Lords Sitting of 22 May 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS.Public—2a Liberty of the Rules (Queen's Bench); Turnpike Roads (Ireland).
Reported.—Queen's Bench Offices.
3a and passed:—Townshend Peerage.
Private.—laHaddenham Inclosure; Forth Navigation; Walton-on-the Hill Rectory.
2a— Todhunter's Divorce; Story's Estate; Porterfield's Estate.
Reported.—Northampton and Peterborough Railway.
3a. and passed:—Watson's Divorce; Faversham Navigation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Kenyon, from Cambridgeshire, and the Earl of Hardwicke, from Rochford. against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. —By the Earl of Clancarty, from several Unions, against the Irish Poor-law.—By Lord Teynham, from Cocker-mouth, and Uffculme, against the New Poor-law.

POOR-LAW (IRELAND).
The Earl of Clancarty,on presenting a petition from the Board of Guardians of the Ballinasloe Union, praying for inquiry into the working of the Poor-law, said, This petition, as well as a similar one addressed to the other House of Parliament was agreed to, with unanimity, at a very full meeting of the Board, early in the month of March. I regret that, at the present advanced period of the Session, the inquiry prayed for, and which ought to have preceded the introduction of a bill for the amendment of the Poor-law, could not be instituted without a postponement of legislation which would be detrimental to the country; but earlier in the Session, it was a step that sound policy in respect to the Poor-law, as well as a due regard for the universal wish of the Irish people should have induced her Majesty's Government to propose to Parliament, especially after the recommendation to that effect, which shortly before the commencement of the Session, had been made by a numerous and influential meeting of Irish landed proprietors, whose advice and cooperation were respectfully tendered to Government in the very alarming and critical state of things which the excitement and agitation against the Poor-law had occasioned. My Lords, I have in
664
another place been quoted, and rightly so, by my noble Friend, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as being friendly to the Poor-law, and as having testified to its good working in the district with which I am connected; but to some who were present upon that occasion, it appeared that my having as Chairman of a Board of Guardians signed a petition for enquiry into the working of the act, was contradictory of the noble Lord's statement. But I trust I shall not by your Lordships be therefore considered unfriendly to that great measure. The object of the proposed inquiry was not the repeal, but the improvement of the law, and its better adaptation in some of its details to the circumstances of the country. If the law was in principle a bad one, undoubtedly inquiry might and ought to lead to its repeal; but believing as I do that the law is sound in principle, the effect of inquiry could only be to improve it in detail, and to conciliate public opinion in its favour. It is, my Lords, a most just principle, in my opinion, that the land should be chargeable, with the support of its poor, and while, in the workhouse system, I see the only plan on which this principle can be carried out, either with eventual benefit to the poor themselves, or with due regard to the resources of a very poor country, I think the Poor-law has laid the foundation of a most valuable improvement in the constitution of society in Ireland by placing the administration of relief under the superintendence of Boards of Guardians chosen by rich and poor to represent the interests of both. Hereby individuals of different classes, sects, and parties, are brought to act together, and made sensible that, whatever their previous differences, they have henceforth one duty in common— namely, to provide relief for the destitute, and also one common interest in the general welfare, and the improvement of the resources of the country. But, my Lords, while I view the principle of the Poor-law thus favourably, I cannot but be aware, as most of your Lordships, I am sure, are, that very great and general dissatisfaction prevails with respect to it; and that if that feeling is in part the effect of a successful agitation against the act by those who desire to have it repealed; it is also in part justified by the faulty administration of the Poor-law Commissioners; while, with respect to the act itself, it is not perfect. Nor could it reasonably be

665
expected, that so vast, and, as applied to a country circumstanced like Ireland, so novel an experiment should be perfect at once in every particular. I accordingly suggested to my noble Friend, who did me the honour of inquiring my opinion upon the subject, no less than eight different heads of amendment, besides two collateral measures, which were and are in my opinion necessary to render the working-of the law such as it should be; but I, at the same time earnestly recommended the immediate appointment of a Parliamentary committee of inquiry, through means of which misrepresentation might be exposed, real abuses corrected, and the value of the various plans suggested for the improvement of the law, and the opinions of practical and influential men respecting it, brought to the test of public examination. This I am convinced was the proper course to have adopted with respect to a measure of such great national importance, and to the success of which public confidence is essential. It would, moreover, have allayed much of that jealousy which is naturally entertained towards the Poor-law Commissioners, for the vigilance of Parliament is the only guarantee to the public against the abuse of those great powers which are for the present necessarily confided to them. I must, therefore, in laying this petition before your Lordships, express my regret that the course recommended of inquiry has not been pursued, and that legislation, which cannot now be delayed, will not be as satisfactory as it otherwise might have been. I have another petition to present to your Lordships from the clergy of the united diocess of Clonfert and Kilmarduagh. The petitioners pray to be relieved from the undue taxation to which, under the Poor Relief Act they are at present subjected. They do not seek for exemption from their just proportion of the poor-rate, but they complain, and with good reason, that the tax falls more heavily upon them than upon others. It may be in the recollection of your Lordships, that not many years ago, an act of Parliament was passed, depriving the Irish clergy, in my opinion most unjustly, of a fourth part of their incomes. This fourth, my Lords, at present goes into the pockets of those who are, under the Poor-law, authorised to make a further deduction from the tithe rent-charge of the entire poundage of the poor rate. The owners of tithe property are thus made
666
to pay an entire rate upon the actual gross value of the tithes, while the owners of all other kinds of rateable property only pay a proportion of the rate upon an estimated net annual value. When then, it is considered how many deductions are made from the tithe rent-charge before it becomes available as income to the incumbents of livings, and that the low valuations put upon all other descriptions of rateable property, necessarily throws an undue proportion of the tax upon that which is valued to the last farthing, I think it behoves your Lordships, and I would especially beg the attention of her Majesty's Government to the subject, to devise a remedy for so undeniable a hardship.—Petition laid on the Table.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
The Bishop of Exeterrose, pursuant to notice, to present certain petitions relative to projected reforms in the ecclesiastical courts. The petitions were not directed against a bill which was then before the other House of Parliament, but had reference to a subject on which her Majesty's Ministers had pledged themselves—namely, the reform and regulation of the ecclesiastical courts; and the petitioners prayed that those courts in the country which had a right to grant probate might be suffered to remain, subject to such alterations as might be deemed necessary to render them more efficient. It was not surprising, after the sentence that had been passed on them by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in their report, that it should be proposed to remove these courts altogether. That report was made by very eminent men — men eminent in every department with which they were connected. The commission to which his late Majesty confided the duty of inquiring into the course of proceeding in the ecclesiastical courts was composed of pious prelates of the Church, most distinguished judges, civil and ecclesiastical and distinguished practitioners of the law in the eccclesiastical courts. That a report made by such men should be most able was to be expected. Able as that report undoubtedly was, it treated different matters connected with the subject with a very different degree of attention—not always proportioned to their importance. The commissioners had to consider the extent of actual jurisdiction possessed by those courts, and they reported that —

667
"The ecclesiastical jurisdiction comprehends causes of a civil and temporal nature; some partaking both of a spiritual and civil character; and, lastly, some purely spiritual. In the first class are testamentary causes, matrimonial causes for separation, and for nullity of marriage, which are purely questions of civil right between individuals in their lay character, and are neither spiritual nor affecting the Church establishment. The second class comprises causes of a mixed description, as suits far tithes, church-rates, seats, and faculties. The third class includes church discipline and the correction of offences of a spiritual kind. They are proceeded upon in the way of criminal suits pro salute animœ, and for the lawful correction of manners."
The report extended to between seventy and eighty pages, and only the third part of one solitary folio was given to that portion of the subject which more especially related to the interests of the Church, as a church. Now, he would venture to entreat her Majesty's Government, and he would, as this was a legal measure, more particularly address himself to his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack with respect to it—he would venture to express a hope, that any measure contemplated on this subject would not be hastily pressed forward at a time when it was perfectly impossible for the Bishops to be present in their places in Parliament. He held in his hand a copy of a proposed bill on this subject, which had been sent to him by a high legal authority before the Parliament had met, and it was then announced, that some certain measures would be brought before their Lordships' House in this Session with reference to the ecclesiastical courts. They had now, however, arrived at the end of May, and no such measure had been brought before them. He understood, however, that a bill on this subject had been read a second time in the other House of Parliament, but he did not see, nor could he judge from any notice given, that there was an intention to carry it speedily through that House. That bill consisted of 140 clauses, and very great difference of opinion existed with respect to the various provisions of the measure. How, then, after it had been fully discussed in the House of Commons, the bill was likely to be carried up into heir Lordships' House, in any reasonable time for due and proper deliberation, for calm and patient consideration, such as the importance of the subject demanded, he was utterly at a loss
668
to conceive. It could not be expected in that House in proper time to give their Lordships a fair opportunity of bestowing on such a measure that attentive consideration which its important nature demanded. He had said enough, he thought, to justify him in earnestly entreating her Majesty's Government not to allow such a measure to be carried forward at a time when the right rev. Prelates could not be present to discuss its merits. A measure on this subject was not likely to be unanimously agreed to; and, looking at the various interests that were connected with it, he thought it was impossible so to compress them within the compass of one bill as to command unanimity. When he considered the misrepresentation which prevailed on this question with reference to very grave matters, he felt the necessity of proceeding with the utmost caution. Much that was proposed was founded on nothing less than misrepresentation. The intended bill did, in truth, rest On what he would not call false pretension;—no; he did not suppose that there was any intention to deceive. He freely exonerated all those who were connected with it from any intention to deceive, and yet it was extraordinary.
The Earl of Radnorrose to order. The right rev. Prelate, in presenting a petition, was proceeding to animadvert on a bill, which was not before the House. If he understood the right rev. Prelate rightly, he had commenced by saying that the petitions which he was about to present, were not against a certain bill, though they had relation to the subject of that bill; but now the right rev. Prelate was actually proceeding to discuss that very measure.
The Bishop of Exeter:I pledge myself that I am not discussing the measure to which the noble Earl refers. The paper I hold in my hand is not the bill to which allusion has been made. It is not the same, and I submit that in referring to if I am not out of order.
The Earl of Radnor:I did not say, that the right rev. Prelate had the bill in his hand. I stated, that he was, as it appeared to me, animadverting on a bill, which is now pending elsewhere.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, he was about to state the provisions of a measure which" had been sent to him, and he believed to every Bishop, embodying the intentions of her Majesty's Government On

669
the subject of the ecclesiastical courts. He believed that he was not out of order in referring to the contents of that paper, and making such remarks on it as he might think necessary. He did not mean to go into the whole question, his object being merely to entreat her Majesty's Government not to force such a bill through Parliament this Session. The bill contained what amounted to a sup-pressio veri, and led to a false conclusion being drawn; it led to the belief that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had recommended a transference of jurisdiction in testamentary and matrimonial matters from the ecclesiastical to lay courts. He appealed to the recollection of those right rev. Prelates and noble Lords present, who had formed a part of the Ecclesiastical Commission, if they had ever recommended anything so vague as the transference of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction elsewhere, even in testamentary and matrimonial matters. He most cordially assented, that such matters as these might be properly transferred to a civil court; but the recommendation of his right rev. Friends near him had. been that the jurisdiction on these matters should be referred to the two provincial courts; and their Lordships would permit him to remind them that these courts were ecclesiastical courts. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners recommended that all matters testamentary and matrimonial, should be transferred from the diocesan to the provincial courts.
The Lord Chancellor:I understand that the bill before the other House of Parliament differs from the paper in the right rev. Prelate's hands. I understand, that the right rev. Prelate is now commenting on a bill in his hands which does not correspond with the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. At the same time, the right rev. Prelate tells us, that the bill in his bands does not correspond with the bill before the other House of Parliament. I submit to the right rev. Prelate that under these circumstances it is a mere waste of time to go on. If the right rev. Prelate says, that there is a bill in the other House of Parliament, and that these particular clauses upon which he is commenting, correspond with clauses in the bill in the other House of Parliament, that is another question. I ask whether they do correspond?
The Bishop of Exetercontinued: The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack
670
has said, that I have made a declaration with respect to a bill in the other House of Parliament.
The Lord Chancellor: No; I did not say that at all. I said the right rev. Prelate is comparing with the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners a paper which he holds in his hands, and which he condemns, and at the same time, he says, that it does not correspond with the bill before the other House of Parliament. I ask, therefore, what is the use of discussing that paper, unless the right rev. Prelate will take on himself to gay that it corresponds with the bill in the other House of Parliament?
The Bishop of Exeter:I do undertake to say, that it corresponds with that bill.
The Lord Chancellor: Then I understand my right rev. Friend is as irregular as possible in discussing the clauses of a bill before the other House of Parliament, and not before this House.
The Bishop of Exeter: The noble and learned Lord has not said, that I am departing from the orders of the House in saying that the paper I bold in my hand, is a bill to be brought into Parliament by her Majesty's Government at some time or other.
The Lord Chancellor: I hope the right rev. Prelate won't understand me to express myself in any way disrespectfully when I say it is an idle waste of time to discuss a paper which does not correspond with the bill in the other House of Parliament, and if it does correspond with, that bill, then the discussion is irregular.
Lord Kenyansaid, his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had interrupted the right rev. Prelate in a manner which was quite out of order. He had suggested to the right rev. Prelate, that the course he was pursuing was not out of order, but inexpedient. Now, the right rev. Prelate ought himself to be considered as the best judge of the way in which he would discuss the question, and all who had heard the right rev. Prelate address the House would agree with him (Lord Kenyon) in thinking that there were few men who knew better hour to conduct an argument than the right rev. Prelate; and with-respect to order, be (Lord Kenyon) thought him completely within the rules of the House.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to say, that he was perfectly in order, because he had asked whether or not the clauses of

671
the bill which the right rev. Prelate held in his hand, did correspond with the bill in the other House of Parliament, and the right rev. Prelate admitted that they did; and to discuss the clauses of a bill on the Table of the other House of Parliament through the medium of a copy which the right rev. Prelate held in his hands was most irregular, and out of order. With all deference to the noble Lord, he was perfectly in order in the course which he had pursued.
The Earl of Wicklowthought the noble and learned Lord, by putting such a question, had been out of order. The noble and learned Lord had no right to put that question to the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate appeared to him (the Earl of Wicklow) to be perfectly in order in the whole course which he had taken; he had begun by presenting a petition, and had not referred to any bill in the other House of Parliament, and he had a perfect right in presenting a petition to make use of what argument he pleased.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, the noble Lord on the Woolsack had a perfect right to ascertain whether the right rev. Prelate was in order or not, and on finding how the right rev. Prelate had answered the question put to him, every noble Lord had a right to call him to order. It was a matter of judgment whether or not it was fitting to discuss the clauses in the paper the right rev. Prelate held in his hand; and as to the suggestion that it was wasting the time of the House —that was not at all, he was sorry to say, out of order.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the question he had put, relative to wasting the time of the House, required explanation. The time of the House was never wasted. But the fact was, the right rev. Prelate was such a master of language, that he was certain, that the difficulty which the right rev. Prelate had in expressing himself arose from his endeavouring to avoid alluding to a bill in the other House of Parliament. He would put it to the right rev. Prelate's candour whether it were right to attempt to do indirectly that which he could not do directly.
The Bishop of Exeterwould endeavour to address their Lordships in a somewhat better way. He had said that he was alluding to a bill not in the other House of Parliament, but to the copy of a bill sent to him before the commencement of the
672
present Session. The noble and learned Lord had put it to his candour not to allude to a bill before the other House of Parliament. He felt bound to do his duty, and to impress on their Lordships the necessity that no such bill as that a copy of which he had received before the present Session of Parliament should be pressed on that House at a time when his right rev. Friends near him could not be present. He would in his turn, appeal to the candour of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and ask him, as one of the Members of her Majesty's Government, if it were right to stop him by asking a question in order to put him out of order, whilst he availed himself of a communication made to him before the Session of Parliament commenced to warn their Lordships against the injustice and unreasonableness of pressing such a measure through Parliament at a time when the bishops could not be present—a measure which, whatever the character of the bill elsewhere, professed to deal with the whole system of the established Church, and with its most sacred rights as a church considered purely as a church? Was it then to be endured that a measure of this enormous length, running to 140 clauses, should be brought to that House in the month of July, for earlier it could not reach them? He appealed to the noble and learned Lord's candour whether this was tolerable.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, as the bill at present stood it was in the other House of Parliament. It was impossible for him to say at what time it would come to their Lordships' House. If it came at a period of the Session when it was impossible to pass it, because those who were interested in its passing were necessarily absent in the performance of other duties, he, for one, should not accede to its passing. He should act inconsistently to the opinions which he had expressed, and to the course which he had pursued on former occasions if he did; for he had submitted this argument as a reason for not entertaining bills when brought up to that House at a late period of the Session, and he should apply precisely the same rule now. He hoped that that explanation would be satisfactory to the right rev. Prelate.
The Bishop of Exeter: Most entirely. He understood that the bill was not to be pressed through the Parliament if the

673
bishops were unable to attend? If his understanding of the noble Lord's meaning were correct, the noble and learned Lord would have done more to save their Lordships' time by stating as much in the first instance than by other observations.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had been taken by surprise by the questions of the right rev. Prelate. If the right rev. Prelate would allow him to make an inquiry with respect to the stage of the bill in the other House and when it would he probable that it would be brought to that House, and if the right rev. Prelate would inform him when the right rev. Prelates were likely to be absent, when he had ascertained these facts, if he found that the bill could not be brought up to that House with time to he fairly discussed, he should recommend the other Members of the Government not to press it forward this Session.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, after that explanation, he should be ashamed to press the discussion one moment further. He had gained the assurance of the highest authority that this bill should not be pressed through Parliament when the bishops were absent.
The Bishop of Lincolnsaid, after the personal appeal which had been made to him as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners who had signed the report, he begged to say, that the question of the transfer of matters testamentary and matrimonial to a purely lay tribunal, had never been proposed to him on that commission; and such a transfer of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction had never been contemplated for a moment. The commissioners had merely recommended that the jurisdiction of the diocesan courts should be transferred to the provincial courts, which, as his right rev. Friend had stated, were ecclesiastical courts.
Petition withdrawn.

THE TOWNSHEND PEERAGE.
Lord Broughammoved the third reading of the Townshend Peerage Bill.
The Earl of Devonhad abstained from taking any part in the discussion of the amendments which had been made in the bill, but now that the measure was in a perfect and complete state he wished to make one or two observations upon it. He thought, in the first place, this measure was an improper interference with the prerogative of the Crown. Without a mes-
674
sage from the Crown, the House had taken upon itself to deal with the question of the succession to a peerage, which ought to have been decided by the Crown, on the advice of its law officers and the aid of this House, a few years hence; and though this bill should become the law of the land the Crown would still he left in this position —namely, to deal with the fourth son (who is not included in the provisions of the bill), in the same manner as the hill proposed to deal with the first and other sons Therefore, in the end, the measure would not relieve the Crown from the difficulties of the case, while it made a most gratuitous invasion of the law and constitution of the realm. But apart from the question of succession to the peerage, he begged to ask, was it right to set this first example of dealing with the rights of property in the mode the hill under discussion did with estates which might hereafter form the subject-matter of litigation. The ground upon which alone the noble and learned Lord who had taken charge of the bill, and those who supported him, ventured to call for this very extraordinary remedy was the existence of a present grievance. Now what was the pre-sent grievance? What was the present wrong affecting the party legitimately entitled to the succession? It was alleged in general terms that the parties declared by the bill to be illegitimate were assuming the privileges which appertained to the sons of a Peer; and one argument which a noble and learned Lord had used was, that one of these illegitimate persons stood, and still claimed to stand, near the Throne of this House as the son of a Peer. Now, though there was no precedent for such a measure as that now before their Lordships, there was a precedent which went to the point urged by the noble and learned Lord to whom he referred. A claim had been made on a former occasion to stand near the Throne, and that claim was brought under the consideration of the House, and the conclusion at which the House arrived was, that it was not such a claim as to justify its interference. The precedent, therefore, as far as it went, was against the argument urged by his noble and learned Friend. If it were proper that the House should interfere, he contended its interference ought to have had its origin in a message from the Crown, in the same manner as their Lordships were frequently called upon to advise the Crown on questions as to the right of succession,

675
when a peerage was vacant, as, probably, but for this bill, they might have been called on for advice with reference to this very family. It was not necessary for him to point out the remedy which might in this instance have been obtained; it was sufficient to say, there was not that existence of present wrong which called for their Lordships' interference. But it had been said, that it was necessary to adopt this measure, in order to perpetuate the evidence. Why, there were four or five witnesses to every material fact, who would, in all probability, be alive, or some of them at least, when the question would properly have arisen; and it was, to say the least of it, rather extraordinary, that the bill does not even allege any such ground for this proceeding. But even if it were necessary to perpetuate the evidence, he must say, after reading the testimony adduced, nothing could have been easier by the ordinary mode of effecting that object. It was only in the last Session of Parliament that a committee recommended, and the House adopted a mode of proceeding by which an individual might render the direction of the Court of Chancery true evidence, bearing upon a case like the present, preserved by a course of proceeding to which every individual, not a Peer, must still be contented to resort. And he repeated that the bill failed in the object it professed to achieve. True, by this bill, the Crown was told, on the death of the Marquess Townshend, not to send the writ of summons to the three eldest children born of the marriage—that was of the Marchioness Townshend—because the House interfered, and said they were illegitimate; but that the writ might be sent to the fourth son, Cecil Mina Bolivar, who, if he chose to represent himself as the legitimate son, and apply for the writ, would, in the usual course, go 6efore the Attorney-general of the day, who would investigate the circumstances, and without any assistance from this bill would have to decide. And if the fourth son chose to claim the estates of the Townshend family, that question would have to be tried by a jury, audit was not an impossible case that a jury, looking at the evidence under the direction of one of the judges of the land, might come to a contrary conclusion to that at which their Lordships had arrived. Under all these circumstances he still entertained the strongest objections to the bill. The observations he had made were, however, rather to satisfy his own conscience than
676
offered with a wish to give the House any trouble by dividing upon a measure which he could not but regard as a very dangerous step.
Lord Broughamsaid, his noble and learned Friend had fallen into a very material error in supposing that all the witnesses, four or five in number, would possibly be forthcoming when the question of succession to the honours of the Peerage was opened. Two of the most important witnesses were very far advanced in years. One of them, Mr. Neri, was a most important witness as to non-access; and another was an old lady, seventy-one years of age. Her evidence might be supplied, but that of Mr. Neri certainly could not.
Bill read a third time and passed.

RULES OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH PRISON.
Lord Cottenhamrose to move the second reading of a bill which had become necessary in consequence of the alterations which had taken place in the law with respect to prisoners in confinement for debt in the Queen's Bench, more particularly those who were now in the enjoyment of that permissive liberty granted by the Marshal of the prison usually called the Rules of the Queen's Bench. It had been determined by the bill of last Session, that prisoners for debt of all descriptions should, after the expiration of a certain period, be compelled to come within the walls of the prison. It had been since represented that, as those persons paid to the marshal a sum of money for that privilege whilst in confinement, they ought to be on that account, exempt from that regulation of the bill passed last Session. The object of the bill which he now proposed should be read a second time was to provide for that case, and to give the marshal of the Queen's Bench Prison a power to continue, notwithstanding the bill of last year, the rules to prisoners during their imprisonment for the said debt. It was his intention, after moving that the bill be read a second time, should that motion be successful, to move that it be committed, for the purpose of negativing that motion, and passing on to the third reading of the bill; as there was a possibility this regulation of the act alluded to might come into operation before this bill could receive the Royal Assent.
The Lord Chancellorhad no objection to the bill, provided he was assured by his

677
noble and learned Friend, that the bill was so framed that those persons detained in prison for debt, and enjoying the rules, were left in precisely the same situation with respect to the rules that they were in prior to the passing of the last act of Parliament. The privilege of the rules had always been granted subject to the discretion of the marshal, who had a power at any time to withdraw the rules without assigning a reason. Although the regulation respecting granting the rules might be in many instances reprehensible and absurd, he could not see any good reasons why those who had procured the rules, and paid for them, should not be suffered to enjoy them.
Bill read a second time, motion for committee negatived, bill to be read a third time on the following day.

INVASION OF SCINDE.
The Marquess of Clanricardethought it his duty to make a very few observations, in asking the questions which he meant to put to her Majesty's Ministers, in order to justify himself, and make the matter intelligible to others. Their Lordships Would recollect the proclamation to which he drew the attention of their Lordships two months ago, and the interpretation he had then not on that proclamation. He was then told by the noble Lords in their speeches, and the vote of their Lordships was in concurrence with those speeches, that he was in error, and had misunderstood that proclamation. To one part of that proclamation he had made no objection; in truth, he cordially concurred in it, and be believed, that there was no person in the House or out of the House who did not approve of it. He alluded to the statement of the Governor-general of India to the effect that the Indian government thought it was not its duty to meddle with the Concerns of the neighbouring states, that it Was not inclined to seek any accession of territory, and that it possessed the strongest inclination to preserve the peace in India. But he would read the paragraph:—
"Content with the limits nature appears to have assigned to its empire, the government of India will devote all its efforts to the establishment and maintenance of general peace, to the protection of the sovereigns and chiefs, its allies, and to the prosperity and happiness of its own faithful subjects."
And further—
"Sincerely attached to peace for the sake of the benefits it confers upon the people, the
678
Governor-general is resolved, that peace shall be observed, and will put forth the whole power of the British Government to coerce the slate by which it shall be infringed."
Their Lordships could hardly know at the time when the Indian government made these professions of peace, what would be the proceedings of the noble Lord who had issued that proclamation. But there arrived information in England in the month of April, or rather rumours, that an English force had entered Scinde. It Was said, that we bad made great and increasing demands on the Ameers of that country with whom we were then at peace; that our demands were not complied with, that they were enforced by our army: and that in the end a battle had been fought, the Ameers had capitulated, and their country had been taken possession of. Their Lordships would no doubt suppose, that official intelligence had reached this country of the demands which led to this battle, and it was concerning those demands that he required explanation. The Ministers, too, he thought, must be glad of an opportunity of giving the public their views and their explanation of the transaction, which, as it was at present reported and described, seemed not creditable to the British Government of India. With what face, he asked, could that Government, after having used such language as that he bad read, engage in operations in India so different from the promises of the noble Lord, the Governor-general, and described by him as most dangerous? The principles laid down in the proclamation differed so widely from those the noble Lord bad acted on—in the one case professing a desire not to enlarge the British territory in India, and in the other case sending an army into Scinde, and making large demands, that it seemed as if the noble Lord, the Governor-general, acted from caprice. He thought, therefore, that it was most desirable to know if the Governor-general had written home to explain his policy, and to show that his conduct was based on just grounds. He had no doubt, that the Governor-general had given some explanation in writing of his proceedings. The first question, therefore, which he wished to ask was, whether the Government at home had received from the Governor-general any information or intelligence of the grounds on which the Indian government had made any demands on the Ameers of Seinde, and had thought necessary to enforce them by the operations

679
of an army within their territory, according to the intelligence brought by the last overland Indian mail? The next question, as he understood the operations were not yet over, at least there were reports to that effect, referred to another part of the subject. In the Gazette of the 9th of May, there appeared a notification of the Governor-general, in which he said, that he hoped that—
"The assent of the Ameers of Scinde would have been carried into full effect, as they had been agreed to by their highnesses without a recurrence to arms."
He would ask, then, what had excited our agent to make the additional demands which he had ventured to propose? The third question he had to put was, as the demands had not been agreed to by the Ameers of Scinde, what was the immediate cause of hostility between them and our army? It seemed, that other demands had been made after the Ameers of Scinde had agreed to place their signature to a treaty conceding the first demands. That led him to put another question, which was suggested by the information received, or rather the reports, or rumours, that were in town, that after the Ameers had conceded one demand, and had signed the treaty, the envoy had produced greater demands; and it was stated, that his further making and enforcing those additional demands led them to commit the outrage on the person of the agent, and led to those hostilities which ended in a battle, and to dreadful carnage. The notification of the Governor-general stated, that the Ameers of Scinde had committed a gross act of treachery. He implied, that they had consented to sign a treaty, and afterwards had attacked the envoy suddenly, and declared their hostility, fie should be glad to learn whether that were the case. It was impossible to say, but a slight knowledge of human nature would lead to the suspicion that it could not be as was described. If the Ameers wanted to be guilty of an act of treachery, they would scarcely have adopted such a mode, but would have attacked the envoy while the treaty was under discussion, as had been done in Affghanistan, in the case of Sir W. M'Naghten. He had hitherto referred only to facts, and matters which had gone by, and there was no reason to suppose that they could now prevent the consequences; but there was another matter which concerned the future, to which he would allude. He supposed that information had been sent to
680
the Government, and therefore he would so far ask respecting the future, though he admitted that it might be difficult for the Government to give him an answer. In the notification he had already referred to there were two paragraphs which he should read:
"Thus has victory placed at the disposal of the British Government the country on both banks of the Indus, from Sukkur to the sea, with the exception of such portions thereof as may belong to Meer Ali-Morad of Khyrpoor, and to any other of the Ameers who may have remained faithful to their engagements."
"It will be the first object of the Governor-General to use the power victory has placed in his hands in the manner most conducive to the freedom of trade, and to promote the prosperity of the people of Scinde, so long misgoverned."
The Governor-general then was about to use the power which victory had given him as might be most conducive to the freedom of trade, and to the prosperity of the people who had long been misgoverned. The question, then, which he wished to ask was, whether the territory alluded to by the Governor-general of India was to be incorporated with the territorial possessions of the British Government in India? That question was suggested by the paragraphs he had read. The Governor-general had decided that he would remedy the misgovernment under which the people had hitherto suffered. The Governor-general, too, by his declaration as to land, seemed to treat this territory as if it were at his disposition. He had some doubts whether the country would be satisfied with the annexation of the territory to our possessions in India. He was not quite sure as to the law, but he believed that it was not in the power of the Governor-general to take upon himself to annex such a considerable territory to our possessions without the sanction of the directors of the India Board or the Government at home. He admitted that there might he a great difficulty in answering the question; still he would like to know if the rumour were correct. He mentioned it only as a rumour; he had no authority for the statement, further than the general source of information open to all their Lordships; but there was a rumour that the military operations were not yet brought to a close; and when the Governor-general talked of incorporating Scinde with the territories of British India, he was, perhaps—to use a common saying—selling the skin before he had slain the beast. He

681
had no doubt, whether an answer were given or not, that the subject was important, and it behoved their Lordships to make the inquiry. He had not hesitated to express his opinion on a former occasion of the acts which had been done, and he should like to be informed accurately of what had since been done. At the same time, he must say, that he did not approve of it, so far as he was enabled to form a judgment by the explanations which were before the country. The public saw in these hostilities an act of aggression, which the declaration of remedying misgovernment and encouraging trade did not justify, but made it only the more resemble acts of policy in other times and countries to which England had been opposed, and which had been generally condemned by the public opinion of Europe. Such was his view of the subject as it was at present explained. He believed that the country would not approve of the military occupation of Scinde; for it took place, it should be recollected, at a period soon after we had been engaged in another war, where we had had to rely on the forbearance of the Ameers. It might he a valuable possession, but it would be purchased too dearly if we obtained it at the sacrifice of our character for integrity, good faith and fair dealing, which was of the greatest importance to our power in all parts of the world, and particularly to the preservation of our Indian empire.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid it was truly said by the noble Lord that the Government could not answer a rumour. The noble Lord had stated that there was another military affair [No, no]— was the fact. There had been another military affair, but of the result of that military affair no person in the country could give any account whatever. There might be rumours, but noble Lords could not expect her Majesty's Ministers would notice rumours. He would state facts, and they would give the noble Lord answers to the questions the noble Lord had put on the subject. The noble Lord referred to the proclamation which the Governor-general, issued previously to the last military affair, but of the intentions of the Governor-general I know no more than the noble Lord. With respect to the other question put by the noble Lord, he must say that a proposition was made to the Ameers of Scinde to alter the existing treaty. Negotiations followed, which
682
ended in those signatures being affixed to the treaty. That treaty was signed on February, the 13th, and then the resident agent went to his residence in the neighbourhood of Hyderabad. After the treaty was signed, namely, on the morning of the 15th of February, the agent and his escort were attacked by the troops of the Ameers from Hyderabad. He defended himself, with the assistance of his escort, fighting for four hours, and then retired to his steam-boats on the Indus; they were fired into and pursued up the Indus. The consequence was, that Sir C. Napier moved forward for the protection of the residents, a battle ensued, which was valiantly fought on the 17th of February; the army of the Ameers was beaten, they were captured, their cannon were taken, and Hyderabad was surrendered. After receiving an account of these proceedings the Governor-general had issued the proclamation referred to. When all the accounts had reached this country there would be no objection to give the House every information.
The Marquess of Clanricarde.I did not understand from the noble Duke whether instructions were sent from home to demand any portion of the country of Scinde?
The Duke of Wellington.No.
Subject at an end.

QUEEN'S BENCH OFFICES.
House in committee on the Queen's Bench Offices Bill.
Lord Lang dale:My Lords: Before the House is put into committee on his bill, I take the liberty of observing that it involves a principle to which I have on a former occasion stated my objections. The Government has no more important duty, nor has the country any more important interest, than to provide the means of administering justice; and it has long appeared to me, that in order to the due discharge of this duty, the Government ought to pay not only the salaries of the judges, but also the salaries of all the ministers of justice and all official expences; or in other words that no fees for the support of the judicial establishment and of the law offices ought to be levied on the suitors in particular causes. It was on this account that when the Act 7 William 4th, and 1 Vict, c. 30, was under the consideration of your Lordships,

683
I objected to the enactment which provided that certain salaries, compensations, and expenses, were to be paid by means of fees, and that the surplus fees were to be paid into the Exchequer. I confess that the opinion which I then stated, met with no favour from your Lordships, and that it was emphatically opposed by two of my noble and learned Friends who are not now present. Amongst other things it was stated that I was under a great mistake in supposing that any revenue was to be raised from the fees received in the courts of justice. The act passed, and the bill now before your Lordships provides in a similar manner that fees shall be received, that there out certain salaries and expenses shall be paid, and that the surplus shall be paid into the exchequer. It has therefore seemed to me proper, on this occasion, to consider the operation and effect of the former act, on the model of which the present bill is in this particular framed. And from an account which in the course of the last year was laid upon your Lordships' Table and printed, if I have correctly collected the results, it appears that in the four years ending on the first of January, 1842, the receipts in the three Courts of Common Law under the Act 1 Vict. c. 30, amounted in the whole, to the sum of 279,427 l.; that there were surpluses after paying the salaries, compensations, and expenses, which were payable under the act; and that in the same four years such surpluses amounted in the whole to the sum of 120,714 l., which was accordingly paid into the exchequer. Thinking myself, that the whole official expense of administering justice ought to be paid by the country, it appears to me that the whole sum of 279,427 l. was in these four years raised by fees, for the payment of charges which ought to have been paid out of the public revenue; those who do not entirely agree with me will probably not deny, that to the extent of the 120,714 l. paid into the Exchequer, the public revenue has profited at the expense of the suitors of the three superior courts of common law in the four years to which I have referred. But it is necessary to make a further observation, because in addition to the compensations which the act makes payable out of the fees, there are other compensations to a considerable amount which are yearly paid out of the consolidated fund to persons who were
684
deprived of their offices under the act; and I am aware that there are, unfortunately, many persons who think that fees may be properly levied on the suitors for the purpose of paying such compensations; and, that notwithstanding the charge upon the consolidated fund, it may be just to set off these Treasury compensations against the surplus fees paid into the Exchequer. This appears to me to be wholly unwarranted; but it may be important to ascertain whether the surplus fees do or do not exceed those compensations. The account to which I have referred contains a statement of the compensations paid out of the consolidated fund for one year only, the year 1841. They amount in the whole to 57,553 l.—and, if I have computed correctly, part of them amounting to 26,670 l. was payable under other acts of Parliament, and the remainder, consisting of the compensations payable under the act 7th Will. 4th and 1st Vict. c. 30, amounted to 30,883 l.; and deducting this sum from the sum of 38,068 l., which was the amount of surplus fees paid into the Exchequer, in the same year, 1841, from the three courts, it appears that the public revenue in that year profited even after! payment of these Treasury compensations J to the amount of 7,184 l. The surpluses paid into the Exchequer, from the two Courts of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas, appear, indeed, to have been insufficient to satisfy the Treasury compensations payable to the persons who held offices in those courts, but the surplus paid into the Queen's Exchequer by the Court of Exchequer was so much larger than the Treasury compensations which were paid to the persons who held offices in that court, as to leave on the whole a balance of 7,184 l. of profit to the revenue. I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying, that under the act of 7th Will. 4th and 1st Vict. c. 30, the fees levied in the courts of common law have become a source of public revenue; and I cannot help thinking it incumbent upon those who declared that this was not intended, to take such steps as are in their power to correct the admitted grievance. The questions relating to the expense of administering justice and the proper mode of defraying it, are too large and important to be discussed incidentally upon an occasion like the present; but they appear to me to deserve the most serious attention of your Lordships and of Government. I do not

685
mean to offer any opposition to this bill, I think that it is likely to be useful: it is in one respect better than the former bill, as it enables the judges to establish, and afterwards to modify and vary the fees which are to be raised—but as it involves the same objectionable principle, I thought it my duty to restate my opinion, strengthened as it is by subsequent reflection and experience. My Lords, before I sit down, I request your Lordships to permit me to say a few words which have reference to the Court of Chancery. Holding the opinions which I have this day expressed, it may reasonably be asked, how it is that I have not only acquiesced in, but approved of the measures which have been recently adopted in that court? The answer is short. The reforms to be made were very important, and they could not be effected without providing a revenue, not only to pay the office expenses and the salaries of the officers, by whom the work was to be done, but also to pay compensations to officers who lost their offices. I was given to understand that. Government would contribute nothing for these purposes; and the necessary consequence was either that the suitors must be taxed for the purpose of raising the sum required, or else that the reforms must be altogether abandoned. And after painful consideration of the subject, I came to the conclusion, and am now of opinion, that on the whole it was better to make the reform and continue the charge on the suitors for the limited time during which the compensations may be payable, than to perpetuate the charge together with all the inconveniences and evils which it had become so desirable to remedy. And some fees being abolished by the reform which was made, I agreed in the necessity of substituting a new but temporary burthen in lieu of the old one which but for the reform would have been perpetual. As the compensations fall in, the charges will be diminished; and at length the salaries and official expenses will alone have to be provided, and by the reform those salaries and expenses are between 50 and 60 per cent less than they were under the old system. I have said that the Government refused to contribute to the expense. I say it with regret, but without the least thought of accusation or blame. The revenue was embarrassed, the subject has been but little discussed, it is not now well understood, and there are many per-
686
sons who still think that it is good to make litigation more expensive than it need be. I must add that I think no other administration would at this time have done otherwise than refuse to contribute to their necessary expenses. Saying this, I must at the same time declare that in my opinion the refusal of the Government to contribute to the expense of reforming the Court of Chancery is the only defence or excuse which is open to me and those with whom I have had the honor to act, for continuing the burthensome fees which now oppress the suitors of that court. There is this consolation, that complete and effectual relief can at any time be afforded by a simple vote of Parliament for money. The complication and perplexities which rendered the reform of the Six Clerks' office so difficult, are removed.
The Lord Chancellorentirely agreed with the noble and learned Lord in principle. He did not go so far as to say that the Government should bear the burthen of all these changes, but he thought that when the amount of fees received by the Exchequer exceeded the charges, the surplus should be applied to reduce the amount of the fees payable by the suitors, and he had no doubt that this course would be pursued whenever there was a surplus, which was not the case at present. He must, however, observe that the charges had not been increased to the suitors on account of the reforms in the Court of Chancery, and there was a favourable prospect, as far as the suitors were concerned, that the fees would be reduced as the payments for compensation ceased.
Bill passed through committee.
The House adjourned, at a quarter to eight o'clock.