronet had been drawn up by the very Committee that framed this Bill in its present shape. There was no objection to any agreements that people might come to amongst themselves—subject always to the control of the Commissioners.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that the Bill had been proceeded with in a surreptitious manner. The hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) had stated that he was in favour of the Bill, and yet had voted against it. Several of his constituents, men of high character and of large property, had told him that they had had no time to consider this Bill; and petitions upon the subject, numerously signed, were now being prepared. Did they mean to deceive the public by adopting the measure in this manner? or would they have the Bill printed that it might be considered by the public? He thought they ought to have an opportunity of judging of the nature of the Bill.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he should move, as an Amendment, to add "the leases of farm lands and tithe rentcharges" to the first clause of the Bill. He wished to know how the Solicitor General meant to deal with woods or mines held in this way by leases under a bishop?
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the hon. Baronet had mistaken the report of the House of Lords, which proceeded upon certain rules; whereas this Bill laid down no rules, but allowed the parties to make their own terms as vendor and vendee.
Amendment withdrawn.
On the same Clause,
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had no objection to introduce the word "lessee," which would make the clause then read thus, "such bargain as such corporation and lessee shall think fit," thereby naming both parties who were the objects of the Bill.
MR. CARDWELLthought they would do right to understand the position in which they were placed by the addition to the clause of the words proposed by the Solicitor General. The words "just and reasonable claims" were formally incorporated in the language of the Act of Parliament. Were they sure that they creacted no legal change by the introduction of those words; and that they were not making any change in the legal and equitable relations of the parties? [A laugh.] It was well for Gentlemen to laugh, and he acknowledged that they had the laugh at their side; but would his hon. and learned Friend, who was legally responsible for the clause, say it made no change in their legal or equitable relations? He (Mr. Cardwell) proposed the addition of the following proviso: "Provided always that nothing herein contained shall be deemed or taken to vary or affect the legal and equitable rights, estates, and interests of such ecclesiastical corporations, or of their lessees."
The SOLICITOR GENERALthought the hon. Gentleman must see that the clause was too wide. "Herein contained" related to the entire clause, but his objection to it was on other grounds; the proviso seemed to say, "We don't mean to say what we have not said."
MR. CARDWELLwould not put the House to the trouble of dividing. He had stated his objection, and let the clause be adopted on the legal responsibility of the Solicitor General.
Clause agreed to. Clauses 2, 3, 4, and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6, which related to the provision in case of increase or deficiency of income, in consequence of sales, &c, was then proposed.
In reply to a question from Mr. AGLIONBY,
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Church Commissioners Act gave power for dealing with prebendaries who were willing to surrender their properties, on the footing of a fixed annual income instead of the fluctuating and uncertain incomes which they hitherto received; and the Commis-
1884
sioners would proceed exactly on the same principle under this Bill.
MR. EVELYN DENISONasked, whether the wording of this clause would not have the effect of enabling the lessors, after having effected arrangements with certain of the lessees, to refuse, if so minded, to enter into similar arrangements with others of the lessees?
The SOLICITOR GENERALreplied, that the clause would have no such effect as the hon. Member suggested; parties must take their chance of advantage or disadvantage under the whole scope of the Bill.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLobjected to the Commissioners having the power of striking average incomes, and then taking those averages as the basis for fixed salaries. In almost every instance there had been a great and grievous mistake. The Bishop of Durham had received 80,000 l. more than he ought; the Archbishop of York had received less; and the Bishop of Salisbury had received 1,000 l. a year more than he ought. How, then, was it possible to come to an average of this kind?
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 7.
Clause 8 (Power to Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make rules concerning the terms on which sales, &c. should be made to lessees).
The SOLICITOR GENERALmoved, with a view to correct a printer's error in the clause, the substitution of the words "Church Estates Commissioners," for "Church Estates Committee."
COLONEL SIBTHORPopposed the clause. He had a right to suppose that the Bill, as put into his hands, was correctly printed; but the Solicitor General got up and informed the House that there was a grave printer's error which he proposed to amend. To his mind, the opposition whic had been given to the Bill by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) was a mere sham. When he (Colonel Sib-thorp) went to buy a horse, he bore in mind the advice "caveat emptor." He could not help feeling that all along there had been an understanding between the members of the Government and the opponents of the Bill; and when he found the Solicitor General proposing Amendments to a measure originating with the Government, he (Colonel Sibthorp), for himself, could not help saying—
"Timeo Danaös et dona ferentes."
SIR BENJAMIN HALLwas glad that the Government had testified some desire to modify the clause, which, as originally framed, was intended to pervert the whole of the legislation of last Session, and to place the church property inextricably in the hands of the Episcopal body.
MR. AGLIONBYthought, that large discretionary powers being conferred on the Church Estate Commissioners, and a most important trust being confided to them, it would be wise not to hamper them with rules and regulations.
MR. EVELYN DENISONthought that the wiser course by far would be to withdraw the clause altogether. The words that had been introduced into the first clause rendered it unnecessary. If the lawyers were to frame rules, it would much add to their duties, and the rules might be of so stringent a nature as to deprive them of that discretion which it was desirable to place in their hands. He would be disposed to strike out the clause.
MR. RICEhad every confidence in the Church Estates Commissioners, and thought it would be unnecessary to fetter their discretion.
MR. GOULBURNthought the rules which the clause empowered the Commissioners to make with regard to the sales to lessees, must either be very general indeed, or so particular that they would form a voluminous code. In his opinion, it would be extremely inconvenient to make special or general rules which should bind the Commissioners in all cases.
MR. NEWDEGATEalso thought the clause would be better omitted.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he would move that this clause be struck out of the Bill. Each particular case in each particular diocese ought to be dealt with on its own merits. He had no doubt the Commissioners would act prudently and according to precedent.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, the clause was permissive only. He complained that the Solicitor General had not yet answered the question of the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall). He hoped the clause, with the proposed alteration, would be retained. The circumstances under which the Bill was foisted on them at this late period of the Session were most singular.
The SOLICITOR GENERALwould consent to the withdrawal of the clause, and thought the amendments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Winchester
1886
(Mr. Bonham Carter) might be incorporated in the Bill with advantage.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that if he had known it was the intention of the Solicitor General to withdraw this clause, he would have done all he could to oppose the progress of the Bill. The whole pith of the Bill was now taken out; for the best part of it consisted in Parliament knowing what took place in the Ecclesiastical Commission. Nobody could have believed, from the original statement of the Solicitor General, that it was his intention to withdraw a clause which was, in fact, the only salvo of the measure. He thought it much better to report progress, and oppose proceeding with this Bill, which it was attempted to force through the House on the 4th of August. The conduct of the Government was excessively unfair.
MR. EVELYN DENISONregretted that the hon. Baronet who had just sat down participated in the unworthy suspicions of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal. All he (Mr. Denison) understood to be the sum and essence of the substituted clause was, that the reports and proceedings of the Commission should be laid upon the table of the House at a fixed period.
MR. AGLIONBYgave the Government credit for a desire to make the measure as perfect as possible, by the substitution of the new clause.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 51: Majority 43.
Clause 9 (Interpretation Clause).
MR. J. A. SMITHsuggested, that the "Estates Commissioners" be inserted instead of Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 30, after the words "Collegiate Church," to insert the words "Ecclesiastical Commissioners."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the introduction of those words would affect other Bills, and suggested that the Amendment should not be pressed after the expression of opinion which the Committee had shown on the last division.
MR. J. A. SMITHthought the answer of the right hon. Baronet would justify his pressing the Amendment.
MR. AGLIONBYsupported the Amendment. It seemed to him impossible that it could affect any other Bills in the manner

1887
suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Amendment ought not to be inserted in the Interpretation Clause. It ought to have been proposed to have been inserted in some other clause of the Bill.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYdid not think that there was any force in the objection of the Solicitor General.
MR. CAYLEYhoped that Mr. Smith would press his Amendment to a division.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 33: Majority 19.
Clause agreed to.
MR. BONHAM CARTERthen moved the following Clause:—
"That the said Commissioners shall, from time to time, give to any one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State such information respecting their proceedings, or any part thereof, as the said Principal Secretary of State shall require, and shall twice in every year send to one of the Principal Secretaries of State a general report of their proceedings under this Act, together with a schedule of all applications for enfranchisement or purchases of interests of lessees; specifying the terms proposed, the terms on which such enfranchisement or purchase shall have been effected, and, if refused, the grounds of such refusal; and every year such general reports shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within six weeks after the receipt of the same by such Principal Secretary of State, if Parliament be sitting, or if Parliament be not sitting, then within six weeks after the next meeting thereof."
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsuggested that the words "on or before the 1st March" should be inserted, instead of "twice in every year."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the fixing of a particular day sometimes led to great inconveniences.
Clause, with the Amendment, agreed to.
MR. CAYLEYthen proposed to add a clause limiting the duration of this Act to three years, from the end of the present Session.
Clause agreed to.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLproposed a clause to the effect, that it should not be lawful for any ecclesiastical corporation to take, surrender up, or renew any leases without the consent of the Church Estate Commissioners.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, this clause would be directly contrary to the effect of the rest of the Act.
Clause negatived.
Preamble agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported as amended.

LOUIS KOSSUTH, AND OTHERS.
LORD DUDLEY STUART, in moving "an Address for a list of any Addresses to Her Majesty, or Memorials to the Foreign Office, on the subject of the liberation of Louis Kossuth and his Compatriots; with the names of the places from which addressed, and the number of signatures attached to each of them, stating also when signed by a Chairman on behalf of a meeting," observed, that the subject had been repeatedly brought before the House, and questions had been addressed to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as to the shameful captivity of Kossuth and his compatriots. It was true, many of these unfortunate men had been set at liberty, and had come to this country. He hoped to hear from the noble Lord, and to have the noble Lord's positive assurance, that the rest, with Kossuth himself, would in a short period also be freed. He hoped the event would prove so, for the sake of the Turkish Government, whose credit was involved in having consented to keep them so long, in compliance with unjust demands. He should always consider the Turkish Government had no right to keep them in captivity, as they had done nothing against Turkey. There was a time when the name of Palmerston was sure to elicit a loud and spontaneous cheer; because the people had confidence that the noble Lord was doing his utmost on behalf of the oppressed. But if that name were pronounced now in a public meeting, he was afraid it would be received with far calmer feelings; because the people considered the noble Lord had not persevered in the same earnest and strenuous course in which he set out. He (Lord Dudley Stuart) hoped, however, that British influence would be superior to that of Austria, or Russia, or any other Power which, from vindictive or cowardly feelings, desired to retain these brave men in captivity. He trusted the noble Lord would state whether there was any truth in the report that the intrigues and representations of Austria had prevailed with the Turkish Government still further to detain these noble men; or whether there was any reason to doubt the understanding that Kossuth and his companions would be set at liberty as early as the 15th of September next?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he should make no opposition to the Motion of the noble Lord. He had often expressed his opinion on the subject on which his

1889
noble Friend's Motion was raised. He (Viscount Palmerston) had always regretted that the Turkish Government should have thought it right and necessary to detain so long in confinement those who had taken refuge in the Turkish territory, and who, when they entered it, received from officers in the Turkish service complete assurances of protection from the Sovereign of the country. The House well knew the circumstances which led the Turkish Government to swerve from that engagement, so entered into by their officers; and the House knew also the efforts and demonstrations made by the British and French Governments to support the Sultan in an independent course of action. It was undeniable that the long detention of these captives was entirely inconsistent with the independent action which it was the object of the French and English Governments to enable Turkey to pursue. Her Majesty's Government had not ceased to use all the means of friendly intercourse to induce the Sultan to put an end to that confinement (that detention rather than confinement), and had received a positive assurance that, on the 1st of September by the style which prevailed in Turkey, or on the 15th of September according to our style, those men who had been prisoners would be set at liberty, and would quit the Turkish territory; and there was no reason to suppose that that assurance would not be fulfilled.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.