Lords Sitting of 4 July 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Chapels of Ease (Ireland); Benefit Building Societies.—Read a first time: —Suits in Equity.—Received the Royal Assent:—Sugar Duties; Revenue Departments Securities; Bankrupts' Funds; Dublin Police; Waste Lands (Ireland); British North American Bank; Dublin Steam-Packet Company; and a Number of Private Bills.

THE WAR IN SPAIN.
The Marquess of Londonderrybegged to be allowed to say a few words in postponing the notice he had given, with reference to the letter moved for by the noble Duke on the cross bench (Richmond) on the 19th of May last. He (the Marquess of Londonderry) should not have moved for the production of that letter himself, because he felt that any discussion as to the state of the war in Spain might be attended with some inconvenience to the public service; and considerable reserve had, therefore, been shown upon the question on his side of the House. But he did expect, when the noble Duke on the cross-bench had moved for that letter, bearing, as it did, on the disgraceful and disgusting manner in which the British troops had been engaged in the war, he would have favoured the House with some observations on the subject. That noble Duke declared himself free from all party; the motion he made some time ago on the subject of the Irish Municipal Corporations appeared to have exercised considerable influence on the course pursued by Ministers elsewhere; he had also shown great dexterity in bringing down a noble Earl the other night, who had before taken leave of political life, and whose speech from the same cross bench had been so much praised by both sides of the House, although he could not say with much justice; the noble Duke sitting on that cross-bench, and exercising so much influence, ought, after moving for the production of the letter in question, to have directed the attention of their Lordships to the subject. The question now related not only to the state of the war in Spain, but concerned the profession at large; it came home to every soldier;

1165
for it was impossible to say whether, as matters now stood, if Lord John Hay were taken to-morrow, summary punishment would not be inflicted on him. For God's sake let things remain no longer in that state; the King's troops and ships could not be employed in that service without involving Government in a responsibility of the most frightful character. But in consequence of the absence through indisposition of his noble Friend, the Duke of Wellington, whose opinions were entitled to so much weight on every thing connected with the Peninsula, he was induced reluctantly to postpone his motion. He hoped that the Session would not pass over without their Lordships having their attention directed to this subject, and with out Ministers being called to account.
The Earl of Mintorejoiced, that it. would not be necessary for him to say one word, either as to the reasons which the noble Lord had given for thinking that these questions ought to have been put some days ago, or as to the reasons which he had assigned for thinking, that as those questions had not been put then, they ought not to be put now. He wished, however, to offer one observation in reply to those which had just been offered by the noble Earl. The noble Earl had said, that one of his reasons for not putting these questions now was, that he apprehended the discussion might be injurious to the public service, and that he observed, on the part of his Majesty's Government, some shrinking, which looked like reluctance to enter upon it. Now, in reply to that observation, he would say, first, that he saw no inconvenience likely to arise to the public service from the questions of the noble Earl; and secondly, that he himself had no reluctance to answer any question put to him by the noble Earl consistent with his duty to the public. He said this, that it might not be supposed that he shrank in the slightest degree from this discussion. He thought that the noble Earl's speech was rather addressed to the noble Duke on the cross-benches than to the Members of his Majesty's Government, and he should therefore leave the noble Duke to reply to it. The noble Earl had condemned the war in Spain, had said that it was a new and anomalous state of things, and had asked in what character did this country appear in it. His (Lord Minto's) answer to that question was, that our country appeared there as an ally
1166
under the treaty of quadruple alliance. Under that treaty we were bound to send an auxiliary naval force to co-operate with the forces of the Queen of Spain. There was nothing new or anomalous in their appearance in the field in that character. Whenever the noble Earl asked his questions he should be prepared to give them a distinct answer.
The Duke of Richmondwould not enter at present into the question of the propriety of the war in Spain. When that question was regularly before the House, he should be ready to give his opinion upon it. He could not, however, permit the noble Earl to say that the noble Earl late at the head of his Majesty's councils (Earl Grey) had recently come down to the House upon his (the Duke of Richmond's) persuasion. That noble Earl had come down of his own accord, by his own consent, to his own great honour and credit, and had displayed in his speech of that night the same spirit of disinterested patriotism which he had displayed upon every occasion during a long life. That noble Earl had come down, and had made a speech which he could have wished to have had that influence on the cross benches which the noble Earl said that it produced. That speech must have convinced many, but he was sorry to see, that however much it might have influenced, and would long continue to influence, the people out of doors, it had not changed the vote of a single noble Peer. He was not the noble Duke who had persuaded the noble Earl to come down on that occasion. He wished to God that he had such influence over the noble Earl, for if he had, he would bring him down as often as he could to assist and benefit the deliberations of their Lordships.
The Marquess of Londonderryhad never supposed that the noble Duke had used compulsion to bring the noble Earl down to the House. The noble Duke however, and the noble Earl together had made a formidable diversion in support of Ministers. He should be most happy to have the noble Earl and the noble Duke as his allies; and in saying that, he hoped he should not be accused of saying any thing disrespectful to either. He thought that his Majesty's land forces were placed in extreme peril in Spain by the course pursued by General Evans. The noble Earl need not flatter himself that he had got out of the scrape yet; he would have

1167
enough of it before the close of the Session.
The Earl of Mintohad derived his in formation from sources less public than those of the noble Marquess; and from all that he had heard and seen, he apprehended that General Evans would proceed in the same gallant career of success which he had hitherto pursued.
Conversation dropped.

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BILL.
Lord Lyndhurst Lord Lyndhurst, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that all that was necessary for him to state in support of this motion at present was, that this Bill was intended to follow up the intentions which had been partially expressed in one of the Reports of the Commissioners on the law of real property. Unfortunately, before those Commissioners had made their fourth Report, the time for making it had expired, and their Commission had not been renewed. Mr. Tyrrell, who was a member of the Commission, had, in consequence, prepared the heads of a Bill which had been circulated extensively among the members of the profession, and had been very generally approved of. A Bill prepared on those heads had been presented to the House of Commons in the Session of 1834. It was sent to a Committee up-stairs, and there underwent some alterations; but owing to those alterations, and to the multiplicity of provisions which the Bill contained, it had not passed during that Session. It was nevertheless circulated extensively, and was approved universally. The object of the Bill was shortly this:— Their Lordships were aware of the intricate nature of the law of real property in this country. The main reason of that intricacy was, that it applied the ancient institutions of the law to the new habits and circumstances of the country. The law of conveyancing was full of forms, distinguished by great prolixity, and, at the same time by great nicety. The object of this Bill was to lessen the prolixities and to get rid of the niceties which formed so constant a subject of litigation in the Courts of Law. He would illustrate his meaning by two instances. In all ordinary conveyances, the mode adopted was by deed of lease and of release. The deed of lease was rendered necessary to put the purchaser into possession of the property, in order that he might be in a situation to take the benefit of the deed of release. Now this Bill would substitute one deed, which would have the effect of the two old deeds of lease and of
1168
release. Again, where a party wished to convey property to himself and to his wife, it was necessary at present to convey it first of all to trustees, and then to convey it through them back again to the party and his wife. Now this Bill would substitute one direct deed of conveyance for the other two. These were samples of the objects of the Bill, and having made this statement, he hoped that he had said enough to convince their Lordships that it ought to be read a second time.
The Lord Chancelloragreed in the principle and the propriety of this Bill. The rules of conveyancing ought to be adapted to the circumstances of the property of the country. There were some details in this Bill from which he differed, but he would reserve them for discussion in the Committee.
The Bill read a second time.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
The Earl of Shaftesburymoved, that the Church Discipline Bill be committed.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, his objection to this Bill was, that it introduced Jury trials upon new principles. The Bill ought to state more clearly in what way these Juries were to be summoned, or how the chairman was to decide on the character, property, and even existence of offending clergymen. He bad prepared some clauses on the point, and wished them to be printed for the consideration of the House.
The Bishop of Exeteralso had some clauses to propose in points which now pressed heavily on the Church. At pre sent, it was hardly possible to carry on proceedings against a delinquent clergyman, in consequence of the enormous amount of the costs. If they made the costs extremely light, they might be overwhelmed with the number of applications for proceedings, but at the same time they should not be of such magnitude as almost to prevent the possibility of proceeding. The object, therefore, of the clause which he wished to propose was, that there should be some species of precognition in cases of this kind, which should have jurisdiction somewhat to the same effect as that now exercised by the Grand Jury. He also intended to propose, that provision should be made to have a promoter of the proceedings against a clergyman, against whom an accusation was brought.
Lord Wynfordcomplained of the clause which subjected prosecutors to costs in case the prosecution failed; but expressed him-

1169
self generally favourable to the measure, and anxious that, after it had been amended in a few particulars, it should be allowed to pass. He hoped that the noble Lord on the Woolsack would consent either to such a postponement as would afford him sufficient time to prepare his amendments, or do that which he considered the better course—viz., to send the Bill to a Select Committee up-stairs, not, however, he could assure their Lordships, with any view on his part to the final rejection of the measure, which he trusted might be rendered highly serviceable to the interests of the Church.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas obliged to the noble Lord (Lord Ellen borough) for the assistance which he was ready to afford in the amendment of this Bill; but it appeared to him that the noble Lord, though he decidedly expressed his approbation of the Bill, had, nevertheless, at the same time objected to it, and, in some respects, he thought rather unfairly. The clause of which he had complained in particular, was no departure from the ancient laws, but actually in accordance with the present custom at Doctors' Commons. For his own part, however, he was disposed to support that proposition, be cause it was necessary that some security should be afforded to clergymen against malicious and unfounded prosecutions. He was acquainted with several instances in which the want of some remedy of the nature now proposed, had been attended with grievous and oppressive effects upon parties who had been unjustly accused. He had himself, when Bishop of London, been engaged in a case respecting the patronage of a school, in which a caveat had been entered against his licence, which he forbore to sign until it should be deter mined to whom the right belonged. The prosecutor who commenced this case, was not at the conclusion of it, in any way before the Court, and he himself was accordingly left to pay the costs to the amount of 70 l. or 80 l. He had no objection to the postponement of the Committee; his object was to get as good a Bill as possible, and he knew not how that could be better effected than by having all the amendments printed, for the consideration of the House.
Lord Lyndhurstwished to call their attention to one part of this measure. It appeared that the mode of proceeding, according to the Bill, was to be this:— A citation was to be issued to the party
1170
charged., then the charge given in writing, and the answer to that charge was then to be given in; after which a Jury would be summoned to try the case. But suppose the charge was not a valid charge in law, what would be the consequence of that proposition? Why, that the Jury would have to deal with a matter entirely out of their province, for the object of a Jury was to decide questions of fact, and not points of law. Their Lordships knew, that in such cases, at common law, the proceeding was by a demurrer.
Bill committed pro forma,