Lords Sitting of 4 August 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2a. Fees (Criminal Proceedings); Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Municipal Districts (Ireland); Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society.
Reported.—Removal of Paupers; Borough and Watch Rates.
3o. and passed:—Commons' Inclosure; Taxing Master, Court of Chancery (Ireland); County Rates.
Received the Royal Assent. — Customs Laws Repeal; Customs Management; Customs Regulation; Smuggling Prevention; Shipping and Navigation; British Vessels; Customs Duties; Warehousing of Goods; Customs Bounties and Allowances; Trade of British Possessions Abroad; Isle of Man Trade; Stamp Duties, etc.; Compensations; Bills of Exchange, etc.; Administration of Justice (Court of Chancery) Acts Amendment; Real Property (No. 2); Militia Pay; Testamentary Disposition, etc.; Bonded Corn; Lunatics; Masters and Workmen; Coal Trade (Port of London); Stock in Trade; Joint Stock Companies (Ireland); Railways (Selling or Leasing); Darby Court (Westminster); Land Revenue Act Amendment; Waste Lands (Australia); Poor Law Amendment (Scotland); Criminal Jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers (Ireland); Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin).
Private.—1a. London and York Railway.
Reported.—Marquess of Westminster's Estate; Bristol Parochial Rates; South Eastern Railway (Deal Extension); Eastern Counties Railway (Cambridge to Huntingdon); Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Hastings, Rye, and Ashford Extension).
3a. and passed:—London and Croydon Railway Enlargement; Bristol Parochial Rates; Marquess of Westminster's Estate.
Received the Royal Assent.—Leeds and Bradford Railway Extension (Shipley to Colne) Mistake Rectifying; Glasgow Junction Railway; Birmingham and Gloucester Extension Railway (Stoke Branch); Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway; London and South Western Railway; South Eastern Railway (Greenwich Extension); Londonderry and Coleraine Railway; Oxford and Rugby Railway; Erewash Valley Railway; South Wales Railway; Monmouth and Hereford Railway; Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct Railway; Dublin Pipe Water; Duddeston and Nechells Improvement; Yoker Road (No. 2); White's Charity Estate; Ellison's Estate; Rochdale Vicarage (or Molesworth's) Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From James Flynn, of the Clonmel District Lunatic Asylum, for the Insertion of certain Clauses in the Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Bill.—From Tradesmen of Bristol, and several other places, in favour of the Small Debts Bill (No. 2).—From Board of Guardians of the Navan Union, for the Insertion of certain Clauses in the Tenants Compensation (Ireland) Bill.—From Churchwardens, Overseers, and Guardians of the Parish of St. George's in the East, against Removal of Paupers Bill.—From Board of Guardians of the Dundalk Union, respecting the Electorial Division of Unions (Ireland).—From Thomas Willis, of Upper Ormond Quay, Dublin, against the Dublin Pipe Water Bill.

SOUTH EASTERN (DEAL EXTENSION) RAILWAY.
Bill reported specially from the Select Committee, without amendment.
The Marquess of Clanricardemoved that the Bill be recommitted, for the purpose of having duly investigated before it the objections to the Bill, which a Mr. Mourilyan, by his petition, prayed to be heard in substantiation of, but which the Select Committee had, according to his statement, refused to attend to. Those objections, the petition set forth, were to the contract deed, to the traffic tables, and to the direction of the line itself, the peritioner being prepared to suggest a much better one in all respects.
Lord Redesdalesaid, that the Committee had taken into its consideration the objections started by the petitioner, and found them altogether frivolous and vexatious.
The Earl of Shaftesbury, on the part of the Standing Orders' Committee, fully corroborated the noble Lord's statement as to the frivolous nature of the objections made by the petitioner.
The Marquess of Clanricardewithdrew his original Amendment, but moved that the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Bill be printed.
Their Lordships divided:—Content 1; Not-content 37: Majority 36.

TAXING MASTERS, COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read. Bill read 3a.
The Earl of Wicklowrose to move an Amendment. The Bill professed to assimilate the law in England and Ireland; and yet, though according to the English Bill, the Office of Taxing Master in the Court of Chancery was confined exclusively to solicitors of twelve years' standing, in the Irish Bill no qualification was specified for the same office. He therefore proposed, with the view of assimilating the law in both countries, that the persons to be appointed to the office of Taxing Master under this Bill should be solicitors having practised in the Court of Chancery for twelve years.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the Bill had been approved of by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and he would be responsible for the appointments. He did not think that solicitors ought to have the exclusive right to appointment to this office. Nineteen-twentieths of the business of the Taxing Master was mere matter of routine, and could be performed by any man of common sense and education; if a question of principle arose, a barrister was even a more competent person to decide on it than a solicitor. In the Common Law Courts in England the majority of persons filling the office of Taxing Master were barristers, and this was also in a great measure the case in the Courts of Equity; and, taking all the Courts together, the majority was composed of men who had practised as barristers. In the Court of Bankruptcy, it was left to the option of the Lord Chancellor to appoint either a solicitor or a barrister. The solicitors wished to be appointed to certain offices, amongst which was that of the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery. In England no person was appointed to such an office but a person of high legal learning and experience. Another office was that of Examiner in the Courts of Equity. Should solicitors be selected to that office to the exclusion of barristers? Why, how much better was a barrister qualified to examine a witness than a solicitor! Besides those two offices, and that of Taxing Master, there were some others. He must contend against

1343
the exclusive principle, and hoped the appointment of these officers would be left to the judgment of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
Lord Cottenhamsaid, that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, was quite right in saying that a barrister would be a better examiner of witnesses than an attorney, because that was a business to which he was accustomed. Now, an appointment such as that under this Bill should be conferred on a person whose past duties were as nearly as possible similar to those of the office of Taxing Master. Now, it was notorious that a barrister knew nothing of costs, as he had nothing to do with them; while an attorney lived throughout the whole of his career in costs. The objection of his noble and learned Friend to the Amendment was, that it would exclude barristers; but as the Bill now stood, not only barristers might be appointed, but a coachman or footman, or any other person the Lord Chancellor might choose to patronise. He, in the course of his professional career, had on a few occasions to argue cases of costs, and he confessed that nothing had given him more trouble; but on each occasion he had to learn his lesson, as matters of this kind seldom or never came under his attention. He was surprised at the course his noble and learned Friend now took, since by the Bill of 1842 he admitted that attorneys were the qualified persons for the office in question, and the only qualified persons, barristers not being mentioned at all. Were he to ask any barrister in Westminster Hall if he could sit down and tax a Bill, he should be answered in the negative. If their Lordships wished to have barristers appointed to perform a duty of which they knew nothing, they would oppose the Amendment; but if in this case they wished to do "justice to Ireland," they would agree to it.
The Lord Chancellor: The form of the Amendment will give these appointments to solicitors and attorneys exclusively.
Lord Campbellsaid, he strongly suspected that there was a job at the bottom of this Bill. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had made a most ingenious speech, which he was able to do on any occasion, and in support of any cause; but probably he had so acted at a suggestion from a highly respectable quarter. But his noble and learned
1344
Friend had not answered the question of the noble Earl (of Wicklow), why should there be a difference made between England and Ireland in this matter? By the Bill of 1842, of which his noble and learned Friend approved, the office was limited to attorneys or solicitors of ten years' standing. He thought his noble and learned Friend would find that he was as ill qualified for the office of Taxing Master as himself or any Member of the Bar. Could his noble and learned Friend tell him whether the charge for taking instructions should be 3s. 4d. or 6s. 8d., or what the charge ought to be for this item—"To dining with you, and having much conversation respecting your cause?" Would his noble and learned Friend consider the dinner as a set-off for the conversation? He thought his noble and learned Friend might spend much more than the long vacation in vainly trying to learn this business. With respect to the observation that some baristers were now taxing masters in the courts in Westminster Hall, he would remind his noble and learned Friend that most of them had previously been solicitors and attorneys, and therefore were qualified. He trusted that the noble Earl would persist in his Amendment and divide the House.
Lord Stanleyadmitted that he was not competent to discuss the duties performed by the officers in question, and would not attempt to dispute the opinion of the noble and learned Lord opposite, founded, as it was, upon that long experience which he had had in the Court of Chancery, Ireland, respecting the qualifications of the solicitors of Dublin. No doubt there might be found among them persons competent to the office; but the question was, whether the selection of persons for the office should be left to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland?—not to this or that particular Lord Chancellor, for the purpose of patronage or jobbing, as the noble and learned Lord had gratuitously assumed. The question was, whether they would leave it to the Lord Chancellor to appoint these officers from barristers and solicitors, or that the selection should be made exclusively from solicitors? For himself, he should be satisfied to leave the selection to the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, on whichever side of the House he might sit; and he should impute no motive to any individual who filled that high office, whether he selected

1345
the larger or the smaller number from one body or the other. The argument of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was directed against confining the choice to solicitors. It appeared that high authorities differed as to whether barristers or solicitors were best qualified and most competent to fill this office. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, considered barristers better qualified for the office; whereas the noble and learned Lord opposite thought that solicitors were better adapted for such an office. He hoped that he should be guilty of no offence if he placed his confidence in the opinion of his noble and learned Friend and the Chancellor of Ireland, rather than in that of the two noble and learned Lords opposite. He believed that his noble and learned Friend would not object to the Amendment, if it extended to barristers or solicitors of ten years' practice.
The Marquess of Clanricardewas not surprised at this measure, for it was in conformity with all their proceedings with regard to Ireland, and which had been productive of such excitement in that part of the kingdom. For his part, he believed that the Bill had been drawn with the view of some piece of patronage. He thought the insinuation thrown out against the attorneys and solicitors of Ireland would annoy and aggravate them. If there were the slightest ground for any such insinuation, it was still one which it would not be very prudent or very wise to make; but he begged utterly to deny that any such ground did exist. He would maintain that the solicitors of Ireland were as respectable and as intelligent a body as the solicitors of England. In fact, he knew them to be as respectable and intelligent as any class in any country in the world. He wished, therefore, to know why a distinction—always odious, but in this case particularly so—should be drawn between the solicitors of the two countries. Why should the solicitors of Ireland be deprived of any share in these appointments?
Lord Stanley: They have their chance under the Bill as it stands.
The Marquess of Clanricarde: They had a chance—but why should they not have a right? Her Majesty's Government had no influence in Ireland. There were influence and power possessed by the Repeal Association, and by a strong knot of
1346
Orangemen in that country; but in what part of the country, he would ask, was Her Majesty's Government strong, or possessed of influence? And yet they now came forward to insult gratuitously a class which was one of the most influential in all countries, but which was peculiarly so in Ireland. Every drop in the cup—already, he was sorry to say, extremely full of discontent and dissatisfaction—was of importance in the present condition of Ireland. The solicitors of Dublin did not ask for this matter as a boon or a favour. They demanded as a right to be placed on the same footing as the solicitors of England with respect to the provisions of this Bill. As the Bill now stood, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland might appoint his coachman, or his footman, or any person whatever to this office; and when they looked to the history of Ireland, it should not be regarded altogether as a gratuitous assertion to state that it was possible some English favourite might be brought over to perform the duties of the office. If they looked to the Church, or to the law, or even to minor officers, such as the appointment of architects under the Board of Works, they would find that Englishmen had been constantly preferred to appointments in Ireland, and yet he would, if allowed, wish to remind their Lordships that in this very profession of the law, when the question arose of bringing over a distinguished Irish lawyer to this country, of the feeling which was exhibited among the Members of the English Bar. Were the Irish solicitors, then, he would ask, not justified in looking forward to the possibility of an Englishman being brought over to fill this office? He had the honour of receiving more than one communication on the subject, and he knew the solicitors of Dublin to be extremely dissatisfied with the Bill as it now stood; and if his noble Friend had not moved his Amendment, he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) would undoubtedly have done so. He would conclude by again cautioning the Government against creating distinctions which would give cause for great dissatisfaction among a most influential and most respectable class, who might prove to be very dangerous enemies to the Government.
The Lord Chancellorwished to be allowed one word of explanation. He believed the solicitors of Ireland to be a respectable, and worthy, and able body; but

1347
he, at the same time, felt that in legislating they ought to guard against the possibility of abuse.
Lord Langdalesaid, he believed that this appointment ought to be given to solicitors, who had peculiar qualifications in addition to others which they had in common with barristers; and he had no doubt but that there could be found among that class a sufficient number of men of ample integrity, influence, and respectability, and having the advantage of long acquaintance and familiarity with the subject, to undertake the duties of the office. He would not have broken through his general rule of not troubling their Lordships with any remarks, if direct reference had not been made to him by his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, in connexion with the Bill of 1842. He believed his noble and learned Friend entertained the same objection to that Bill on its first introduction which he now felt to the present measure, and that he had been anxious that the offices created under it should be open to barristers and solicitors of a certain number of years' standing. He (Lord Langdale) entered into discussion with the noble and learned Lord on the occasion, and his noble and learned Friend finally consented to have the appointments reserved exclusively for solicitors. He thought it would be a great deal better to adopt the Amendment of the noble Earl, than to continue the principle of the Bill as it now stood. In reference to what had fallen from his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde), he should beg to remark that it would not be open to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to appoint a menial, or any such incompetent person to the office, as the Bill expressly stated that the appointment was to be given to a "fit and competent person."
The Earl of St. Germanssaid, the solicitors of Dublin were, undoubtedly, as they had been described, a very respectable and numerous body; but still it should not be forgotten that for every one solicitor practising in Dublin there were at least twenty in this metropolis, and therefore the comparison drawn between them did not exactly hold. He had very great pleasure in expressing his concurrence in what had fallen from the noble Marquess respecting the solicitors of Ireland being a very respectable body. At the same time, he thought it should be borne in mind that
1348
the exclusive appointment of solicitors to this office in England was confined to the Court of Chancery, and that noble Lords—if their argument were worth anything—ought to move for a measure to restrict all other Courts in a similar manner. With regard to the imputation cast upon his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, he would venture to say that there was no man in that House who would be less capable of departing from the correct line of his duty for the purpose of appointing any connexion of his own, than was Sir Edward Sugden.
The Marquess of Clanricardebegged to remind the noble Earl who had just sat down, that though there was a disproportion between the number of solicitors in the two countries, there was also a difference between the appointments to these offices. In Ireland there was to be but one officer appointed under this Bill, while in England the number filling similar appointments was six.
The Lord Chancellorwished to remark, in consequence of what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Langdale), that the Bill of 1842, as originally drawn, confined the appointments to solicitors, when he (the Lord Chancellor) had proposed to amend it by adding barristers of a certain standing. It was drawn, he believed, under the superintendence of his noble and learned Friend; and after more than one conversation between them on the subject, he (the Lord Chancellor) yielded with reluctance to his noble and learned Friend's opinion, and consented that barristers should not be included; but he did so solely in consequence of the great attention which that noble and learned Lord had given to the subject.
Lord Campbellsaid, he hoped his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would yield once more.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, if their Lordships decided on not passing this Amendment, it was his intention to propose another, that the office should be open to solicitors and barristers of a certain standing.
The Earl of Wicklowwished to remind his noble Friend near him (the Earl of St. Germans), that though the Bill of 1842 was, as he had stated, confined to the Court of Chancery alone, and did not include the Courts of Law, the present Bill was also confined to the Court of Chancery in Ireland, He would candidly confess

1349
that he thought it was an act of madness on the part of Her Majesty's Government to persist in their opposition to this Amendment; and he could not bring himself to believe that his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) would continue to do so. He and those who supported him merely required to assimilate the law in the two countries, and not a single reason had been adduced to show why that assimilation should not take place. Was it, he would ask, because the people of Ireland were unreasonable in some demands, that they were to be denied what was just and reasonable in others? He only asked his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to forego his opinion in this case, as he admitted he had done on another. If he did not, he would, he promised him, give offence, not only on his own part, but on that of the Government with which he was connected; he would be doing an act of injustice, and be creating disaffection among a most influential class in Ireland.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 19; Non-Contents 30: Majority 11.
Amendment negatived.
The Lord Chancellorthen moved an Amendment, that the appointment should be confined to barristers-at-law of not less than ten years' standing, or solicitors of not less than ten years' practice.
The Earl of Ellenboroughsaid, he trusted some attempt would be made in the next Session to assimilate the law of the two countries in this matter.
Amendment agreed to, and other Amendments. Bill passed.

THE LATE PIRACY CASE.
The Earl of Fortescuesaid, as he was upon his legs, he would wish to ask his noble Friend opposite (the Secretary for the Colonies) a question which he was aware did not come exactly within his Department, but on which he was, perhaps, prepared to give an answer. It related to the sentence which had been lately passed, at the assizes at Exeter, on seven foreigners, who had been there tried and found guilty of piracy. He understood there were some grave questions of international law involved in the case, and that doubts existed in the minds of a large portion of the legal profession, as well as of the public at large, as to the legality of the sentence. He understood a representation had been made by the Minister of Brazil
1350
to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and the question which he wished to put, in order to satisfy the anxiety existing in the public mind on this subject, was, whether Her Majesty's Government were fully satisfied of the legality of the sentence with reference to the question of international law involved in it, or whether it would not be better for them to advise that the prerogative of the Crown should be exercised for the purpose of suspending the execution of the sentence until they had satisfied themselves on the matter by the decision of all the Judges respecting it.
Lord Stanleysaid, however heinous might be the offence of which these foreigners had been guilty, he concurred with the noble Earl in thinking it desirable that there should not be the slightest doubt of the legality of the sentence. He had had a communication with his noble Friend since the noble Lord opposite had been kind enough to give him notice of his question, and he had to inform him that, doubts having arisen as to the legality of the sentence, the opinion of the Judges would be taken upon it, and of course the prisoners would be respited during the discussion.

DIRECT LONDON AND PORTSMOUTH RAILWAY BILL.
The Earl of Hardwickemoved the consideration of the Report of the Direct London and Portsmouth Railway Bill.
The Duke of Richmondproposed that the Bill be recommitted. The Board of Trade had reported in favour of the Guildford Line, and the Committee of their Lordships had decided in favour of the Direct London and Portsmouth line, without hearing the evidence in favour of the Guildford line. Such a course was contrary to the principles of English justice, and would establish a very bad precedent; he should therefore persist in his Motion that the Bill before the House be recommitted.
The Marquess of Northampton,as a Member of the Select Committee to whom the Bill before their Lordships had been referred, defended the course which the Committee had adopted. The Committee had made a Special Report, in order to enable the House to come to an early decision on the subject. They were anxious to have the directions of the House whether they should hear the

1351
evidence in favour of the Guildford line or not. If the noble Duke had consented to have the evidence printed when the matter was brought before their Lordships nine days ago, the House might have come to a determination before this. Their Lordships would not now be justified in taking the decision of the case out of the hands of the five Judges, whom they had selected as disinterested parties, and who had decided that the promoters of the Guildford line had no locus standi. The noble Marquess proceeded to discuss the relative merits of the two lines, and contended that the course which the Committee had adopted was the only one, under the circumstances, which they could pursue. He should oppose the Motion of the noble Lord.
The Earl of Devonsaid, the Guildford line was not now directly before the House, but certainly Committees ought to have all parties before them, and to consider all proper information. The Committee in this case thought the conduct of the parties in question precluded them from being heard. There was a great difference between a Committee deciding after hearing all parties, and a Committee coming to a decision after excluding one of the competing plans.
The Earl of Lovelacetrusted their Lordships would not reverse the decision of the Committee. If the noble Duke had moved an instruction to the Committee eight or ten days ago, the matter might have been reconsidered; but at this late period of the Session to recommit the Bill, would be virtually to defeat it altogether.
The Earl of Wicklowregretted that earlier notice had not been given of this application on the part of the petitioners, and that any delay should have occurred in the printing of the evidence of the competing lines. But was this a fatal error? In his opinion it was. The Committee believed that there was an amalgamation of the parties; but there was no evidence of that fact. He thought there was yet sufficient time to reconsider the subject.
The Earl of Hardwickesaid, the Committee had endeavoured to do their duty in the best way they could. In the case which was brought under their consideration, the question was not as to the necessity of considering any competing lines, but those lines which were brought before them by arrangement. The Bills con-
1352
tained clauses drawn in such a way as left no doubt that they were the effect of some arrangement between the parties creating the Bills. The parties who made the complaint had many opportunities of bringing forward their objections before the Committee on those clauses, if they had thought proper to do so. As to the possibility of re-opening the question with a view of settling it this Session, from what he himself saw in the Committee, he was quite sure that the lawyers and those other parties who were interested, would take good care that the Session should close without coming to any final arrangement.
Lord Beaumontsaid, the question before their Lordships was simply whether these parties could appear before them in two different characters; for they now took a different position to that which they had occupied on a former occasion. It was now contended that they were entitled to be heard by the Committee, as being the promoters of a competing line; but there was no competing project brought before the Committee. There was no competing project; the petitioners were parties to a distinct Bill, and they had already been heard. If their Lordships acceded to the Amendment, they would be establishing a most ridiculous precedent—that of allowing persons to appear both as parties to the Bill, and as opponents to it.
Lord Redesdalesupported the Amendment.
The Marquess of Clanricardewas also in favour of the Amendment, but if it should be rejected, he then thought the petition ought to be referred to a Select Committee.
The Earl of Haddingtonconsidered, that everything depended upon the question, whether this was a competing line or not. If the petitioners agreed to take scrip, and so far acquiesced in the Bill, then they could not afterwards be considered as competing parties; but if the House of Commons had taken the three Bills, and had amalgamated them as they thought fit, without the consent of the parties, then he thought it was hard that the parties should be excluded from being heard against the Bill. He should like to hear from some noble Lord who was a Member of the Committee, whether it was the impression of the Committee that

1353
there had been any compromise between the parties?
The Duke of Richmondcould undertake to declare, on the part of the South Western Company, that no compromise was ever made by them. The thing had never been even hinted at by any of its opponents. The fact was, the House of Commons took the three Bills, and cut and carved them as they thought proper, and the Guildford line had no power to oppose the insertion of these clauses.
The Duke of Graftonopposed the Amendment.
After a few words more from the Duke of Richmond,
Their Lordships divided: — Contents 13; Non-contents 11: Majority 2.
Bill re-committed.

VALUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Stanleymoved the Second Reading of this Bill, which he characterized as of great importance, dealing with a subject which had been fully discussed in the other House; and which had been sent up with the almost unanimous approval and consent of its Members. The postponement of the measure would be of great practical inconvenience. The noble Lord here entered into a short statement of the principles and objects of the Bill, which, not having a retrospective effect, was designed to place the lands in counties upon a more perfect system of valuation than they were at present.
Lord Monteagledeclared, that he rose under a deep conviction that it would be most rash—injurious to the interests of Ireland—injuiious to the character of that House, and injurious to the character of Her Majesty's Ministers, if under circumstances it were possible for the present or any other Government to persevere in a Bill like the present. They stood in that House on the 4th day of August: he believed that there were present at that moment nine Peers representing the whole peerage of the Empire, and of those nine, he believed that only four were connected with Ireland; and yet, under those circumstances, their Lordships were called upon to pass a Bill having relation to Ireland, which if it were presented at the very commencement of the Session with respect to England, would require the utmost care and caution, and the most extended inquiry. Their Lordships would hardly believe the
1354
real importance of this question. This was a Bill to alter the whole system of local taxation in Ireland. From the liberality of Parliament, the people of Ireland had been very much relieved from direct taxation for the State. What the people there felt was local taxation; and upon the mode in which it was collected, and the system by which it was raised, their comfort, happiness, and well-being depended, infinitely more than upon many of the Bills which were brought before their Lordships. First, there was the grand jury tax, amounting to upwards of a million; and then there was the tax of the poor rate. Those were the taxes which pressed upon the occupying tenantry of the country, and yet, on the 4th day of August, without examination, without inquiry, the House was called upon to alter every existing arrangement, and to adopt a course which, in respect of such a measure, was, he apprehended, wholly without precedent. Why, the Bill they were called upon to read the second time, was actually wet from the press. It had not been delivered to Peers that morning. He really did not desire to use strong language; but if ever there had been an insult offered to a country, it would be the perseverance in this Bill on the part of the Government. There was not one of their Lordships present who did not know that the Government would not dare to press such a Bill, under such circumstances, affecting any other part of the kingdom. Upon what principle, then, was it to be pressed upon Ireland? If ever there was an insult offered to Ireland, it would be by persevering in such a Bill as the present at such a period; and he did not think Her Majesty's Government would dare to introduce such a measure with reference to any other part of the kingdom under similar circumstances. So short was the time which elapsed since it had been introduced into the House, that even his noble Friend, with all his great mental powers, had not been able to master its details, and did not seem to understand either the provisions or the principles of the Bill. Already had the country been at an expense of more than one million in surveying and valuing Ireland, and was it expedient to have all that money thrown away? They were not called upon to undo all that had been done. Any measure more calculated to impede the progress of im-

1355
provement in Ireland he did not think it possible for the worst enemies of that country to devise. One of its effects would be to prevent improvements from being made, because these would be immediately subjected to taxation, and made the object of a new valuation.
Lord Stanleyobserved, that the noble Lord seemed to misconceive the object of the Bill. Inasmuch as two valuations were now necessary in Ireland, one for the purposes of the Poor Laws, and another for grand jury assessments, this Bill enabled the valuations to be made by one officer, instead of by two separate officers.
Lord Monteaglecontinued to think that that valuation which had gone on so satisfactorily in the north of Ireland should be applied generally. For twenty-one years they had been legislating on this subject, and they had never thought it advisable to adopt the principle involved in the present Bill until now. It was said, indeed, that they had the consent of the Irish Members in the other House. He would just ask how many Irish Members had been present when the Bill had gone through the House of Commons? But what was the case really with respect to this Bill? It had been four times printed, and nearly as often recommitted. And yet this was the Bill which their Lordships were called upon to swallow at one gulp on the 4th of August. Now there could be no inconvenience whatever in postponing until next Session the present measure; and if he could not touch their feelings of justice, he would appeal to their compassion, not to attempt to force a Bill like that at such a period of the Session, through such a thin House. A proper system of valuation might yet be made the foundation of a franchise in Ireland, and though for-bearing to enter more deeply into that question at present, he would urge that too, as an additional argument for giving this Bill a more mature consideration.
The Earl of St. Germansconfessed he had heard with some surprise the speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down, and who seemed to think that this Bill was an emanation of the present Government. If the noble Lord had referred to the evidence upon which the Bill was framed, he could not have thought so. He would have seen at once that a Committee composed of Irish Members of the other House of Parliament had been ap-
1356
pointed last Session to investigate fully into this subject; that they had examined a great number of witnesses conversant with the full details of the matter; and the present Bill had been the result of the recommendation of that Committee. There had been amongst the Members of that Committee an unanimous conviction that some such measure as the present was necessary, and it had been accordingly actually agreed upon by the great body of Irish Members in the other House of Parliament, and in addition to that recommendation, it had the approval of the recent Land Commission. At the present moment there was a difference of 40 or 50 per cent. in the rate of the valuation under the Poor Law, in many of the Unions in Ireland, and it had been considered most advisable and equitable to endeavour to secure a uniform system. It was not fair to charge his noble Friend near him with endeavouring to force that Bill through a thin House; because noble Lords having an interest in Ireland did not think proper, as might be supposed their duty, as long as Parliament was sitting, to attend in their places when anything concerning that country was likely to be discussed. But such as the Bill was, it had been approved of by a Committee of Irish Members, composed of Sir Denham Norreys, Lord Jocelyn, Mr. Shaw, Mr. French, Sir H. Barron, and others; and for his part he conceived it would do much good, instead of the evil the noble Lord prognosticated of it in Ireland. Under these circumstances he hoped his noble Friend opposite would reserve his objections to the Bill until it was in Committee, when he had no doubt his noble Friend near him would be prepared to answer them.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the first question which had occurred to him on the present occasion was, whether the House of Lords was of any use? If it was of use, then he must say that the present was a most extraordinary mode of proceeding. He objected to forcing through so important a Bill in the manner described. He did not object to it because that happened to be the 4th of August, but because they had not time to consider it before the prorogation. There was no compulsion on the Ministers to prorogue Parliament either that week or the next. In general, Parliament sat to a much later period; and it was their duty to do so as

1357
long as there was business of importance to be disposed of. It appeared that they were to be prorogued at the end of the week. The noble Lord had urged that as an argument for proceeding with the measure, while in fact it proved that the noble Lord did not consider it necessary that important Bills should undergo consideration in that House. In his opinion the noble Lord ought at once to postpone the measure. The noble Lord said, that it might not be so easy to pass it through the other House in the next Session. But that was just another reason for delaying it. Independent of these considerations, there was the fact that none of their Lordships had had time even to read the Bill. The noble Lord had said, that the Bill had been supported in the other House by a great majority of the Irish Members. According to the reports which he had seen, he believed it had been opposed by them both in its principle and in its details. He thought Government ought not to persist with the Bill in opposition to every Irish Peer present, and that further time ought to be given for fairly considering it.
Lord Stanleyhoped their Lordships would believe, that he had not brought forward the question at that period out of any disrespect to their Lordships, or with any desire that they should not have the fullest opportunity of discussing it. He was fully aware of the inconvenience of bringing forward such a measure at that period of the Session, and he was also aware that unless it met with a general concurrence of opinion in its favour, there would be little chance of carrying it. There would certainly be great inconvenience in postponing the Bill, and great expense would be involved in such a postponement. If the measure were postponed, it would only be to be again introduced in the other House next Session. He regretted that it had not met with the approval of the noble Lords connected with Ireland. Both the noble Lords opposite and the noble Earl near him, had intimated their intention to oppose the future progress of the Bill; and it would, therefore, be impossible for him to persist with the Bill during the present Session. Sensible of the immense inconvenience, the increased expense, and the great evil of postponing the measure, he, nevertheless, felt that, under the circumstances, he should not be warranted in further
1358
pressing it on their Lordships' consideration.
The Marquess of Clanricardeexpressed his acknowledgments to the noble Lord for the course he had taken.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that the noble Lord had acted wisely and discreetly in postponing the Bill. Early next Session the Bill might be calmly and well considered.
Bill accordingly withdrawn.
House adjourned.