Lords Sitting of 12 August 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Secular Jurisdiction (York and Ely); Newspaper Stamps.—Read a tot time:—Greek Loan; Civil Offices Declaration.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from St. Giles's, Camberwell, against London Cemetery Bill.

CONFERENCE.—CIVIL BILL COURTS (IRELAND).
A Conference was held with the Commons on the subject of amendments made by their Lordships in the Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Bill.
The Duke of Richmondreported, that the managers on the part of the Commons had left with the Lords' managers the reasons assigned by the Commons for disagreeing to certain of their Lordships' amendments.
The Marquess of Westmeath The Marquess of Westmeath moved, that the Commons' reasons be taken into consideration on Monday.
Lord Plunkethoped they might be taken into consideration at once, as he was obliged to leave town on Monday.
The Marquess of Westmeathwas surprised that the noble and learned Lord should propose at once to debate the Commons' reasons for disagreeing to their Lordships' amendments, as those reasons had not been five minutes on their Lordships' table. The noble and learned Lord might have seen those reasons more than five minutes ago; but as he had not had any such advantage, he did not feel himself competent to enter upon the discussion of them at that moment. But, though he was not, at any time, able to cope with the noble and learned Lord on a point of legal argument, and though on this occasion he laboured under the additional disadvantage of not knowing a single iota of the reasons, still, as he was unwilling to be the cause of any unnecessary delay, he was willing to proceed then. He wished, however, that the reasons assigned by the Commons should be read at length.
Reasons read accordingly.
The Marquess of Salisburywas anxious to hear the reasons which the noble and learned Lord had to urge in favour of the view taken by the House of Commons.
Lord Plunketsaid, that the object of the amendment made by their Lordships was to give the Barrister presiding in the Civil Bill Court a permanent jurisdiction to determine cases of ejection for non-payment of rent. That was a power greater than was possessed by the superior courts. They would not sanction an ejectment for nonpayment of rent, unless written evidence were adduced in support of the application; but their Lordships' amendment gave to the assistant-barrister the right to affirm a decree of ejectment upon parole evidence, a course that was calculated to encourage perjury. In short, the amendment went to give to the assistant-barrister a power that was never possessed by the superior court. He believed that every professional man would agree with him, that such a
1152
clause might be made the instrument of great oppression.
Lord Wynfordquite agreed with the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Fitzgerald and Vescysaid, that he was unprepared to meet the difficulty which had been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, which had not been stated when the amendment was brought forward, at which time the clause was generally received as one that was essentially necessary. The opinion of the noble and learned Lord was different from that of several legal individuals with whom he had had communication on this subject. As, however, he felt that it was a very serious matter to effect an important change in the existing law through the medium of an amendment to a Bill, he would call on noble Lords not to insist on that to which the Commons had disagreed.
The Marquess of Westmeathwished it to be understood, that the amendment did not originate with him, but was first proposed in the House of Commons by a noble Lord, whose own exertions, and those of his father, in favour of the agriculture, and in support of the tenantry, of Ireland, were not exceeded by the exertions of any landlords possessing considerable property in that country. He, therefore, could not be suspected of being actuated, more than any other noble Lord, by interested motives in bringing forward this clause, which he conceived was calculated to operate beneficially. The noble and learned Lord had said, that power was sought to be given to the Civil Bill Court which the superior court did not possess. Now, it ought to be observed that the Civil Bill Court was itself an anomaly which the situation of Ireland had rendered necessary, and to which an increase of jurisdiction had, from time to time, been given by Parliament. Therefore, in his opinion, there was not much force in that objection of the noble and learned Lord. That court had great power at present. As the law now stood, where notice to quit was legally and regularly given to a tenant from year to year, the judge must, in conformity with the Act of Parliament, issue a decree. But it was said, that if this clause were persisted in, it was likely to lead to perjury. On that point considerable negotiation had taken place; and those who favoured the clause evinced an anxious desire to give to parties a full and fair

1153
opportunity to show what the real and actual amount of rent due was. But their proposition was refused. They were told that middlemen would, upon all occasions, be ready to get on the table and swear up the tenants' rent to any point they pleased. Now, every security was offered to prevent any such fraudulent proceedings, but the offer was not accepted. He admitted, that he was bound to respect the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown on legal points; but, with respect to this bill, every thing did not meet the eye which was connected with the subject to which it referred. The fact was, that there was a party in Ireland, at the head of which was his Majesty's Roman Catholic Attorney-General, whose object seemed to be, to deprive the landed interest of that country of its fair and due weight, and to prevent them from doing that which, in the exercise of a humane and just feeling, they deemed best for the country. The noble and learned Lord must be aware that many landholders in Ireland periodically serve their tenants with notice to quit, in order to keep up and maintain that authority to which they were justly entitled, but which, as the law now stood, they could not maintain. Yet, without some such power as that, it was almost impossible for them to go on successfully in the management of their property. He should not press their Lordships to insist on these amendments, but he hoped that, after this discussion, their Lordships would see the necessity of taking up this question in another Session, and that they would then do justice to that much-calumniated class of individuals, the landlords of Ireland.
Lord Plunkettcould but express his surprise at the unnecessary allusion which had been made to the Attorney-General for Ireland. He was perfectly convinced that that learned Gentleman would do his duty honestly and impartially, whether the parties who came within the sphere of his office were Protestants or Catholics.
The Marquess of Westmeathhad reason to think highly, in a personal point of view, of the right hon. Gentleman to whom allusion had been made. With respect, however, to the appointment of a Roman Catholic Attorney-General in Ireland, he regretted that description of appointment more than he could express, because it must have the effect of placing the law in the hands of that agitator who was now
1154
disturbing the peace of Ireland. That was his decided opinion. The noble and learned Lord had stated, that the Attorney-General for Ireland never made any distinction on account of the difference of religion amongst his Majesty's subjects in that country. He did not know that the right hon. Gentleman had ever done so; but this he knew, that the right hon. Gentleman had been a prominent advocate for the repeal of the Union with Ireland, and that he conceived to be a bad qualification for the first law-officer of the Crown in that country.
Lord Fitzgerald and Veseywould move, "that their Lordships do not insist on these amendments." Involving, as the subject did, nice legal distinctions, it would be difficult for their Lordships, who were not professional, to meet the objection of the noble and learned Lord. It was better to postpone the question to some future occasion, when a substantive enactment might be brought before them, and the whole question might be properly inquired into. When that time arrived, he hoped he should be able to show that a proposition of the nature now objected to was not so much for the advantage of the landed interest of Ireland as it was for the benefit of the tenantry.
Motion agreed to, and the same was ordered to be notified to the House of Commons.

PRISON DISCIPLINE.
The Duke of Richmond, in rising to put some questions to the President of the Council with reference to prison discipline, observed that their Lordships would recollect that in the last Session of Parliament a Select Committee of that House had entered into an extended inquiry on that important subject. He believed, that the Government were anxious to take an early opportunity of carrying into effect the recommendations of that Committee; and he hoped, before they met next Session, that the dreadful state of the city gaols would be remedied and corrected. Hereafter, he trusted that they would find the gaol in the City of London not in a worse condition than the prisons in other parts of the country. He was happy to learn, from the Reports of the Inspectors of Prisons, that several of those which they had visited were, in consequence of recent regulations, in a much better state than at any former period. He

1155
hoped that care would unceasingly be taken to adopt and enforce proper rules and regulations. He was strongly of opinion, that it would be a very prudent measure if the great Penitentiary-house, at Millbank, were placed under the authority of the Home Department, and converted into a house of correction for offenders committed for trifling offences. It unfortunately was the fact, that the system, or rather the want of system, which had too long prevailed in the prisons of this metropolis, instead of reforming those who became their inmates, made them much worse. The increase of juvenile offenders in this country was much to be lamented. That increase in London, Westminster, and many of the large towns, was very great, and called for the deep and earnest attention of those to whom the internal government of the country was more immediately intrusted. They had it before them in evidence that children of the tender ages of nine, ten, and eleven years had been committed for very trifling offences—for stealing sweat-meats, and for thefts of an equally minor character. In many instances these children might almost be said to be abandoned by their parents, who went out to work and left their offspring at home without any person to check or to control, much less to instruct them. When he knew the great difficulties which met this question of the means of reforming juvenile offenders, at every step, he could not be surprised at the fact of the increase of their number. Still he must contend that it was necessary that both the Legislature and the Government should pay a most careful attention to it. It was proved to be impossible to reform these children by one or two months' imprisonment in a common gaol; and when he was aware that an association existed in the county of Warwick, which, with great humanity, had opened a school where offenders of tender years were sent, instead of to the county gaol; and when he remembered that in the cities both of London and Westminster, societies had been established in a manner most creditable to themselves, with a view to endeavour to reform those juvenile offenders—amongst which were the Refuge for the Destitute, the Bridewell, the Ladies' Charitable Society, the Children's Friend Society, besides many others, all of which had tried the experiment with the most complete success,—he thought the expe-
1156
riment ought to be tried by the Government on a larger scale than could be effected by any private charitable institution. These societies, after giving instruction to juvenile offenders, and after having succeeded in restoring them to habits of virtue and industry, afforded them the means to emigrate to the colonies as free apprentices, and the returns from the colonies showed that those very individuals, who otherwise would have crowded the gaols of this country, and thereby increased and extended moral contamination, had, through the benefits of religious education and a system of discipline for a short time apart from their elder associates in crime, become in the colonies useful, exemplary, and industrious members of society. He would not enter at greater length into the subject, for he believed his noble Friend, the President of the Council, would admit, and that the House would agree, that the subject was most deserving the serious consideration of the Legislature. He could not sit down, however, without calling the attention of his Majesty's Government to the state of the hulk for the reception of boys at Chatham. The crowded state of that hulk rendered all classification impossible—the hardened offenders became associated with those who had but taken the first step in crime—in short, between 300 and 400 boys were thrown together in a small ship, and no person, except he visited the vessel, could imagine the evils of the system. He would, therefore, suggest that his Majesty's Government ought to lose no time in removing (which he believed they had the power to do) these children from that ship to some prison or building in the interior of the country, where, by a well-regulated system of instruction and discipline, a great portion of these unfortunates would be saved, but even if to the extent of only one out of every ten, he was sure the experiment ought to be tried. The questions he had to ask his Majesty's Government were—1st, whether they had taken into consideration the recommendations of the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords last Session in respect to juvenile offenders; 2dly, whether his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had taken into his consideration the propriety of following the example of the institutions to which he had referred, by trying the experiment of schools with suitable

1157
detention, to which to send boys convicted of trivial offences; and, lastly, whether any steps had been taken to get rid of the hulk for the reception of boys at Chatham.
The Marquess of Lansdownethought that his noble Friend could not have submitted a more important matter for the consideration of the House and of the Government than that to which his speech had reference. In answer to his noble Friend, he felt himself authorised to state that his noble Friend at the head of the Home Department had turned his attention to every one of the subjects which the noble Duke had just brought before the House, and that his noble Friend proposed, during the approaching recess, to consider the expediency of following the suggestions both of the Select Committee of this House and of the inspectors of prisons as to the formation and establishment of prisons for the reception of juvenile offenders. No one who had read the Reports furnished to their Lordships upon this subject could fail to see the necessity of something being done in this respect; for it could not be lost sight of, that though this country abounded with the means of juvenile employment, yet that the number of the juvenile offenders exceeded that of any country in Europe. The Reports on the table showed that for a single year the number of commitments was between 2,000 and 3,000 girls and boys under sixteen years of age, and that of these a considerable portion, he believed between 700 and 800, were under the age of twelve years. These were the commitments to common prisons, in which it was impossible to follow such a system of discipline as would be calculated to improve them, or even to save them from contamination. He, therefore, was extremely glad to state, that his noble Friend at the head of the Home Department was preparing the means of establishing, at least as matter of experiment, a place for the reception of juvenile offenders. In his own opinion, his noble Friend would not stop there, for he believed that an effectual system for the improvement or the reform of children could not be carried into effect by prisons alone. In his judgment it was indispensable that children, yet young in crime, but who were the victims of ignorance, of abandonment, of desertion by their parents, or were totally incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, should
1158
be saved from condemnation to any prison whatever, provided that detention could be made effectual in schools, to be erected either under the name of asylums or refuges, but schools calculated to carry into effect the sentence of the law. That this might be done, satisfactory evidence had been afforded by the experiments made by the private institutions to which his noble Friend had referred. To the success of those establishments, and of the experiments they had made, he had been himself a witness, and he could assert, in corroboration of his noble Friend, that numerous apparently abandoned juvenile offenders, after a year's detention in these schools, had become in the colonies most useful subjects, as was proved by the favourable accounts and returns received from the colonies of their virtue, honesty, and useful conduct in various branches of life to which they had been sent. For the purpose of completely trying the experiment on a larger scale, he for one was prepared to give to the magistrates a great discretion as to the punishment to be awarded to juvenile offenders, and to increase their powers as to longer sentences of detention, with a view to accomplish the reclamation of juvenile offenders. By these means many useful and wholesome subjects for the colonies would be constantly ready for transmission, and at the same time lessen the amount of crime in this country As to the state of the principal prison (Newgate) of this metropolis, he had to observe, that his noble Friend at the head of the Home Department had devoted considerable time and attention to it, and that steps had been taken to place it in such a state and system of discipline as to make it a pattern and an example worthy to be imitated.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that having shared with his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) in the labours of the Select Committee on Prison Discipline last year, and in the personal inspection of the prisons of the metropolis and its neighbourhood, he might be permitted to confirm to the fullest extent all that had been stated by his noble Friend. He (the Earl of Ripon) was rejoiced to hear that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to take the subject into its earliest consideration. The whole of the evidence proved one thing, viz., the necessity of supplying a remedy for the evils which exist; and the only contrary suggestion thrown out was one which he could not believe would be listened to by either House of Parliament, and that

1159
was, he must call it, the paltry question of expense. He was confident that in a matter involving the improvement in the condition of these children, and the vast benefit in other respects to the State, the question of the expense of a few thousands would not be allowed to weigh one feather in the scale, in comparison with the results which would arise from the adoption of a principle which the Select Committee had recommended, and which the Government were prepared to follow.

POST-OFFICE COMMISSIONERS BILL.
Viscount Duncannon, in moving the second reading of the Post-office Commissioners Bill, said, that the Bill proposed to place the Post-office department under the management of Commissioners, instead of a Postmaster-General. He was aware that a noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) intended to oppose the Bill, and to contend, that the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, upon which this Bill was founded, had been made without a due consideration of the Post-office establishment, and he therefore thought it right to state, that this subject had been under consideration for more than half a century, and that between five and six Commissions of Inquiry into that establishment had from time to time been issued. The first Commission made its report in the year 1788, and every succeeding Commission, up to that appointed three years ago, had come to but one opinion as to the necessity of a change in the system. When every one of the Commissioners (including also Lord Wallace's Committee) had come to the same conclusion—namely, that the Post-office department should be placed under a Board of Commissioners, in the same way as the Custom and other revenue departments,—he thought the Government were justified in embodying these recommendations into a law. The recommendation of the Commission of 1817 was not only that there should be a Board of Commissioners, but that one of them should be a Member of the House of Commons. This was followed up in the Bill; and, looking to the Board of Customs, the Admiralty, and the Excise, he thought the House would not consent longer to leave the Post-office department to one person, whose duties were performed by a secretary. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that after the statement be had made to their Lordships on a former occasion, they could
1160
not be surprised, that he should rise to move as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. He had been curious to learn from the noble Viscount on what grounds he could support this Bill. It had been said, that but little had been done to alter the old system, but surely it had been forgotten, that in the year 1830 the whole Post-office department was entirely reorganised and remodelled under the very useful recommendations of Lord Wallace's Committee in 1817. Those recommendations had been carried into effect so far as the Lords of the Treasury would consent. If the noble Viscount wished to make the Post-office department popular, it was only necessary to give the Postmaster-General a greater latitude in disposing of its revenue, for at the present time the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not permit him to spend more than a certain sum, except the revenue obtained an adequate advantage. He denied, as had been stated, that Lord Wallace's Committee had inquired into every department of the Post-office; neither did he believe, though he had waded through the reports, that the supposed frauds at Holyhead had been carried into execution. But even if that had formerly been the case, the evil had been remedied, inasmuch as the packet department at Holyhead had been placed under the control of the Board of Admiralty, and he had the authority of his noble Friend, the present Postmaster-General, (who by indisposition was unfortunately prevented from being then in his place) for stating thus publicly that the frauds supposed to exist at Holyhead to a very great degree had been disproved. He mentioned this in corroboration of his former statement, and before the noble Viscount asked the House to read the Bill a second time, he ought to have laid on the table the whole of the evidence which had been received up to within the last two or three weeks. At all events the noble Viscount had not shown that three men would be better than one for the discharge of these duties. Let him prove that the present Postmaster-General had not discharged his duty before the charge was made. He thought that his noble Friend, now at the head of the Post-office department, had fully and ably discharged the duties of his office, and that if the present commission of inquiry was got rid of, and that a little more revenue

1161
was allowed him, the department would be perfectly satisfactory to the public. He hesitated not to affirm that the great portion of the public were now fully satisfied, though he was aware that some individuals existed who for the sake of acquiring notoriety were loud in their complaints—one of them in a recent letter from Liverpool, which had gone forth to the public had described himself as a "great exposer of abuses." That individual had for some time chosen to attack the Post-office department, and especially an individual now lost to the public service—an individual who had raised himself to an important station by his zeal and assiduity in this branch of the service of his country—by a private character unimpeached and unimpeachable, and with the esteem of every individual in the establishment—he meant Sir Francis Freeling, who, the subject of attack while living, was not allowed to remain unattacked in his grave by the individual to whom he would not in his absence further allude than to say he had stated his opinion of him on a former occasion. To return, however, to the Bill, he begged to ask, was not a Postmaster-General, with two secretaries, as good a system as that proposed by the plan? The Postmaster-General had an undivided responsibility, while the alteration suggested would give a divided responsibility among the Commissioners. He contended that the advantage of an undivided responsibility was great, and that advantage had been admitted by three of his noble Friends now present, when he was associated with them as a Colleague, in the instance of the measure for the regulation of the Board of Control. That Board was reduced to one Commissioner and two secretaries, and had been found to work better than under its old constitution. On the whole, taking also into consideration the late period of the Session which had arrived—considering also that all the evidence had not been laid on the table, he was of opinion that further time ought to be allowed to the House and the Government to attend to the matter, and with that view he should conclude by moving, that this Bill be read a second time in six months.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that though he differed on many points of detail in this Bill, he was prepared to vote for its second reading.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the noble Duke who had opposed the second reading of this measure had adverted to many topics connected with the Bill. Of the importance of the subject there could be but one opinion, involving as it did the transmission of all communications throughout the country, and bringing into the Exchequer a very considerable portion of the public revenue. Now it was for their Lordships a very material and important consideration—not merely, as had been stated by the noble Duke, whether any public dissatisfaction existed with respect to the present system of managing that branch of the public service, but whether even if that dissatisfaction did not exist, considerable improvement might not be made. It was very possible that upon such a subject there might be no general complaints against the present system, and that yet it might be capable of very great amelioration; and there was good reason to suppose that such was the case, because it was impossible for their Lordships, if they looked at the reports which had been made by the Commissions which had sat on the subject—if they looked at the reports of all those to whom the inquiry had been submitted—it was impossible for their Lordships to have a greater body of evidence, arising from the unanimity of the opinions expressed in favour of some such proposition as the present. There was no body of persons to whom the investigation of the subject had ever been committed who had ever approved of the present system, or had not recorded an opinion in favour of some arrangement of the nature proposed by this Bill. Recurring to the very earliest period at which the question had come under Parliamentary consideration their Lordships would find that such had been the case. The first Commission had been appointed in 1785, to inquire into several offices connected with the Government; and their report delivered on the 7th of June, 1788, contained recommendations of a character corresponding with the proposed alteration. The next was the Select Committee upon finances—a Committee always considered as a considerable authority; and the report with regard to the Post-office department, presented by Mr. Abbott, subsequently Lord Colchester, contained a passage to the following effect:—
"That it might be worthy of consideration,

1163
whether the appointment of a Board of Commissioners to discharge the duties of the Postmaster-General would not be calculated better to secure attention to the rapidly increasing and complicated business of that department."
The next report, that of the Commission of fees and gratuities in Ireland, had recommended,
"That the office of Postmaster-General should be vested in three Commissioners, two of whom were to constitute a Board; and the signature of two to be necessary to the validity of any ordinance; that attendance should be required every day, in order that they might be able, by attending to the details of the business of the office, and, consequently, becoming more intimately acquainted with the subject, to act upon their own views, instead of being compelled, for want of information, to submit to the judgment and guidance of others."
His noble Friend who had moved the postponement of the Bill on the present occasion, had also moved for an extract from the report of the Finance Committee which the noble Duke supposed to be favourable to his view of the question. This was the extract:—
"With regard to the office of Postmaster-General it does not appear to the Committee that that department comes exactly under the particular description of subjects upon which they have to report, and they are not prepared at present to suggest any alteration in the system upon which it is at present conducted; but if they are strongly of opinion that it would be inexpedient to place the management of that office under the direction of a Board, with a constitution similar to that of other Revenue Boards, on the other hand they are by no means prepared to express an opinion that in so large and complicated a concern, in which so many interests are involved, the present arrangement could stand without disadvantage, if the duties were permanently confined to one individual."
So that the noble Duke would see that if the Committee were not prepared at once to accede to the appointment of a Board of Commissioners, at the same time they were not wholly favourable to the maintenance of the present system. He now came to the report of the Revenue Commissioners, who had pursued the subject with the most diligent attention, and had entered into the most minute details. The substance of the measure which they recommended was the substitution of one general board for the management, of the Post-office department, instead of the office of Postmaster-General and Secretary. It was proposed
1164
that the seat of the Board should be in London, and that there should be secretaries and subordinate officers; that there should always be one member of the Board in Ireland and another in Scotland: and that at both those places there should also be an establishment of secretaries and other local officers. With respect to Ireland, he could assure the House that his noble Friend, the Lord Lieutenant, held an opinion distinctly in favour of some such proposition as the present. A Commission had also been proposed by the Administration of the noble Duke; and though they knew not the opinions of all the Members of that Committee, they had, at any rate, the opinion of a noble Lord in their favour, whose great acuteness, whose application to business, whose talents for business, rendered his opinion of the greatest weight, whose authority was of the highest importance on the details of the measure—a noble Lord, whose general principles and feelings undoubtedly were opposed to those of the present Government, but who still always entertained the high and honourable desire of correcting anything which might seem to him to require correction, and of supporting everything which was expedient and advisable for the interests of the public. They had the opinion also of the noble Lord, the Member for Cumberland. In answer to a question put to him by the Commission. Lord Lowther had said,—"That he had not been connected long enough with the department to have considered the subject.—[Hear, hear, hear, from the Duke of Richmond and other noble Lords]—with his Colleagues." Let their Lordships mark that, "with his colleagues." There could be no doubt that he had considered the subject himself, for he proceeded—"but the observations which he had made led him to the conclusion that the present system was not adapted to the active circumstances of the times; and he should feel inclined to propose to Parliament to re-model the Post-office department altogether. It had just remained what it was ever since the improvements in 1797 and 1798; there had scarcely been a single alteration except those which were actually forced by the public. He should be disposed to look at the Post-office of this country as the Post-office of the world, if facilities were offered—and it was his opinion that it would be impossible for one man to afford the requi-

1165
site attention to the matter. He thought it better that there should be a Board of Commissioners, with a head and two assistants; and he would recommend that the patronage of the Board should be left with the chief Commissioner; because it always operated to the prejudice of Boards when the junior Commissioners had any share in the patronage." Now he begged their Lordships to mark the following observation: it appeared to him important, pertinent, and acute:—"But he (Lord Lowther) thought that if one of the Members of the Commission were in Parliament, he would perhaps hear more there than he could see if he visited the country." The noble Lord had then been asked—"Do you think it advisable that one of the Commissioners should sit in the House of Commons?—Yes, The head Commissioner?—Any one of them." The noble Viscount then proceeded to read the evidence of Lord Lowther, in which he expressed his opinion that some particular provision would be required for the purpose above-mentioned, because a Revenue Commissioner was not entitled to sit in Parliament. Now he thought that was laid down rather boldly; for he apprehended there was nothing in the present state of the law to prevent a Commissioner of Revenue or Excise from being a Peer. Well, then, he did contend that there was a body of evidence which was sufficient to induce their Lordships to enter upon the consideration of the Bill. With respect to the Bill itself, and the principle of it, it was to establish a Board instead of the single Postmaster-General and the two Secretaries who at 'present presided over that department. In making a considerable alteration in a system so long established, they were, of course, liable to the difficulty of seeming, by the adoption of that course, to condemn the persons who had held the offices, as well as the officers themselves, which it was proposed to abolish; but he could assure the House, in the present instance, nothing could be further from his intention. He would, however, state what was really the fact, though he had not the slightest intention of saying anything offensive to any person who had ever occupied those offices. His noble Friend had himself clearly shown that persons contracted, by holding office, very great attachment to that office—and also to the persons connected with that office—and he would say, that becoming familiarised with
1166
the old system, such persons were led to believe that the business could be conduct-ed in no other manner; and if his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) Lad not been somewhat blinded by former associations and attachments of the nature to which he had alluded—he did not think that his noble Friend would have viewed this measure in the light he had done. As to the question between Boards and single officers, that was not an old topic in this country. Boards were certainly rather of a democratical origin, and had been principally introduced by Oliver Cromwell, who though he wished for the name of King, either found it inconvenient or not corresponding with the character of his Government to appoint Lord Chancellors, and Lord High Admirals, and Lord High Treasurers; and who, therefore, generally created Boards for the discharge of the duties of those high offices. Subsequently those Boards had been complained of by Lord Clarendon, as of a democratical and jacobinical character. But such opinions, he believed, had been long abandoned; for there was not now one of those high offices which was not discharged by a Board, with the exception of the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack. As to the charge with respect to the Board of Control, he was not sufficiently acquainted with that office to know whether it had been any improvement or not; but with regard to an office which exercised such general control, which was called upon to decide upon such great measures, in which efficiency and unity of decision were so requisite, he conceived the appointment of a chief and two secretaries might be more convenient than of a Board consisting of three commissioners, with Secretaries. Not so, however, with respect to an office, that, like the one in question, had to deal so much with matters of detail; and whenever minute subjects were brought under consideration, in. that case the call for attention would render the latter constitution of the Board more eligible than the former. His noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) had certainly been the most active Postmaster-General that they had had for many years, if not the most active they ever had; and his exertion had at least succeeded in calling public attention to that office, which previously had been more one of show and authority than of any real superintendence or acquaintance with the busi-

1167
ness. Such, then, being the case, if the present system was, as had been stated by Lord Lowther, and, as he believed, truly stated, not a system suited to the increase of business in that department, he thought that it would be the best way to make at once a decided change, such as was proposed by the present Bill. It was, then, his opinion, founded upon the authorities which he had adduced, founded upon the recommendations of every one who had considered the question, and founded upon the nature of the office itself, and the state of public feeling with respect to it—it was his opinion that some alteration of the nature proposed by this Bill ought to be adopted; and for those reasons he should feel it his duty to vote for the second reading of the Bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid: My Lords, the inclination and desire which I should have upon this subject would be, to follow the course which is recommended by his Majesty's Government. There can be no doubt whatever that this is a most important department of the Government—a department upon which the Government itself must, in a great degree, rely—a department, therefore, in the good management of which the Government is most highly interested; and so far as this House has to deal with the subject, it should be inclined, certainly, to follow the advice which his Majesty's Government may think proper to give; but when his Majesty's Government comes down to this House with a measure of this kind, proposing a change of this description—in certainly one of the most important departments of public service—they ought, my Lords, to take care to bring before the House sufficient information to enable your Lordships to form a right judgment on the question. Now let us see how we stand with respect to this subject. The noble Viscount has read to your Lordships a variety of extracts from the reports of Commissions, and from evidence differing from the noble Duke's opinion upon this question. But the noble Duke who has made the motion for the postponement of the measure, has said that a variety of Commissions had sat upon the subject, and particularly of late, from not one of which has one single line been laid before your Lordships. My Lords, this Bill was brought up to this House upon the 8th of August, it was ordered to be printed, and upon the 12th your Lordships are called
1168
upon to take it into consideration on the motion for the second reading, and to decide at once, and make yourselves a party to the responsibility of the change in this office. My Lords, I know enough of this office to be quite certain that up to this period it has been administered in a way that has been highly beneficial to his Majesty's service. I can assert positively, my Lords, that the Post-office has hitherto been far better administered in this country than in any country in Europe, or any other part of the world—and, before I consent to any change in the administration of this office, I should like to see the grounds upon which this recommendation has been made. I know, my Lords, from the situation which I have had the honour to fill in his Majesty's service, that this is a most important office to his Majesty's Government; and before I can consent to this change—that is to say, before I can consent to lose the Postmaster-General, and the subordinate officers, and to receive in the place of those officers a Board of Commissioners, each of whom shall be co-ordinate and equal with the other in his station in the office. I should like to see the grounds on which the recommendation is made, and to know in what manner the duties of the office are to be carried on, so as to give to his Majesty's Government all that influence and advantage which they at present derive from this office. That, my Lords, is all which is material. I do not care whether the head of the Post-office is to sit in the other House of Parliament or not, but I must see the grounds upon which it is recommended to place the administration in the hands of a Board. The noble Viscount has referred to the opinion of a noble Friend of mine in another place; and, my Lords, I can easily understand that my noble Friend might have seen that great improvements might be introduced in this department, notwithstanding the state in which I do assert the Post-office of this country to be at this moment—a state very far superior to any other country in Europe. There may, perhaps, certainly be room for further improvement; but, my Lords, I can see no reason why these improvements should be introduced in the present state of things. If there had been more time for a due deliberation of this measure, I should probably have offered no objection to it in the present stage; but, as such is not the case, I certainly

1169
think it better that the Bill should be postponed to some future period, in order that we may have the report of the Commissioners before us, and may be able to come to a fair consideration of the question.
Lord Ellenboroughremarked, that although there were several Commissioners of the Board of Control, yet, practically, the whole business was transacted by the President, and if it were otherwise, it would be utterly inefficient. There was no responsibility whatever where three or more persons were equally responsible, and from what had passed under his own observation, he had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to conduct any government well, unless you placed your whole confidence in, and intrusted the whole power to, one individual. He was not disposed to think that the question of one of the Commissioners having a seat in the House of Commons, was a matter of indifference. He thought it would be rather an advantage, to have a multiplicity of persons holding offices in the House of Commons. They had quite enough public officers in their Lordships' House; and, in his opinion, it would be more convenient that the chief of the Post-office department should have a seat in that House, where it was much more probable that questions would be put relating to that department. But if they thought of placing three co-ordinate officers in that department, instead of efficiency, they would create inefficiency, and in so doing, cause great detriment to the public service. If, then, he agreed to this Bill, he should do so on the condition of being allowed to introduce a clause, providing, that if any difference of opinion should arise between the person first named in the commission, and the other two Commissioners, the person first named should be empowered to overrule the opinion of the other two, upon stating in writing his reasons for differing from them.
Viscount Duncannon, in reply, said, that he did not think of moving for the evidence, because it was contained in nine large volumes, but he was fully satisfied that it bore out the recommendations of the Bill.
Lord Colchesterobserved, that the Commissioners had not recommended that a Board should be appointed, but merely, that it should be considered whether it would be proper to put the management
1170
of the Post-office under a Board. He would vote for the amendment.
Their Lordships divided on the original motion:—Contents 22; Not-Contents 57: Majority 35.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

VISCOUNTS.

DUKES.

Melbourne

Argyll

Duncannon

Leinster

Falkland

MARQUESSES.

BARONS.

Lansdowne

Mostyn

Queensberry

Ducie

Headfort

Foley

Westmeath

Hatherton

EARLS.

Holland

Minto

Langdale

Leitrim

Saye and Sele

Albemarle

BISHOP.

Ilchester

Bristol.

Bill put off for six months.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Lansdowne moved, that the Church Temporalities Act Amendment Bill be committed.
The Duke of Wellingtonapproved in general of the objects of the Bill, but entertained some objections to some of its clauses, particularly to that clause which reduced the interest on mortgages of perpetuities from five per cent. to three-and-a-half per cent. He had no doubt that his Majesty's Government, and those who had brought this subject forward, entertained a supposition that by adopting this plan, they would obtain a more speedy payment of the money owing on the perpetuities, but he believed they would find themselves mistaken.
Their Lordships went into Committee on Clause 13.
The Duke of Wellington The Duke of Wellington moved, that it be omitted.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that the object of the clause was, to give greater inducements to the proprietors of perpetuities to come forward and purchase, by lowering the rate of interest to nearly the rate of interest in this country. He thought it right to give the strongest stimulus possible to induce them to come forward and purchase. But the Government had taken care, in holding out this inducement, not to postpone the payment of the principal to an indefinite period, by inserting a provision, obliging the purchasers to pay up the principal in fifteen years, by instalments, which would insure a regular supply of money.
The Duke of Wellingtonremarked, that the clause did not force the persons who would mortgage the perpetuities to pay their instalments at certain periods, although it said that they should pay by instalments. The probability was, that no instalments would be paid till towards the end of the fifteen years. Under these circumstances he wished the clause to be struck out, and to leave the Church Temporalities Act as it stood, as he understood it had so far worked well.
The Marquess of Westmeathobserved, that if his Majesty's Government had so governed the country that English capital could creep into Ireland, he should have no objection to the clause, but, at present, he could not give it his support.
The Archbishop of Armaghsaid, that the Commissioners found the money come in as fast as they had expected, and it would come in faster if it were not for the agitation of this question. If this clause passed, the effect would be, that all purchasers would lock up their money for fifteen years, and they would not be able to go on. They depended on the perpetuity purchase fund to enable them to carry on the ordinary purposes of building and repairing churches, &c.
The Earl of Riponremarked, that when he found the Commissioners, who were responsible for the execution of the Act, representing, in a formal way, that this clause would interfere with the object they had in view, he should give up any doubt he had in deference to their opinion.
Clause omitted.
On clause 27,
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he hoped the House would not consent to the change which it went to introduce—a change of an important nature, and one to which he entertained a strong objection. The effect of it would be to deprive the cathedrals of their choirs. The proper way to secure the continued utility and efficiency of those bodies would be to place the funds at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners rather than at that of the Lords of the Treasury; he should, therefore, move its omission, being persuaded that it must lead to the eventual extinction of the choirs.
The Marquess of Lansdownewould not consent to the omission of this clause, for it involved the broad principle of the continuance of sinecures or their discon-
1172
tinuance. He was no advocate for extinguishing the choirs, or in any respect diminishing the cathedral service, but sinecures he was resolved to do all in his power to abolish. The effect of the Bill, he contended, would be merely to collect together the funds which the vicars choral and minor canons now received for doing nothing, and apply them to the real uses of the Church.
The Archbishop of Armaghsaid, that the Bill ought not to contain a clause for destroying all choirs merely because abuses might be found to exist in some of them; they ought to do away with sinecures, but they ought not to punish innocent parties. In his opinion, the best mode of getting rid of the difficulty would be to place those funds under the management of the dean and chapter, to be applied to the purpose of maintaining a choir.
Clause agreed to, with the understanding that it was to be amended on the bringing up the Report.
House resumed. Report to be brought up.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved, that their Lordships should go into a Committee on the Registration of Voters' Bill.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, before he moved the first of the amendments to this Bill which he had proposed, he should state the general nature of those amendments. The subject had now been discussed in the House of Commons during three Sessions; last year a Bill was sent up from the Commons, and referred to a Select Committee; the present Bill had been long under the attention of the other House this Session; and now, on the 12th of August, at half-past nine o'clock, the House of Lords was called upon to consider a Bill containing eighty clauses, and intended to alter and effect that great measure, Parliamentary Reform. Perhaps the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced would furnish a sufficient reason for that House to say it could not be entertained there. But, considering the importance of the subject, he must admit, that it was not the business of the House of Lords to stop the further progress of the Bill. With respect to the Reform Bill, he, as well as many of his noble Friends, had objected strongly to the extent of that measure—some to the

1173
whole, and others only to certain parts of it. That Bill, however, affecting as it did the whole constitution of the country, was one which it must be admitted was carried by the sense of the great majority of the people in these realms; and from that moment, he had considered it was not their business to meddle with it. He took it, therefore, as a right hon. Friend of his had said, as the settlement of a great national question; and he received it, almost, as a new constitution of the country. By that view of it, it was his intention to stand, and to avoid everything that might destroy that portion of democratic influence which had been called into operation by that Bill; if any alteration was made, it must come from the people themselves, and not from that House. This was a question of immense importance to the country, and it was the duty of their Lordships to see that the regulations proposed to be made by the Bill came within the meaning and intention of the Reform Act, and that the franchises established under that Act were neither diminished nor increased; but that those regulations were kept within the scope which it was intended they should take, namely, to make registration more easy, and to make it more easy to every party to exercise the franchise. That being the object of the Bill, and seeing the great democratic influence which had been given by that Bill, he must say, that he thought it became the duty of their Lordships to watch with jealousy any measure on this subject that came up from the House of Commons. It might be said that the Commons were most interested in this question, because the Bill concerned the election of Members to sit in their House, and that, in point of fact, the House of Lords was not concerned in it. But, at the same time, he must observe, that the House of Lords formed one part of the constitution of the country, and it was most important for the people of England that they should exercise their legitimate functions, and watch, even with jealousy, the Bills which came up from the House of Commons. Noble Lords had been attacked on the previous evening by the noble Viscount opposite, and they were told that they always viewed with jealousy, and treated with contumely and contempt, any measure which came up from the House of Commons, having for its object an increase of the rights and privileges of the people.
1174
He would leave his noble Friend to defend his own words; he left it to him to say whether, now, in his calmer moments, he would justify the language he had used, and whether it might not be said, with some truth, that the noble Viscount himself was, on that occasion, rather contumelious. He must say, that for the first Minister of the Crown to come down to the House, and use that sort of language, merely because noble Lords had said they were jealous of certain proceedings, appeared to him to be conduct that little became one who filled that high station which the noble Viscount filled. He admitted that he was jealous, and not a little jealous, but the noble Viscount seemed to be blind to his situation; he had no power whatever in the House of Lords, and in the Commons his power existed only by the support of persons who professed to require an organic change in the constitution. But for that party the Government would be in the minority, and a very slender minority they would have. He was jealous, then, of the Ministers, because they had no power in the House of Commons without the support of that party. They had a right, in fact it was their business, it was perfectly constitutional, for the House of Lords to interfere with every act of legislation for the country. It was their duty to stand between the people and the Crown, to see that the Crown, on the one hand, did not tread on the heels of the people, and that the people, on the other hand, did not infringe on the prerogatives of the Crown. He knew that there were persons in the House of Commons who made no secret—he was not accusing them of anything which they would deny; on the contrary, it was language which they boldly used—they made no secret of saying that they desired an organic change in the constitution of the country, and how often had measures been brought before that House, measures which had been introduced by the Government, which became so altered by clauses foisted in by that party, that even the Government itself was ashamed of them? Now, when a measure of that sort came up to the House of Lords, was it not their duty to look closely into it? Were they not justified in watching it with jealousy? Had not the very Bill now before them been considerably altered? Clauses had been introduced which would sufficiently

1175
clear up every doubt as to the views of the party to which he had alluded, and it was a fact that some Ministers of the Crown had actually voted in the minority in the divisions upon those clauses. Upon these grounds, then, he felt jealous; and he should continue to watch with jealousy every Bill which emanated from the other House, knowing, as he did, that there was a strong party in that House who were desirous of producing certain organic changes which they thought would promote good government, but which, he was sure would be most injurious to it, and destructive of the best interests of the country. In the course of the changes which he proposed to make in this Bill, he was willing to go so far as to give every reasonable facility to the proper registration of the voters, and every reasonable facility also to those voters to exercise their franchise. But he would also add some amendments with a view to clear up those doubts which had arisen in consequence of the conflicting decisions of the Revising Barristers. All that he would do; but he would not, as far as his opinion went, and he trusted the House of Lords would support him in this, suffer the franchise to be tampered with in any degree. He would not allow the franchise to be contracted on one side, or extended on the other. This was not a Bill intended to bestow, or to take away the franchise, and the course he meant to pursue was to bring it back as far as possible to the Bill which was introduced in 1835, and again brought forward by Government in 1836, except in one instance, and that was to strike out the clause which tended directly to alter the franchise. He alluded particularly to that clause which provides that no land with a building upon it should give a vote unless it were worth five pounds. That appeared to him to be narrowing the franchise contemplated by the Reform Act. To that he should certainly object. There were also two great cases of doubt which had occurred before the Revising Barristers in respect to the votes of trustees and mortgagees. There was a clause in the present Bill which went to the extent of saying, that no mortgagee should have a vote unless he received the rents and profits for his own use. Now he meant to carry this principle still further. He meant to provide that no trustee should have a vote for the property he held in trust, the rents and profits of which
1176
he did not receive for his own use and benefit. That was, he conceived, the spirit of the Reform Act. It was quite a mistake to suppose that property per se was to be represented. He contended that a vote was a personal right, and that property was the qualification only which conferred that right; that was to say, that only persons who possessed a certain amount of property should be entitled to a vote, but it was never intended that every piece of property should have a Representative. The other doubt to which he wished to allude was with respect to persons holding leases in towns for sixty years. The intention of the Reform Bill, undoubtedly, was to give a vote to leaseholders under certain circumstances. Suppose A, for instance, held a lease in a town for sixty years, and suppose he built a house upon the property, of the yearly value of ten pounds, and inhabited it, he would be entitled to a vote for the town; but cases had arisen where a person who had so qualified himself had also built two stables, which he let off to other persons, and did not at all retain them in his own occupation. The question then was, whether the land and the buildings which were not occupied by the leaseholder did not give him the right to vote for the county, and he believed that it had been decided in both ways. Now, it was clearly the principle of the Reform Bill that leaseholders in towns should have a vote for the town, but not for the county; and the doubt had arisen through the use of the word "occupier," instead of the word "leaseholder." Now, he proposed to introduce a clause to settle that question, and to make it clear that persons possessing such property should have a vote for the town, but that the other portion of the property sublet should not give a vote for the county. The principle of the clause which he proposed to introduce had been, he knew, very much opposed, so strongly indeed, that it had been said, either that or the Bill must be thrown out. His noble Friend said, "If you put, this clause into the Bill, it will have that effect;" but he would ask their Lordships whether they would suffer impropriety and injustice to remain upon the face of any Bill because they were told, that if they did not suffer it the Bill would not be accepted by the other House? He entreated their Lordships not to suffer the injustice in this Bill to

1177
remain, and not to allow it to run counter to all the intentions of the Reform Bill, because persons chose to use such language as that to which he had alluded. The other alteration which he proposed to make was in the mode of revising the lists of electors. By the Bill now before the House, the revising barristers were not to be chosen by the Lord Chief Justice in the Middlesex district, and the senior Judges of assize. There were to be eleven revising barristers, three of whom were to constitute a court of appeal, and the other eight were to go the circuits constantly. They were named in the Bill; one of them was the Chief Judge of the Court of Review, Mr. Erskine; he was to have 1,000 l. a-year as the chief of the court of Appeal, and every succeeding one 2,000 l.; the other two members of the Court of Appeal were to receive 1,500 l. a year each. The barristers who were to go the circuits were to have 1,000 l. a year each. Here, then were eleven places created by this Bill, of from l,000 l. to 2,000 l. a-year each. To that plan he had a very great objection; but he should also observe, that they were named in the Bill now, but subsequently they were to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That patronage to the amount of 13,000 l. was to be given to the Lord Chancellor; but he did not think it right that that quantity of patronage should be so bestowed, because the Chancellor was a political person and one of the Ministers of the Crown, and there was too much patronage attached to the office already. But there was another reason why he objected to the plan; he had a great respect for the independence of the bar, and he wished to encourage that independence. He must say, that these multiplied places seemed to be created by the Government for the express purpose of getting possession of that bar. He should, therefore, propose to restore the appointment of the revising barristers to the Lord Chief Justice and the judges of assize. As to the Court of Appeal, he proposed, that when any cases of doubt arose, an appeal should be made to a judge in the ordinary way. There could be no doubt that the conflicting decisions of the revising barristers had been productive of very great mischief, and therefore, perhaps, it would not be right to have no mode of appeal open; but it was his firm belief, that before a few years were over, the cases of doubt that would arise
1178
would be exceedingly few and rare, and unless it was for the purpose of giving the Chief Judge of the Court of Review something to do, which was not the case at present, he did not know for what object this new office was proposed to be created. He would conclude, as he had begun, by telling the noble Viscount opposite, that he must make up his mind to have the measures which were brought up from the House of Commons viewed with jealousy in the House of Lords—a jealousy which, if he could see a Government who had a real command in the House of Commons, he might be induced to forego in some measure; but so long as he saw a Government carried on with a majority against it in the House of Lords, and supported only in the other House by a party that professed to desire organic changes, and declaring that the Lords had not gone far enough, he for one would always view with jealousy those measures which came up from that party, and he did not care who knew that such was his determination.
Viscount Melbournethought the noble and learned Lord might have saved himself the trouble of stating, that it was his intention to look with jealousy on every measure which came up from the House of Commons, for he could very easily perceive that, without the aid of the information which the noble Lord had given him. That noble Lord had set out with declaring, that he did not feel it to be his duty to stop the progress of the Bill, and then he went into all the arguments he had collected together against it; it would have been more consistent for the noble Lord to have reserved his arguments until each particular portion of the Bill to which they applied had been brought under the notice of the House in regular order; it was hardly worth while, he thought, for the noble Lord to waste their beauty and freshness all at once. It was not his intention to go into the consideration of the debate which took place on the previous day, "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." He did not, in any respect, wish to go again into that debate; he did not defend, neither was he prepared to defend, every expression which he might have used in the heat of argument. It was not always easy to find every proper expression that was suited to the occasion, and it was possible that sometimes words which were a little over-rated or exagge-

1179
rated might be used; but with respect to the general import, the general meaning, and the substance of what he had said on the occasion alluded to, he begged to say, that he would stand by it, and that he meant to stand by it; he would not retract any part or title of it. He must say also, that it was not the way to produce cordiality and union between the two Houses of Parliament, or to establish a good understanding, or to promote the public service, to be continually expressing jealousy of sinister designs and intentions to overreach on the part of the Commons. Whatever jealousy the noble Lord might choose to entertain, he would say, that there was no real ground for any such jealousy and suspicion on the part of that House. And when the noble Lord told him, that he did not understand his situation, he must retort the same upon him, and say, that the noble Lord did not understand his own position and the position of those noble Lords who acted with him. After all, that point must be decided by the fact of which was in the right; but he felt confident, that there was much blindness on the other side of the House amongst some noble Lords, who did not know the position in which they stood with the House of Commons and the country. With regard to the Bill, it was quite true, that it had now been in the House of Commons for three Sessions, that it was referred to a Committee last year, and that it had been under discussion in a Committee of the whole House of Commons three times during the present Session. It was equally true, that the main principles of the Bill, and many of its most important provisions, had been agreed on by those who sat on different sides of the House of Commons; and that the names of the barristers had been settled by agreement between Gentlemen who generally sat on opposite sides of that House. The noble Lord had stated the alterations which he proposed, but he would reserve his reply to them until they came regularly before the Committee.
House went into Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Wharncliffeobserved, that this clause would open the whole question of the appointment of the revising barristers. Perhaps the noble Viscount was not aware, that under the present system 175 barristers were occupied during 3,800 days in revising the lists. Now, if the barristers were to go the circuits to revise the lists,
1180
they would, according to that calculation, be occupied 470 days each, being more days than there are in a year. The noble Lord proposed an amendment on the clause to the effect which he stated in his opening speech.
Viscount Melbournethought this was a subject which required further consideration. Under the present system so much time was consumed through the inexperience of the revising barristers; for it must be remembered, that only men young at the bar would undertake the duty, and they were scarcely competent to decide difficult questions relating to title and real property, and therefore their proceedings had not only been tedious, but their decisions had been unsatisfactory, and had not carried that weight and importance with them which was desirable. Moreover, their decisions had been conflicting; each successive barrister had overturned in many instances the decisions of his predecessor in the same district. Young lawyers were not only subject to a defect of experience, but also to the defect of vanity, having an inclination to seem to know better than others and to strike out something new. He need scarcely represent to their Lordships the great advantages to be derived from having, as far as possible, uniformity of decision, which he conceived would be insured by having a settled number of gentlemen of experience to act as revising barristers. They would, besides, to a great degree, cure the evil at present arising from the great length of time required to carry on the business of a revising barrister's court. The gentlemen intended to discharge this duty were named in the Bill, which took off the objection, at least for the present, that had been made respecting the patronage of the Government; and as regarded the future, he did not think it could be placed in safer or better hands than those of the Lord Chancellor. With regard to the present appointment of the Revising Barristers by the judges, he could not avoid saying, that besides its making the bar so far dependent upon the judges, it left them (the judges) to a certain degree open to imputation respecting the persons they promoted. It would, in fact, be difficult to place patronage where it would be entirely free from objection, but he thought there was less objection to its being placed in the hands of the Lord Chancellor than elsewhere. By this measure, which the

1181
noble Lord had admitted he was prejudiced against, in consequence of the quarter from whence it emanated, he (Lord Melbourne) conceived they would be much more likely to secure uniformity, steadiness, and regularity in its operation than by the present existing system which he understood it to be the object of the noble Lord to preserve. By the proposed measure there would also be a very considerable saving of expense. It was not possible to make a very accurate calculation, but as nearly as it could be done, it stood thus:—The present estimated expense was 33,085 l. By the proposed measure, the salaries would amount to 11,000 l., and the travelling expenses, as far as they could be computed, to 8,000 1., making a total expense of 19,000 l., by which their Lordships would observe a saving of 14,000 l. would be effected. It was not certainly a matter of very great importance, but it showed that the advantages of the system were on the side of economy.
Lord Wharncliffeobjected to the patronage which by the Bill would be given to the Lord Chancellor, by placing at his disposal thirteen appointments. There was also another scheme to which he (Lord Wharncliffe) had a very great objection. Those barristers were prohibited, by this Bill, from practising in the Courts of Law, by which they would lose all their legal habits, and all the advantages to be derived from mixing with their fellow barristers. They would be necessarily employed during the whole year with the business of their immediate avocation as Revising Barristers, and they would be deprived of the advantages of attending Courts of Law.
Lord Hollandhad never known before to-night, that it had been the habit of that House to regard with jealousy the proceedings of the other House of Parliament; but he had often heard it said, that it was the duty of both Houses of Parliament to regard with a degree of jealousy all kinds of patronage; and so far as that went, the noble Lord (Wharncliffe) had brought before their Lordships' consideration a matter which was perfectly usual and perfectly Parliamentary. He could not help thinking that it was fortunate for his noble Friend near him, that patronage was a common ground of reproach, but he also thought, that the course pursued by the noble Lord, in alluding to the subject,
1182
was, in his eagerness of declamation against certain parties in the House of Commons, both unconstitutional and unparliamentary. The noble Lord, had, however, acquitted his noble Friend of any great avidity for patronage, for he said that his noble Friend had no command over the House of Commons. He had heard that it was right that the Government of this country should have the confidence of the House of Commons. And what made the confidence of the House of Commons but the agreement of the majority in the acts and their approbation of the persons and characters, of that Government. What else made the confidence of the House of Commons? And the noble Lord, in his eagerness to declaim against and arraign this party and this House of Commons, had told their Lordships, that this part of the Bill was not in the original Bill proposed by the Government to the House of Commons; so that, after all, the patronage and expense consisted of no more than this—that the Representatives of the people of England had chosen to increase a number of places, and to assign and annex certain salaries and emoluments to those places. That at least was not a very heavy charge against the Government, and he thought it was not the peculiar duty of that House to regard matters of that kind, especially when they were connected with the constitution of the other House of Parliament and the franchise of the people, with a peculiar degree of jealousy or anxiety. It was, in fact, so far, in his humble opinion, from being true, that it was a part of the Constitution that one of the Houses of Parliament should regard with jealousy the conduct of the other, that he had always understood it to be a point, at least of courtesy, to consider with great favour and great anxiety, any Bill sent from one House to the other, particularly any Bill affecting the constitution of either House. The noble Lord had pointed to the time of night, and the period of the Session, but he believed that their Lordships would find that Bills, which had been under the consideration of that House, affecting its interests and constitution, through the elections of two portions of their Lordships' body, after having been under the consideration of Committees of that House, and after having undergone great inquiry and great deliberation, and sent to the House of Commons—on those occa-

1183
sions, their Lordships would find that the House of Commons had generally conceived it to be a matter of delicacy not to be eagle-eyed in finding fault with such Bills, but to pass them as speedily as possible; and he confessed, he did not see under what policy it was, that the noble Lord, now that they had agreed to go with the subject, and at the very moment they were attempting to give—and he trusted they were bona fide attempting to give—effect to the wishes of the House of Commons upon this subject—he did not see under what policy it was, that the noble Lord had read them a lecture upon the necessity of being jealous and apprehensive of a popular Government.
Lord Wharncliffeobserved, that the noble Baron could not suppose, when he spoke of the Government not having any command over the House of Commons, that he meant that the Government of the country should have such a command over the House of Commons as a master had over his servant. The command he alluded to, was such as should arise from confidence; and he certainly would repeat, that the present Government had not, in point of fact, the confidence of the House of Commons. They had the majority certainly, but he asserted they had not the confidence of that House. They continued and existed by the support of a party, who knew that they could, at any moment, put an end to that existence. They had the power to do so, and it was perfectly optional with them to exercise it.
Lord Hollandobserved, that the noble Lord stated he had used the word "command" in the sense of confidence, but while he (Lord Holland) gave him credit for so doing, he wished the noble Lord to recall the sentences in which he used the word "command" to his mind, to place the word "confidence" in its stead, and then see what kind of reason he had been making use of. The noble Lord says, then, that the Government has not the confidence of the House of Commons. Was that a proof that the House of Commons commanded the Ministers? He said also, that the measures they produced were not their own. Well, then, they were the measures of the House of Commons. He would assert that measures regarding the interests of the people and the internal constitution of the other House of Parliament, whether direct or indirect, ought
1184
to be the measures of the House of Commons, not the measures of any party or set of men, or even of any officers of his Majesty's Government. They had gotten into a sad lax, unconstitutional, and unparliamentary way of late, in talking of legislation as if it belonged to the executive of the country, and in viewing with jealousy the conduct of that man and this man, and inquiring who did this and who did that? and who supported this and who supported that? and with what view he so supported it? All this he considered to be unconstitutional and unparliamentary. On some few occasions, for the sake of triumph in debate, such allusions might be made, but it was not till this very Session of Parliament he had heard it gravely and constantly alleged, as a reason against measures proposed for their consideration, that this man was a Whig, that that man was a Radical, and the other a Tory; or that this man was a Catholic, and the other man a Protestant. They, in fact, examined the constitution and the ingredients of the House of Commons as if indeed they had any command or control over them. Now he would say that that was not the way to bring about a good understanding between the two Houses of Parliament. No man would lament more than he should, any real difference between the two Houses take place, but he could not help saying, that it was not by crimination and recrimination, or by storing up in the mind every unlucky, untoward, or angry expression, that might happen to fall in the course of debate, for the purpose of quoting it as a reason, forsooth, for judging with severity, and recording with jealousy the deliberate acts of the Representatives of the people—it was not by such means as these they could hope to prevent a difference between the two Houses of Parliament.
Lord Fitzgerald and Veseysaid, he was extremely sorry he felt himself compelled to protract this discussion by offering a few observations to the House. He was glad, and he was sure their Lordships were also glad, to hear the opinions which had been expressed by the noble Lord who had just spoken respecting a good understanding between the two Houses of Parliament, and he could only wish that other noble Lords would follow so good an example. Their Lordships, however, would be able to judge; for it must be within their recollection whether the language of

1185
the noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government had been in accordance with these sentiments to which he had just referred or not. He apprehended that the instance his noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe) had quoted respecting the progress and origin of the Bill then before the House, and his allusion to the shape in which it had been originally framed, introduced, and adopted by the House of Commons, were perfectly justifiable on the part of his noble Friend, for he was thereby professing his intention of bringing back the Bill to that state in which the colleagues of the Ministry had approved of it; and, however they might have deferred to the House of Commons in the adoption of the amendments that had been afterwards made in the Bill, it was neither unbecoming or unexampled in those who thought it unfitting to admit these amendments into the Bill, to quote the authority of the Government themselves, by referring to a measure that had been introduced by them, and to the labours of a Committee of the House of Commons in the two successive Parliaments, who had produced it to that House, and recommended it to the Government, who accordingly had adopted it. That was simply the course which had been pursued by his noble Friend. It was in that sense he had alluded to and quoted the authority and sanction of the Government, as a just recommendation of the proposition he was about to make to the House. He would not follow his noble Friend through the other topics of his speech, because he did not deem it wise to quote expressions of individuals, or to refer to what had fallen from Members of the other House of Parliament, respecting measures they might have either supported or opposed; but he had heard at no distant time the expressions of individuals in that House quoted as proofs of misconduct, and made the ground of charging their Lordships, as a legislative body, with having acted contumeliously and insultingly towards the Commons House of Parliament, because they exercised their unquestionable right in dealing with certain measures and propositions which had been submitted for their consideration. At first it had not been stated, that their conduct was objectionable, the objection having been confined to the expressions of individuals in their Lordships' House; and yet those expressions which had been used in the
1186
freedom of debate, which at the time had been unquestioned, unobserved upon, and unarraigned, were afterwards used as a taunt, and constructed into a charge against that House of having contumeliously insulted the other branch of the Legislature. This, at least, was not in accordance with the expressions which had fallen from the noble Baron opposite. If there was one expression which he deemed more fitting than another to hail as coming from a Minister of the Crown, it was that expression of the noble Baron's, in which he declaimed upon the importance and necessity of maintaining a good correspondence between the separate branches of the Legislature, each treating the other with that respect which was due to both; for, if properly maintained, they would not have a Minister of the Crown, after assenting to a great and important measure, throwing obstacles in the way of its adoption. But in other times they should have had Ministers who would have concurred in the proposed amendments, and allowed the Bill to pass from that to the House of Commons with their sanction, expressing their regret that they had been controlled by the sense of the other House of Parliament, or recommending to that House, for the sake of harmony and good feeling, to meet the proposition of the Commons in the spirit of conciliation and mutual good will, instead of calling upon the other House of Parliament not to lose six days, not to lose six hours, nay, not to lose six minutes, in the rejecting a proposition to which he (the speaker himself) had been a party. So far from his wishing to meet the proposition, he was himself the very first to raise the standard of rejection, and then let it go forth that they were insisting on what he could not give his consent to. He would not have made any observation upon this subject were it not for the lecture which the noble Baron had treated them to, and the rebuke he had been pleased to apply to his noble Friend, he must say not quite fairly; and also for the purpose of expressing the satisfaction he felt at hearing the sentence with which the noble Baron concluded, as well as to declare his participation in the sentiments it contained—sentiments which he was sure would meet with the approbation of at least the majority of their Lordships.
The Lord Chancellorsupported the clause, and said that the evils resulting

1187
from the inconsistent decisions of 170 Revising Barristers were seriously felt, and required to be remedied, and the plan proposed by the clause was calculated to obviate them. He apprehended that the noble Lord would not deny the existence of those evils. Nay, the very proposition of the noble Lord assumed, that there was something which required correction, for he proposed that all the questions arising out of the decisions of the Revising Barristers should be referred to the judges of the land—that was to say, that the right of voting for Members of the House of Commons should be referred to the judges. [Lord Abinger: and why not?] Why not! Because it was a direct political question. [Lord Abinger: It was a question of law.] So were all questions of political franchise questions of law in one respect; but were they not questions also of politics? From whom were the judges to take their law? Would it not be from the Committees of the House of Commons, who, after all, would have a paramount jurisdiction? Was this a task which the judges ought to be required to perform? To refer to them questions involving the interests of political parties was most objectionable in principle; for, decide as they might, it would subject them to the reproaches of one party or the other. It had been objected that the new Revising Barristers were required to abandon their professional pursuits at the bar. He saw no ground for that objection. The experiment had been already tried with respect to the Commissioners of Bankrupts, and it had succeeded. Besides, the barristers would have ample employment, so that if they were not required by this Bill to confine themselves to their own especial duties, yet, in point of fact, they would not have time to practise at the bar. Then the evil of contradictory decisions, which, under the new system, would, no doubt, occasionally happen, was provided for by having a court of appeal. What could be more wholesome or convenient than the establishment of a Central Court in London, to which all the various decisions of the barristers might be referred? The noble and learned Lord concluded by saying, that the proposition of Lord Wharncliffe admitted, that the present system required a remedy; but he trusted their Lordships would feel, that the proposition itself was objectionable in principle and ought not to be adopted.
Lord Abingersaid, that his noble and learned Friend had assumed that the judges could have no jurisdiction over the right of voting for a Member of the House of Commons. [The Lord Chancellor, No, no.] He was glad to hear that disclaimer, as his noble and learned Friend must remember the decision in the case of Ashby and White, which the House of Lords confirmed, by which it was decided that the question of a right of voting was a proper question to be tried at law. His noble and learned Friend said, that it would place the judges in a delicate position to determine the right of voting: but why should he suppose that the judges would be affected by political motives, because the question they were trying concerned political men? The question the judges would have to try was a question of law only, of which they must necessarily be the most competent judges. His noble and learned Friend had said, that the decisions of the judges would be guided by the decisions of the Committees of the House of Commons. For his part, he had never known any judge receive, as authority, any decision of a Committee of the House of Commons; he had never heard any such decision quoted, or any such citation encouraged. He had always understood it to be the opinion of the most sensible, learned, and constitutional men, that it would be desirable to have a separate tribunal to decide the difficult questions arising out of the decisions of the Committees of the House of Commons. He did not approve of the system of registration, but the true objection against that system was the urging on of registration after registration every year without any interruption. The proper course to adopt would be to have the voters once registered by the overseers, and then allow them to remain on the register till a certain period had elapsed, when the registration might again take place. But this perpetual registration year after year kept the country in a state of excitement most injurious to the quiet and peace of society. He had always thought that the present system of registration never could succeed by the means of any machinery that could be adopted. With respect to the differences of opinion amongst the Revising Barristers, nobody knew better than his noble and learned Friend that differences of opinion among professional men became the subject of constant conversation among

1189
themselves, and that, at last, the better opinion prevailed. Many contradictory decisions had already become settled; and he was satisfied that the differences of opinion would diminish every year, and that, as the experience of the barristers increased, their decisions would finally become uniform. With respect to the appointment of the Revising Barristers, he disclaimed anything like patronage. He was not aware of any change having been made except in cases of resignation or death. On the home circuit he had not made a single change, and the only new appointments made were to supply vacancies occasioned by death. He believed his predecessor had acted upon the same rule; and all the appointments were originally made by Lord Denman. If there were any mode by which more uniform decisions might be obtained, it was that which his noble Friend had suggested, namely, that written cases should b prepared by the barristers where any question of doubt arose, and these cases submitted to the judges. He was quite convinced, that after a year or two such cases would be very few indeed; but when such questions arose, why should the judges be supposed to know for what candidate or for what party, the persons whose votes were in question were going to vote? If any person should have the audacity to tell the judge, "Your Lordships will have the goodness to consider, that if this register be decided so and so, it will be favourable to so and so," would any judge submit to it? He had not, therefore, the least doubt that the plan of his noble Friend would be most efficient, and he did not believe that twenty cases in a year would be brought before the judges after the first year. Another objection to having this tribunal was, that as the barristers would have nothing else to do for a great part of their time, in the course of a short time they would not be competent to do even that; they would lose all their connection with the profession to which they belonged, and would, by confining their views to one class of cases, have their attention so narrowed, that they would lose all knowledge of general questions of law. He therefore thought, that upon principle they would constitute the most objection-able tribunal that could be established.
The Committee divided on the amendment.
Contents 57; Not-Contents 21: majority 36.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Sefton

DUKES.

VISCOUNTS.

Leinster

Melbourne

Argyll

Duncannon

MARQUESSES.

BARONS.

Lansdowne

Mostyn

Headfort

Ducie

Queensberry

Say and Sele

EARLS.

Hatherton

Minto

Holland

Scarborough

Langdale

Leitrim

BISHOP.

Ilchester

Bristol

Albemarle

Amendment agreed to.
Lord Wharncliffeproposed a clause, the object of which was, to prevent persons possessing property in a borough from voting both for borough members and knights of the shire. He had proposed a similar clause in the Reform Bill, and he believed the framers of the Bill intended this by the 25th Clause of that Bill.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the question was not what the intention of the framers of the Reform Bill had been, but what the Legislature had enacted, if any doubt should arise, let it be settled by the new tribunal that was intended to be enacted. He opposed the clause, on the ground that it went to destroy the balance of interests settled by the Reform Bill.
The Committee divided on the motion:—Contents 54; Not-Contents 20: Majority 34.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

VISCOUNTS.

DUKES.

Melbourne

Argyll

Duncannon

Leinster

Falkland

MARQUESSES.

BARONS.

Lansdowne

Mostyn

Queensberry

Ducie

Headfort

Foley

Westmeath

Hatherton

EARLS.

Holland

Minto

Langdale

Leitrim

Saye and Sele

Albemarle

BISHOP.

Ilchester

Bristol.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Sefton

DUKES.

VISCOUNTS.

Leinster

Melbourne

Argyll

Duncannon

MARQUESSES.

BARONS.

Lansdowne

Mostyn

Headfort

Ducie

Queensberry

Say and Sele

EARLS.

Hatherton

Minto

Holland

Scarborough

Langdale

Leitrim

BISHOP.

Ilchester

Bristol

Albemarle

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

The Lord Chancellor

Ilchester

DUKES.

VISCOUNTS.

Leinster

Melbourne

Argyll

Duncannon

MARQUESSES.

BARONS.

Lansdowne

Holland

Queensberry

Ducie

Headfort

Langdale

EARLS.

Hatherton

Albemarle

Mostyn

Leitrim

Saye and Sele

Minto

BISHOP.

Scarborough

Bristol

Clause inserted.
The Bill went through the Committee.
The House resumed, Bill to be reported.