Lords Sitting of 28 July 1843

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—2ª Cathedral Churches (Wales); Loan Societies Act Continuance; Controverted Elections; Slave Trade Treaties Act Continuance; Bills of Exchange Act Continuance; Stock in Trade Act Continuance; Militia Ballots Suspension; Public Works (Ireland).
3a and passed:—Woollen, etc., Manufactures; Sessions of the Peace.
Received the Royal Assent—Church Endowment; Apprehension of Offenders; Appeals, etc., Privy Council; Marriages (Ireland); Salmon Fisheries; Scientific Societies; Norfolk Island; Schoolmasters Widows' Fund (Scotland).
Private.—Reported.—Infant Orphan Asylum; Barry Navigation (No. 2).
3a and passed:—Rochdale and Manchester Roads.
Received the Royal Assent.—Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway; Great North of England, Clarence and Hartlepool Junction Railway; Dundee Harbour; Bolton Water Works; Liverpool Watering; Paisley Municipal Affairs; Milne's Free School; Northampton Improvement; Londonderry Bridge; Tay Ferries; Bardney Drainage; Inchbelly (Glasgow) Roads; Sutherland Roads; Walton-on-the-Hill Rectory; Marquess of Abercorn's Estate; Dowager Countess of Waldegrave's Estate; Jackson's Divorae.
PETITION PRESENTED. From a Society at Shepton Mallet, for Establishing a Bishopric at Manchester.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE.
Lord Wharncliffemoved the second reading of the Bills of Exchange continuance Bill.
Lord Monteagleobserved that there was no law which more required to be permanent. They now had an experience of six years, which ought to enable them to judge of the propriety of the measure. He had first introduced it, intending it to be permanent, and so he thought it ought now to be made. Whilst it continued the usury laws applied to nothing except securities on real estates, which were thus placed under a disadvantage when the rate of interest was high.
Lord Wharncliffethought they had not sufficient experience to say that this ought to be the permanent law of the country.
The Lord Chancellorobserved that by passing the bill now they would have two years and a half more to think about it.
Bill read a second time.

SERVIA.
Lord Beaumontrose to ask a question of the noble Earl, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with respect to Servia. Circumstances had there taken place which he feared would be drawn into a precedent by Russia, and would be used in an exceptionable manner. Their Lordships were aware that the Sublime Porte, having been abandoned by the other powers of Europe, was obliged to consent to the terms proposed by Russia, and the late election of Prince Georgewitch was declared null and void. The governing vizar was recalled, and another election was to take place, according to the rules and regulations of the constitution of that country. The Porte consented to these terms, not disguising the humiliation it had undergone. Hamil Pacha was recalled, and a Circassian sent in his place. The firman of the Porte was read openly at Belgrade. The Servians would not consent to some of the terms; they refused to submit to the provisional government, and they denied that the original election was void or contrary to their wishes: but knowing that the Porte had acted contrary to its own wishes with reference to Prince Georgewitch, they consented to the re-election. To any other terms they would not assent. The people refused to allow the minister who was recalled to proceed to Constantinople as had been demanded by Russia of the Porte. The election was appointed for the 17th, and it took place on the 27th, ten days afterwards. That election must have falsified all the expectations of the noble Earl, for Prince Georgewitch, a man of 40, although it was thought he was only a boy of 20, again met the people and was unanimously re-elected, and so proved that his former election was not opposed to the desires of the people. Nor were the two ministers dismissed, although the noble Earl had unfortunately described their characters in not the most flattering terms; they proved to have been the faithful and confidential servants of
1382
the prince whom the people elected, who also trusted the servants themselves. At that election, however, circumstances occurred which were contrary to former fir-mans granted by the Porte. There were present at the General Assembly two Russian commissaries, and their right to be present was not found in any treaty between Russia and the Porte, or in the fir mans granted by the Porte to Servia, under none of which had Russia a right to interfere with the internal relations of Servia. After the election the prince had to refer the choice to Constantinople. Servia and the Porte had relations with each other, but there was nowhere a mention of any right for Russia to interfere. The presence of these commissioners, however, led parties to imagine that Russia had a right, and, as a consequence, that she had the same right in Servia as in Moldavia and Wallachia, which were under the joint protection of Russia and the Porte. The question which he had to ask was, whether, in consequence of the recent events in Servia, and the diplomatic relations between the Porte and Russia, the noble Lord now acknowledged or disavowed the exclusive right of the Porte, or allowed that Russia had a right directly to interfere with the internal affairs of Servia, or whether he still maintained that Servia was an integral part of the Ottoman empire, and that Russia had no exclusive right to interfere, and no right except in common with other neutral powers, to give advice?
The Earl of Aberdeenreplied, it certainly was true that an election had taken place of a prince in Servia. as alleged by the noble Lord, the result of which gave him (the Earl of Aberdeen) quite as much satisfaction as it did the noble Lord. Perhaps it would not be wise to examine too curiously the proceedings of that election, unanimous as it appeared to be. They knew enough of popular elections to be aware that it was not very easy to ascertain the precise amount of corruption or of intimidation by which they were brought about. With the result however, he professed that he was as perfectly satisfied as the noble Lord. As to the question itself the noble Lord was quite as well able to answer it himself as he (Lord Aberdeen) was. The pretensions of Russia were founded upon treaties which had been laid upon the Table of the House, and the hatti-sheriffs of the Porte had

1383
also been communicated to the House. On those the pretensions of Russia rested. How far the claim of Russia, with respect to interference in the internal affairs of Servia, were correct, he could not say: there certainly was a difference in this respect between Servia and the relations with Moldavia and Wallachia, but the extent of her obligations and of her rights in consequence of treaties, it was for Russia to interpret. He apprehended that Russia, like other independent states, would interpret her own engagements, and would not submit to any interference of third parties. England was no party to those treaties, nor was she interested in them, except so far as their execution might affect British interests, or the general state of the tranquillity of Europe. If the Russian interpretation of those treaties should lead to any thing affecting those interests, undoubtedly this country would be called upon to interfere. But if the noble Lord thought that Russia had no more right to interfere than neutral states, the assertion was unfounded, because Russia had treaties, and as we had none, we of course could take no part whatever. It appeared to the noble Lord, because Russian commissaries were present at the election, that therefore, this country was called upon to interfere, but he thought we had matters of much more importance to attend to than any such occurrence. With respect to the question as to the relation between Russia and the Porte, with respect to Servia, whatever they might be, they were entirely different from the relations of the same country with respect to Moldavia and Wallachia.

LAW REFORMS.
Lord Campbellwished to ask a question of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. On the 2nd February, the commissioners authorised by her Majesty, and in her name, gave this intimation:—
" We are commanded by her Majesty to acquaint you, that measures connected with the improvement of the law will be submitted for your consideration."
He had been waiting with impatience and anxiety to know what those measures might be. No measures, however, connected with the improvement of the law had been submitted to their Lordships till last night, when his noble and learned Friend laid on the Table a bill enabling
1384
the Lord Chancellor to have affidavits in the Court of Chancery, which were sworn in Ireland and in Scotland, taken before commissioners appointed by him, instead as hitherto had been done, by judges and magistrates in Ireland and in Scotland. He should be glad to know whether this were the bill referred to by the Lords' commissioners in their speech in her Majesty's name at the opening of the Session? He confessed that he had rather expected his noble and learned Friend would have submitted a bill, founded on the report of the commission for inquiring into the bankruptcy and insolvency laws, and for consolidating the law and the tribunals by which the law was administered. Such an alteration had been strongly recommended by a commission appointed by the Government. He had likewise thought that some bill would have been introduced for remedying the enormous inconvenience to the country parts of England, relative to the new law for the administration of bankruptcy proceedings, whereby fixed tribunals were placed at such immense distances, that in many places the whole estates were swallowed up, and in some instances the parties had to travel 150 miles. He had expected that such measures would have been introduced with all expedition; but the only bill for the improvement of the law was this bill about affidavits. The question he had to ask was, whether this bill, brought forward at last on the 27th of July, was the "measures" announced by the commissioners in the name of her Majesty, on the 2nd of February. If it were. the bill was introduced rather late, and contrary to the doctrine which his noble and learned Friend used to enforce so strongly, that important measures should be introduced at the early part of the Session. He did not object to the hill, he was glad to see it, and would be glad to see any others in the right direction, but he wished to know whether this was the bill referred to in the commissioners' speech in the name of her Majesty, and if others were to come, when they might expect to have them brought forward?
The Lord Chancellorbegged to say, that the bill had been once or twice already before their Lordships' House; and it had not passed only because of some objection in point of form relative to its extension to Scotland. it was not

1385
his own bill; it was the bill of his noble and learned Friend who had preceded him on the Woolsack. The bill was founded upon one already passed with respect to the Court of Queen's Bench. It had never been considered a Government measure, and his noble and learned Friend, by the facetious way in which he put his questions, obviously did not understand that this was meant as one of the measures of law reform. With respect to the Bankruptcy Bill, at which his noble and learned Friend had made a sly hit, the merits of the bill had been discussed by his noble and learned Friend, and the result was, that he had not dreamt of going to a division; he had been so beat and damaged in the discussion, that the motion was withdrawn. There was, however, an important measure pending the House of Commons for improvement of the County courts, and for the trial of small claims, founded on a bill which he (the Lord Chancellor) had introduced last Session, but not going so far, and therefore in his opinion, not so good. Another measure had been also introduced there, recommended by a committee and a commission, after much inquiry, and which was one of the measures of law reform alluded to in her Majesty's speech. He meant the bill for the reform of the ecclesiastical courts. Objections had been made to it. Those objections had been obviated; but it had not made any progress on account of the course taken by parties connected with his noble and learned Friend. He rejoiced that his noble and learned Friend had mentioned the subject, and he hoped there would be an opportunity of discussing the obstructions offered to the course of Government, and the legislative business of the empire.
Lord Campbellhad made no objection to the bill already introduced. His noble and learned Friend dexterously knew how, when he had no defence on the question under discussion, to raise another question which it was not meant to discuss. The affidavit bill might be a very good bill, but why had no other law reform been proposed? His noble and learned Friend had referrrd to what had taken place in the other House of Parliament, but he wanted to know, in the first place, why the bills were not introduced into the House of Lords? Why was not the County Courts Dill brought into the
1386
Lords? He apprehended that they were as capable of discussing the law bills as the other House of Parliament; but, said his noble and learned Friend, "there has been a course of obstruction." Was it from his noble and learned Friend, that he heard complaints of "obstruction?" Had there, however, been any obstruction in their Lordships' House? Had not his noble and learned Friend had the power at any time of bringing the County Courts Bill and the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill into their Lordships' House, where, as his noble and learned Friend well remarked, he had such a commanding majority as to make it quite useless to divide the House? It was hardly possible to expect, with the strength of his noble and learned Friend, that a division should have been demanded on the bankruptcy motion. His noble and learned Friend could, indeed, command such a majority in that House as would enable him to carry any measure he proposed, and if he had brought into their Lordships' House the County Courts Bill, and the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, he would have carried both. Then, however, his noble and learned Friend said, "There has been obstruction from those with whom you are connected." He gloried in that obstruction, if his noble and learned Friend referred to the discussions which took place on the Irish Arms Bill. He regretted sincerely that he was no longer a Member of the other House, to take a part in those discussions. Did his noble and learned Friend know the merits of the bill, and that it was so badly drawn, that even his own Attorney-General could hardly interpret a single clause? He had a regard for an Attorney-General having an esprit du corps, and he was sorry to find any Attorney-General placed in such a position as hardly to be able to construe a single clause of a bill he was obliged to support. The obstruction arose from an imperfect and bad measure being introduced, and it had been obstructed in a constitutional manner. It should be recollected also, that an offer was made to the Government when the bill was first introduced, that if they would be content with the same bill as had been passed in former times, there would not be the smallest opposition to its passage through both Houses of Parliament. No excuse had been offered, nor anything like one, for the remissness of his noble

1387
and learned Friend in not bringing forward measures of law reform in the beginning of the Session.
Lord Broughamwould not complain that this matter had been brought under discussion, he would rather complain of disappointment at the frustration of hopes encouraged by the terms of the speech from the Throne. The bright prospect had been clouded over only within the last three or four days; the cup of legal reform had been suddenly dashed from his lips just as it was approaching them, and the question was why, how, and by whom? He agreed that those measures might have been introduced here, but that would have made no material difference in the passing of them; he had formerly made a similar objection, and the effect had been, that the law reform bills of last Session, seven in number, had been first introduced into the House of Lords, where they met with no opposition, and were sent down to the Commons, where they were allowed to fall to the bottom of the well, and were not fished up again until near the end of the Session. The consequence was, only two or three were passed, and the others were abandoned on account of the state of public business. Thus the course recommended by his noble and learned Friend had been tried and had failed. Nevertheless, the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill and other bills had been brought in early in the present Session, but in consequence of the opposition to other measures, it had been impossible to proceed with them. The Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the Poor-law Bill, and the Factory Bill had therefore not been passed, and, looking at the state of public business, he for one, had but little hope that the County Courts Bill would become law this year. He looked at the votes of the other House, and he saw that thirteen, sixteen, and eighteen divisions had taken place in one night upon matters of comparatively little importance; and some of these were not upon the novel parts of the Irish Arms Bill of this Session, but upon old clauses, such as were in the bill when it was supported by his noble and learned Friend, when he was Attorney-general. He had heard it said in the streets that one individual who had taken a leading and merciless part against the Irish Arms Bill—merciless not so much towards the measure, as towards those
1388
who were compelled to attend its no-progress night after night—had said that he would resist not only every clause, but every line, word, and letter of the bill. He had carried his threat of opposition into effect, and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) had said that he gloried in this opposition; on the contrary, he deeply deplored it, because the consequence had been the loss of three or four measures of most valuable legal reform, such reform as had not been seen within the walls of Parliament for many years. He had been told by a noble Friend that the new parts of the Irish Arms Bill were most important improvements upon the old law; that the additions were better than all the rest of the bill, which, without them, would be inoperative. Such might be the fact; he should be able to see whether it were so, when the measure came from the Commons, and in the mean time he would only say, that his objection to it was, that it was restricted to Ireland. It ought to have been extended over the whole empire for lie did not see how any part of the kingdom could have a right to complain if such a law were passed.
Lord Campbelladverted to the zeal with which his noble and learned Friend had rushed forward in defence of the Lord Chancellor. The fellow feeling between them on these subjects was remarkable. It was just as if the Woolsack were divided between them—or at least as if his noble and learned Friend wished to divide it. Ere long, perhaps, a joint commission would be made out for them both, and the House would then have the advantage of two Lords Chancellor.
The Duke of Wellingtonrose to order. There was no motion before the House.
Lord Campbellwould remedy this defect by concluding with a motion.
The Duke of Wellingtondoubted whether that would remedy the irregularity. The discussion had begun by asking a question, which had been answered. The noble and learned Lord had given no notice of motion, and the whole seemed to him irregular.
Lord Campbellsaid, that when he thought the whole matter at an end, up started his noble and learned Friend to the rescue of the Lord Chancellor. [Lord Brougham: You spoke a second time.] The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had not gained much by the defence

1389
set up by his double, inasmuch as he had forgotten the facts and circumstances of the last Session. The Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, for instance, had not been introduced into the House of Lords at all, it had only been laid upon the Table of the House of Commons. In the same way he had been mistaken as to other measures, for the Bankruptcy and Lunacy Bills had not been passed by their Lordships until quite at the close of the Session. If the measures of legal reform had been first brought forward in this House, and sent down to the Commons before Easter, the cup would not have been so cruelly dashed from the lips of his noble and learned Friend. With regard to the Irish Arms Bill, the new clauses might make some of the old ones objectionable; the provisions for branding arms and for domiciliary visits might make clauses, otherwise innocent and harmless, most oppressive and injurious. He moved that the House do adjourn.
The motion was not put and the subject dropped.
Adjourned.