Lords Sitting of 17 April 1845

MINUTES.
Sat first.—The Lord Maryborough, after the Death of his Father.
BILLS. Public. — 1a. Sugar (Excise Duties); Auction Duties Repeal.
2a. Sheriffs (Wales).
3a. and passed:—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Glass Duties; Customs (Export Duties).
Private.—1a. Birmingham and Staffordshire Gas Light Company; Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate; Forth and Clyde Navgation; Amicable Society Assurance.
2a. Kingston-upon-Hull Docks; Ellesmere, Birmingham, and Liverpool Canals Union.
Reported. — Birkenhead Company's Docks; Birkenhead Commissioners Dock; Thames Navigation Debt.
3a. and passed:—Sparrow's Herne Road.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Clergy and others of Llangorwen, and several other places, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Earl of Powis, from Tang-mere, and numerous other places, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor, but in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop of Manchester—By the Bishops of London, Worcester, Chester, and St. David's, Earls Huntingdon, Eglintoun, Falmouth, Eldon, Malmesbury, and Powis, Lords Feversham, Kinnaird, and Redesdale, and by the Marquess of Breadalbane (45), and Viscount Combermere, from Viear and others of Holne, and a great number of places, against Increase of Grant to Maynooth.—By the Earl of Ripon, from Legislative Council of New South Wales, praying the Privilege of Importing Wheat and Flour into the United Kingdom at a nominal duty.—By Bishop of London, from Cannock, and several other places, for the Suppression of Intemperance, especially on the Sabbath; and from Becclesin, and 5 other places, for the better Regulation of Beer Houses.—

843
From Eastern Mandit, and several other places, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—From Maghemfelt, for Encouragement of Schools in connexion with Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Earl of Eldon, from Landowners and others of Warcham, for Protection to Agriculture.—By Lord Monteagle, from Tradesmen and others of Manchester, for Repeal of Insolvent Debtors Act Amendment Act.—By Bishop of St. David's from Convil-in-Elvit, and several other places in Wales, for the Establishment of Local Courts. — By Lord Wharncliffe, from Presbytery of Dunkeld, for Improving the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).

RAILWAYS.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he had been intrusted with a petition to which he must beg the attention of the House. It was the petition of five individuals who were the creditors of certain turnpike trusts in England, and the prayer was, that Parliament would make some provision for the protection of their interests, as in consequence of the introduction of railways, the securities on which they had embarked their money were daily becoming depreciated in value. No less than 8,000,000 l. were embarked in the different turnpike trusts in this country, 500,000 l. in Wales, and about the same in Scotland, making altogether an aggregate of not less than 9,000,000 l. sterling; and the misery which had been occasioned by the depreciation of this property was alarmingly great. In one instance which he would mention, in the course of one year, the receipts from the trusts had fallen from 1,800 l. to 800 l. He had before him the two Railway Clauses Consolidation Bills, the Bill for England, and the Bill for Scotland. In the Scotch Bill there was a clause giving compensation to the owners of this description of property, but there was no clause of the kind in the English Bill. He envied the Scotch the success which they had obtained in this respect; but he trusted this same measure of justice would be extended to England. There was another case relating to the oppression of landowners by railway companies, which he would mention to the House. He would only mention this one case: in fact, he received so many cases of this description, that he was obliged to make a selection from them. Two ladies, and a gentleman who had married the third sister, were the owners of an estate in Essex of 200 acres, which was a flourishing concern. A railway already run through it. Of that they did not complain, for it might perhaps be a benefit; but now came six other railways—the first railway had taken to itself six others more wicked than itself, and then these petitioners
844
were under the dread of having seven or eight railways passing through their little estate—at the rate of two to each lady, and one over. These seven or eight railways were to cut through this unhappy farm of 200 acres, and to cut it up into pieces about the size of the table at which he was standing. How was the farm to be managed? How could any farming operations be carried on? He did not make any charge against the Railway Board, for that Board, he believed, had reported against several of these railways; but the projectors said, "We do not care for the Board, we will beat the Board in the House of Commons, which will pass our Bills." There might be some truth in this, for the House of Commons might be called the "Railways" House as well as the "Commons" House of Parliament. Under these circumstances, the petitioners came to the House asking for protection. Railways were encouraged on the ground of the public good; and if they were all established voluntarily, and not oppressively and tyrannically, let them all succeed. But that was not the case. Nothing could be more advantageous to the people than good farming, and above all, the support of agriculture; the increase, and certainty, and abundance of food. He should always support his noble Friends in their reasonable demands—their reasonable demands. Much depended upon the construction put upon the word "reasonable." He was encouraged to try an experiment himself, seeing how easily Railway Bills got through Parliament. He would establish an Agricultural Joint-Stock Company, with all the customary machinery of proprietors, shareholders, directors, chairman, and deputy-chairman, surveyors, and a number of practical farmers as assessors. He would be very liberal of shares to their Lordships. In some parts of the country the farming was abominable; nine-tenths of it were not properly cultivated for want of that capital and skill which a company could apply. His company, therefore, would be a public benefit, because it would improve agriculture and increase the stock of wheat out of which the people were to be fed, and thus give them cheap bread. What would signify the interests of a few landowners? Were they to be allowed to keep possession of land which they farmed badly—land which, properly speaking, was public property, and not

845
the property of the individual? Ought they not to be compelled to give up the land to a company which would apply more capital and industry to it, and produce a great deal more food for the sustentation of the people? He was certain he should have all the friends of humanity on his side as well as all the agriculturists, certainly all those whom he should put in his schedules, for he would have schedules with the names of the parties, and the description of the land, whether arable, pasture, or meadow. He should call upon some of his noble Friends to part with their lands for the good of the people. If they did not part with it voluntarily, he would say, as was said in the case of Lady Georgiana Fane, which he mentioned the other night, "it will be all the worse for you, for I shall treat those the worst who venture to oppose me." And if you talk about compensation, he would say, "you must take what I choose to give you after I have got my Act of Parliament passed." This may be very oppressive to some hundred individuals—to some few individuals—but what is that in comparison with the interests of the public at large?—and the benefit which would accrue from the employment of capital, and the application of an improved system of agriculture, and of better drainage to the cultivation of the soil? More wheat will be produced, and what signifies the driving a man away from his family mansion? The railroad is the point, and these things are every day done by railway companies. But to speak seriously, he must express his deep regret that this matter had not been taken up many years ago. The Government should have laid down the great lines that they meant to have—one to the north, one to the south, one to the north-east, and so on. These private companies might be afterwards permitted to bring in bills in conformity with the great lines laid down by the Government. In concluding, he should say that the statement of these petitioners who affirmed that they were able to prove their case before their Lordships' House, ought to be taken into consideration. There was another subject which he wished to mention. If a man went into a Court of Law and proved his case, he obtained costs against the wrong doer, and he (Lord Brougham) thought that the same principle ought to prevail with regard to railways. And he should, therefore, beg
846
to lay an Order on the Table of the House which would compel railway companies to pay costs to the parties aggrieved, who came before the Committees of Parliament to establish their rights. This was a third additional Standing Order, and he should now lay it on the Table of the House for future consideration.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that he entirely concurred in the observations which had been made by his noble and learned Friend. It was now impossible to remedy the evil with regard to English railways, but, with respect to Ireland, they had a carte blanche. The Government, if they chose, might point out what lines would be most advantageous for the country, and they might thus prevent that system of gambling which had been so injurious not only to individuals, but to the public. He hoped also, that the Government would not compel parties in that country, who proposed a railway which was likely to pay to a certain distance, to carry it on to a terminus where it was sure not to pay.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that though he was as anxious as his noble and learned Friend to put an end to this gambling mania of which he had made so much complaint, yet he trusted that he would not, as he proposed, throw an obstruction in the way of forming railways. He had several years ago suggested that Government should follow the course then recommended; but the reason why this was not done was the fault of Parliament itself, as it did not contemplate the vast speculations which were now under their eyes, and which so deeply affected the property and means of communication throughout the country. He repeated, that at an early period he had expressed an opinion that Government should indicate the several lines; but for various reasons this course was not taken, and the railways were allowed to go on to an immense extent without control. With respect to what had fallen from his noble Friend who spoke last, he could hardly think that the state of Ireland was the same as England on this subject, for before one railway was formed in Ireland he had moved an address for the appointment of a Commission, composed of the most able and eminent men, to investigate the subject, so as to point out which lines were the best. These gentlemen had made their report, and although it

847
did not receive the sanction of Government, still it had been so generally accepted by both Houses of Parliament and the public, that all the railways in Ireland had been adjusted in reference to the principles laid down in the Report. As for the Standing Order suggested by his noble and learned Friend, that all costs of proceedings before a Committee on a railway should be paid by the company, it would be nothing more nor less than a bounty on litigation. He also thought that, as in France, the framers of a railroad should only have a temporary and not a perpetual tenure of it. He thought that it would have been only fair that at the end of a certain period the railroads should become public property. This was the casein most of the Continental nations, and no difficulty was found in raisins capital for their formation. He would not mention any particular period, but some of the lines in France were held for ninety or seventy years, while one was held only for forty-five years. It was now too late to do so with existing lines, but they should make regulations with respect to future lines.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he only proposed the payment of costs should rest on the discretion of the Committee.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PARISH OF UPPER CHELSEA.
The Earl of Cadoganthen rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice respecting the new church erected in the parish of Chelsea. The noble Earl was understood to say that he had never attempted to address their Lordships under circumstances of more painful embarrassment. The difficulties which he felt were of no common character; in the first place, because he deeply felt his own inadequacy to address their Lordships on any subject; and, in the next place, because the question he had to bring before them was of a nature so complicated as to require greater powers of reasoning than he possessed to bring it fully and fairly before their Lordships' view. He regretted also that he should be obliged to appear in opposition to a right rev. Prelate, whose powers of mind and whose general character stood so deservedly high in the House. He had hoped that the right rev. Prelate would have entertained this Motion favourably; but he could not
848
help mentioning to the House the observation with which he was met by that right rev. Prelate, when he mentioned to him, as he was in duly bound to do, his intention to bring this subject before their Lordships. The observation of the right rev. Prelate was, that this was a Government question.
The Bishop of London: That is quite a mistake. Such an observation never crossed my mind.
The Earl of Cadoganbegged the right rev. Prelate's pardon. His right rev. Friend might not remember the words, but assuredly his words were, when he (Lord Cadogan) intimated his intention to bring forward this question, "You know this is a Government question."
The Bishop of Londonagain repeated that he had not used those words. What he did say was, when the Government chose to bring forward this subject he would meet it.
The Earl of Cadoganwas very sorry if he had misunderstood the right rev. Prelate. The question which he was about to bring under their Lordships' notice was one which had been reported in other places out of the House to be a question of no importance—that it was a question affecting only a private individual, and not of interest to the public in any way whatever. But, in his opinion, the question which he was about to submit did involve a very considerable public principle—it involved no less a principle than the administration of a public fund by a public Board. It also involved a question of what he conceived to be an encroachment on the rights of one party by concession on the part of another; and, from the peculiar situation in which he was placed, he now felt it to be his duty to stand forward to protect their rights. The grounds on which his complaint was founded were, that the Commissioners for building new churches did, under the Acts 58 and 59 Geo. III., and 3 and 4 Vict. with consent of the Bishop of the diocese, assign over to the rector of the parish of Chelsea the surplus of the pew rents of a new church built there, which ought, in his opinion, by Act of Parliament, to have gone to build a house for the rector. [Having read in full the clauses in the Acts to which he had alluded, the noble Earl proceeded]:—When he had formerly brought forward this matter the

849
right rev. Prelate made a statement which he supposed contained the whole of his case; and though he did not feel himself entitled to reply to that at the time, yet he would now take the opportunity of making a few remarks on it. The right rev. Prelate stated to the House that this was simply a question of accounting for the surplus pew rents. That if the Commissioners under the Act of Parliament 58 and 59 Geo. III., which provided that all the surplus pew rents should be appropriated to the building of rectory houses, when they found, as the Commissioners did, that that surplus was not sufficient, then they had come to Parliament for fresh powers; and accordingly, the Act of Victoria authorized them to give the whole of the surplus pew rents to the rector of the parish for his own use and benefit. The right rev. Prelate also stated that it was this which had excited his (Lord Cadogan's) displeasure. Displeasure was not the word; but he would show the right rev. Prelate the grounds on which he objected to it. With regard to the assertion that the funds were not sufficient for building a rectory house, he found that the surplus pew rents amounted to 135 l. a year. Now he thought the best course to take in ascertaining whether that sum would be sufficient for the purpose, was to have the present residence of the rector valued; and he found that it was worth from 1,400 l. to 1,500 l. But there was a site for a rectory which he could point out, much more convenient in every way, and much nearer the church, the cost of erecting a rectory on which would be at the outside 1,100 l. or 1,200 l, Now he had made a calculation on the subject, and he found that instead of requiring twenty years before the sum would accumulate sufficiently to build the rectory, which it must be admitted was a hopeless case, it would not be seven years before they would be ready to build. He appealed to their Lordships whether or not that would be the case; and even if there were a deficiency, the Commissioners might have come forward in aid in this case, as he knew they had done on former occasions. [The Bishop of London: Not in any one case.] Not, perhaps, in building houses, because he did not believe that any had been built, but in building churches. With regard to this parish, he would ask the right rev. Prelate to bear testimony whether the parishioners had not
850
always shown readiness to come forward in support of any object for the spiritual benefit of the parish. Here the fees had been so assigned to the rector, who had been for seven years in the parish, a subscription had been entered into for building a rectory, which amounted to between 300 l. and 400 l. Now what was the reason assigned for this conduct? Was the population of the parish increased? Because by the Act of George III., the stipend was to be apportioned according to the numbers and the population of the parish. But he did not see that this reason could be assigned, because, in point of fact, the population attached to the mother church had decreased in consequence of the two new churches having been built in the parish, which considerably diminished the duties of the clergyman. Now, he would ask if it was consistent that they should increase this rev. gentleman's salary while the population of the parish was decreasing? He thought it was a great hardship, and he also believed that it was illegal, as it was in direct contravention of the Act 58th of George III., with which the Acts of 3rd and 4th Victoria were in perfect harmony; and the rector was well able to afford its loss; he was a person otherwise of good income, and for five years after he had been inducted to the parish he never received it, and never complained of wanting it; but so soon as the Act of Victoria was believed to give the Commissioners the power, he went before them and said, could they allow this irregularity to go on any longer? There was one other point connected with this question which he wished merely to state to the right rev. Prelate. He had already alluded to what passed between him and the right rev. Prelate; and he had also strong reasons for thinking that a correspondence must have passed between the right rev. Prelate and the rector; and he wished to know whether there would be any objection to laying the correspondence upon their Lordships' Table? He had now pretty nearly stated all he had to say on the present subject; and he felt grateful to their Lordships for the attention they had given him while he had so inadequately brought the case before them; but he had done the best he could. He might state further, that when he had an interview with the rev. gentleman on this subject, he thought that the rev. gentleman might have treat-

851
ed him with more courtesy. He was told by the rev. gentleman that this fund was his own private income; he would not even allow the sum to be called public. He asked, why would you take 135 l. from me to build a rector's house for my successor? He had then appealed to the right rev. Prelate; and though he had certainly been treated with every courtesy, yet he had been unable to obtain satisfaction. Under these circumstances, he had no alternative but to bring the case before their Lordships; and he begged now to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the assignment of surplus pew rents by the Commissioners, and whether or not it was expedient that those funds should be invested in the hands of trustees for the purpose of building a rectory house, pursuant to Act 59 George III.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, he would not occupy much of their Lordships' time with this subject, for if he were fully to enter into the subject it would occupy much time. Before he proceeded, however, he wished to answer the question which the noble Earl had put to him, whether or not there had been any private correspondence between the rector of Chelsea and himself, and whether be would have any objection to produce it. Now, that was a question which he was certainly not bound to answer; but he had no hesitation in answering it, for the sake of removing any misapprehension that might exist in the noble Earl's mind. He had no objection to produce any correspondence that might have passed between the Commissioners and Mr. Burgess; but letters might have passed between Mr. Burgess and himself which were of a strictly private nature, and which could not be produced. Of course he could not state all that might have passed between a clergyman and his bishop during the last seven years. The noble Earl was incorrect in saying that he had no alternative but to take the course he had adopted. The Commissioners had acted under the express authority of the Act of Parliament; and there was, therefore, the alternative of submitting to the necessities of the case, and taking no further notice of the matter, which, in his (the Bishop of London's) opinion, would have been decidedly the most prudent course. The noble Earl had told their Lordships that he did not
852
intend to trouble them on matters relating to his private concerns; but really, if the noble Earl had acted in the spirit of that declaration, he (Lord Cadogan) would not have introduced the subject at all; for the matter concerned the noble Earl's private interests far more than the welfare of the public or the Church. He (the Bishop of London) did not think the Commissioners had acted illegally. If they had done so, there lay an appeal to the Court presided over by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. But the truth was, that they had not; and whether they had acted indiscreetly or not, was quite another question, that affected, not the public at large, but merely the private interests of the noble Earl. The whole question was, whether the incumbent of a living in the noble Earl's gift was to have 600 l. a year without a house; whether out of that income the incumbent should be obliged to find a house, or whether he should have 700 l. or 730 l. yearly, the surplus above 600 l. being allowed him to provide himself with a residence. Now, the alternative between the clergyman getting only 600 l. and his getting 730 l., did certainly, to some degree, affect the noble Earl's prospective interests; for if the surplus above 600 l., instead of being given to the present incumbent, were laid by for the purpose of accumulating into a fund for the building or purchase of a residence, this would no doubt improve the value of the advowson. The choice between the two curacies was left by law to the discretion of the Commissioners and the Bishop. They exercised their discretion accordingly; and it would hardly be denied that they were likely to be better judges, generally speaking, of the true interests of the Church than a lay patron, whose interference for objects of private interest might often be productive of great inconvenience and mischief. As the case stood in the parish of Chelsea, Mr. Burgess, with the surplus above the 600 l. a year, hired a house at a rental of 140 l.; and he (the Bishop of London) would maintain, without fear of contradiction, that the house in question was by no means too ample or convenient for a gentleman of Mr. Burgess's position and character, and for the incumbent of such a parish. It would be fifteen or twenty years before the 130 l. surplus from pew rents, &c., would accumulate into a fund large enough to erect a house of such

853
a class; and the Commissioners thought, under all the circumstances, that it was much better to give the clergyman the present means of having a house, than to let the fund accumulate for the contingent benefit of a successor, who might, possibly, be as worthy as the gentleman who was now the incumbent of the parish. The arrangement they had adopted gave some part of the benefit of his zeal, talent, and exertion, to the clergyman who, by these qualities, had raised the income from pew rents; whereas if the fund had been allowed to accumulate, the benefit would be given to, perhaps, a less worthy successor, or to a patron who may have an intention of hereafter selling the speculation to greater advantage.
The Earl of Cadoganrose to appeal to the House whether the right rev. Prelate's insinuations were fair or justifiable. But the noble Earl was interrupted by cries of "Order," and resumed his seat.
The Bishop of Londonproceeded to say, that he meant no allusion to the noble Earl's individual intentions; and had only wished to show in general what might happen under such circumstances as those he had described, and to show how unfair it would be to deprive the present incumbent of the benefit of a surplus produced by his own exertions, for the sake of some future incumbent who might not possess the same claims to respect. The Legislature had granted to the Church Building Commissioners and the Bishop the power of appropriating the surplus; they had exercised that power, and, as he was fully satisfied, had exercised it discreetly. It was true that a contrary arrangement would be more beneficial to the private interests of the noble Earl; and if not the noble Earl, at least other patrons might, if they had the power of resisting the Commissioners, object, for the sake of increasing the future value of the advowson, to the steps now likely to confer spiritual advantage on a parish. The noble Earl was really somewhat ungrateful to the Commissioners. Greater church accommodation having been very much needed in Chelsea, the Church Building Commissioners offered the parish to build a church, or take measures for erecting a second parish, if a site for the church were offered. The site was purchased with money raised by subscription, to which the noble Earl contributed 100 l. The Commissioners created
854
a living, with an income of 700 l.; and now, after the Commissioners had placed the whole advowson in the hands of the noble Earl, instead of merely reserving his 100 l., he (Lord Cadogan) complained of being hardly dealt with. Their Lordships would recollect that there were many peculiar circumstances in this case, arising from difficulties connected with the imposition of a church rate. The inhabitants of the old parish having refused to impose a rate for the maintenance of the new church, the churchwardens wished to apply the pew rents to the purpose of repairs, to the necessary expense of celebrating divine service, &c. The Commissioners, on being applied to, stated that, having consulted with their law advisers, they found they could not sanction such an arrangement, except in certain specified cases. The next best thing, then, was to give the money to the clergyman, to enable him to defray as much as he could of these expenses. Mr. Burgess had thus contributed much towards the maintenance of divine service, the expense of which ought to be defrayed by the parishioners; and this showed that the rev. gentleman in question was not actuated by the motives of personal interest that were ascribed to him by the noble Earl. The right rev. Prelate then proceeded to give the strongest eulogistic testimony of the piety, the zeal, the learning, and great activity of the rev. Mr. Burgess. That rev. Gentleman was held universally in the highest respect which his conduct and qualities deserved, and he (the Bishop of Loudon) could, if he wished, read to their Lordships a series of Resolutions passed by the parishioners assembled in vestry, expressing entire confidence in Mr. Burgess, and regretting that anything should have occurred to diminish the confidence entertained for him by the noble Earl at the time when he (Lord Cadogan) presented him to the living. A letter had been sent to the noble Earl, acquainting him with the purport of these Resolutions. He (the right rev. Prelate) would reiterate his own testimony to Mr. Burgess's high character and merits. He had always found that gentleman a zealous and useful auxiliary; and in attacking one whose character was so fenced and guarded by the established opinion of those who had the best opportunity of forming a judgment upon it, the noble Earl had manifested but little of that virtue which was

855
considered to be the better part of valour. He (the Bishop of London) hoped he had now said enough not only to vindicate the character of Mr. Burgess (which really needed no vindication), but the conduct of himself and the Commissioners, who had only exercised their discretion in direct conformity with the law. He, therefore, entertained the strongest hope that their Lordships would unanimously reject the Motion.
The Earl of Cadoganrose to reply, labouring evidently under very excited feelings. He said that he could hardly trust his own feelings with an answer after the manner in which the right rev. Prelate had thought proper to address the House. The right rev. Prelate had begun his speech with what he must call the most unfounded and unwarranted aspersion against his character that it was in the power of any man to utter against another. The right rev. Prelate had stated that his principal motives in bringing the question before the House were self-interested ones—motives which he thoroughly despised—and their Lordships might depend that the man who suggested such a motive was the person who would be the first to practise it. He again would appeal to their Lordships whether the right rev. Prelate had acted fairly or justly in putting the question on the footing that he had brought forward this subject, because the arrangement now existing injured the prospective value of the advowson held by him. The right rev. Prelate had not even stated with perfect accuracy the circumstances under which the church had been built; for when he advanced the 100 l., the proposal was only for a chapel of ease. As to the letter written to him by the vestry, it was so worded as to be a direct insult, and he had treated it as it deserved. It was, in short, a very impertinent letter, adopted at a meeting of seventeen or eighteen persons, with the rector at their head. For his own part, he would rather not trouble their Lordships with any more observations on this unpleasant subject.
Question put, and resolved in the negative.

AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS — ENTAIL.
The Duke of Richmondrose, pursuant to notice, to move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of a legislative enactment being introduced, to enable the possessors
856
of entailed estates to charge such estates with a sum, to be limited, for the purpose of draining and otherwise permanently improving the same. The noble Duke said, he had brought forward the Motion in accordance with his often expressed conviction, that they were bound to do all in their power to encourage agricultural improvement. By the formation of societies and the exertions of the wealthier classes of the tenants, much had been lately done; and his object was to carry out as far as possible the advantage to be derived from thorough draining. He was not asking for the establishment of any new principle, for the Montgomery Act allowed the holders of entailed estates in Scotland to expend money on the permanent improvement of the land, and charge on the estate three-fourths of the money so expended. In 1840, Mr. Posey's Act gave facility for the expenditure of money in draining on English entailed estates; but that Act had, unfortunately, not been found as efficient as it had been hoped it would prove. Its partial failure had in great measure arisen from the facts, that persons, before raising money for improvements under it, must carry their application to the Court of Chancery; and the landlords of England so dreaded that Court and its Masters, that nothing could induce them to go before it. If the Select Committee were now granted, he believed that in Committee much advice and suggestion could be given, that would have the effect of promoting better cultivation, and encouraging the expenditure of large sums of money on the soil, instead of capital being wasted on railway disputes and contentions, either at home or abroad. If they would induce parties to advance large sums on the security of entailed estates, to be laid out in permanent improvement, much benefit would be conferred on the country at large. For instance, as matters now stood, if a man succeeded to an entailed estate, he could not afford to spend much of his income on improvements, for he had only a life interest; he knew not how long the property would continue in his possession; and out of his income he was naturally anxious to provide for his wife and children. The holder of an entailed estate had, therefore, not the same means of improving that he whose estate was unentailed had. On a former occasion when a Bill of this kind was introduced, it had been stated that if

857
they passed it they would get rid of entaied estates; but he (the Duke of Rich, mond) thought the contrary would be the effect of this Bill. He believed that by taking proper precautions against fraud, and giving the power asked for to the holders of entailed estates, they would be taking one great step to strengthen and; maintain entail, by removing one of the inconveniences alleged against it. One great advantage of giving encouragement in the way he proposed, to the investment of money in improving entailed estates, without making it necessary to go before Chancery, would be that of providing employment for that large and meritorious class, the agricultural labourers, many of whom were now in the distressing situation of seeking for work without being able to get it. His proposal tended to carry out the healthy and rightful principle that every honest and meritorious labourer should be always able to have a good day's pay for a good day's labour. The Report of the Commission of which his noble Friend (Lord Devon) was at the head, relative to the agrarian condition of Ireland, contained, he believed, a recommendation that facilities of the kind he asked for should be given to the holders of entailed estates in Ireland; and he did hope that England would not be excluded from participation in these advantages. The noble Duke, after again dwelling on the importance of removing the delay and expense involved in the necessity of going before Chancery for power to raise money, concluded by submitting the terms of his Motion.
The Duke of Clevelandseconded the Motion. He thought the noble Duke had chosen the best course in moving for a Select Committee, instead of proceeding by Bi11 in the first instance. He had no doubt that when the inquiry was entered into, the measure would be found to be of the greatest practical utility. They were all aware of the low ebb to which agriculture had sunk at this time, and such a measure would tend to relieve occupiers and labourers from their present distress. The only way permanently to better the condition of the agricultural labourers was to improve the land, and one method of doing that was by drainage. But to be of any value the drainage must be effectually performed, and this was a most expensive operation when properly and thoroughly effected. Indeed, so great was the outlay
858
required, that it could not be expected from a mere life-tenant of an entailed estate. The class of improvements to which the noble Duke's Select Committee referred were altogether of a permanent character, and therefore they ought to be charged on the estate itself, and not to be defrayed, save in a fair proportion, by the life-tenant who made them. He had no doubt right would be done in the matter; and as the projected alterations had in view by the noble Duke would be highly beneficial to land in general, he willingly assented to the appointment of the Select Committee, and hoped that a Bill would ultimately be brought in on the subject.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that when the Bill to which the noble Duke had referred was in progress through Parliament, he had expressed his apprehensions that the effect of the restrictions, compelling the landowners to have recourse to the Court of Chancery before they could commence a drain, would be to throw insuperable obstacles in the way of this class of improvement; whilst, on the other hand, he had been of opinion that without some such check as that, estates would be loaded by their life-tenants with heavy charges for improvements, the money for which might possibly be applied for other purposes than effecting such improvements. On the whole, however, if proper precautions were taken to insure the application of the money charged for permanent improvements, and likewise if care were taken not to jeopardize the rights of property, he saw no objection to the measure which was likely to result from the noble Duke's proposition to appoint a Select Committee. He, however, must warn him to provide proper securities against charging estates permanently with the expenses of a thorough system of drainage on the land; and the best way of effecting this would be to provide a clause by which a power, similar to that conferred by the Gilbert's Act for constructing glebe-houses, would be given to life-tenants, to carry the sums expended in improvements over a given number of years, the charge becoming extinct by liquidation at the end of that period.
Lord Beaumontsaid, that the last observation of the noble Lord induced him to say a few words on the present subject. Their Lordships, perhaps, were aware that there were in existence what were styled Land Draining Companies, the operations

859
of which were conducted upon scientific principles. These companies undertook the drainage of estates upon the principle of advancing the sums necessary for the purpose, and of repaying themselves gradually out of the increased rental which the land thus improved brought in; and so successful had their operations been that the surplus had very soon wiped off the incumbrance thus imposed on the land. The Bill which was in prospect would thus come in aid of the views of these companies, and enable them more effectually and generally to carry out the principle upon which they were founded. Persons having a life-interest in estates would thus be encouraged and enabled to treat with the draining companies, and at the same time avoid charging the land with a permanent debt, whilst at the same time they would not be deprived of the fair enjoyment of their property during their life-tenancy. As the matters to which he referred rather belonged to the details of the Bill than to the question of the appointment of a Committee, he should say no more at present than to express his cordial concurrence in the proposal of the noble Duke.
On Question, agreed to; and Committee appointed.
Their Lordships adjourned.