Lords Sitting of 27 March 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Real Property Comveyance.
2a. Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
Reported. Out-Pensioners' Services (Chelsea and Greenwich); Out-Pensioners' Payment (Greenwich and Chelsea).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Eldon, from the Company of Coopers, and from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, against the Charitable Trusts Bill.—From the Wesleyan Methodist Association of Canworthy Water, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath, and to prevent the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on that Day.—From Surfleet, and several other places, in favour of the Corn Laws.—By the Earl of Yarborough, from Croft, and a great number of other places, for Protection to the Agricultural Interest.—From Board of Guardians of the Barford Union, for Alteration of the Poor Law Amendment Act.

CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY BILL.
LORD BROUGHAMmoved the First Reading of a Bill to facilitate the Conveyance of Property, which he should move be read a first time now, and a second time shortly after the holidays; a Bill which he now introduced in redemption of a pledge he had given to extend the wholesome and salutary provisions of two Acts of last Session, for simplifying the conveyance and sale of landed property and the granting of leases. Those measures had operated to the comfort of those who were really interested, but to the discomfort of certain parties who practised in conveyancing. He did not, however, much care for those worthy counsel and attorneys, but rather regarded their clients, whose time and money had both been saved by the Acts in question. His present Bill extended the former principles to all mortgages, settlements, sales, and exchanges, and to the forms of leases. One of the greatest evils to which landowners in this country were subjected was the expense of conveyancing, and the consequent uncertainty of title. A body of evidence had been given before the Committee on Burdens on Land, which was quite frightful in this respect, as showing the difference between the number of years' purchase in this and other countries, in consequence of the expense that attended the conveyance of real property here. The expense of the conveyance of an acre was as great as that of a large estate. He there found that the price of land in countries
146
where the expense of conveyancing was little or nothing—he could himself speak to France, and the witnesses spoke to Germany and other countries—was thirty-five years' purchase in one country, thirty-six years' in another, thirty-eight in another, and in one country no less than forty-eight or fifty years' purchase. He had been asked, why not make the Act compulsory? There was a reluctance in the profession to use these forms, because the Acts were not compulsory. They could not be compulsory. If a man chose to convey in a long rigmarole deed, subject to great expense and error, you had no means of making him do otherwise; but he had inserted in the Bill that which, he hoped, would have a considerable effect; viz., a provision, that in taxing costs the Master should take the circumstances into consideration, and should not allow the long form if he was clearly of opinion that the short form might be made use of.
LORD CAMPBELLconcurred in the Bill. Three years ago he had himself introduced a measure of the kind. He regretted, however, that his noble and learned Friend should have expressed an opinion that the profession were hostile to it; for he felt sure that they would be ready to adopt any improvement; and when these forms were promulgated by authority, there was no doubt of their being adopted.
LORD BROUGHAMexplained: He did not mean that the profession as a body objected to these forms, but only alluded to certain practitioners of both branches of the profession.
LORD BEAUMONTcould not refrain from congratulating those interested in real property, that this question had at last been taken up by one of the ability of his noble and learned Friend. Any one who had attended to the evidence before the Burdens upon Land Committee, must know that the transfer of property was not only impeded by the present system, but that a great deal of capital which would be otherwise invested in the cultivation of land was prevented from being employed in that way, in consequence of the difficulty of raising money on mortgage, and in other transactions.
Bill read 1a.

MR. THOMAS DUNCOMBE—PETITION.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, he had a petition to present from a Member of the other House of Parliament, complaining of allegations

147
and accusations that had been made against him in a petition that had been received by their Lordships, and which he declared were totally false and slanderous; and the petitioner prayed the House to adopt some means of instituting an inquiry which would enable him to vindicate his character by proving upon oath the falsehood of those accusations. The petitioner was Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, esq., Member of Parliament.
The EARL of CHARLEVILLEmust call the attention of the House to the circumstances of this petition. The petitioner alleged that his attention had been called to a petition presented by the Earl of Glengall, in an appeal case, which contained false and malignant allegations, thus making it appear that the Earl was a direct party to those allegations. The fact was, that the petition had been presented by the Earl and Countess of Glengall, in an appeal cause in the usual way, without their Lordships' attention having been particularly directed to it; it had been brought under the consideration of the Appeal Committee on the 27th of February, and had been adjudicated upon, and if it had contained irrelevant matter, such matter would not have been allowed to remain upon the petition. The solicitor on the other side had had the opportunity of objecting to such allegations. The Earl and Countess of Glengall had presented this petition; the Earl being a nominal party, for he had no direct interest in the cause; and the petition did not allude directly to any individual, but stated that the person who had made the appeal was under the influence of some individual, but without stating who it was. Upon that petition there was sufficient ground for going before the Appeal Committee. However, the appellant had thought proper to put in a counter petition, which it became necessary to reply to; and the party presenting the petition in reply was prepared to verify the statements it contained by oath at the bar. With respect to the prayer for inquiry now presented to the House, he (the Earl of Charleville) must remind them that the allegations in the petition of the Earl and Countess of Glengall were founded upon allegations and proceedings in the Vice Chancellor's Court, and it was too late either to withdraw the petition or to make the inquiry, because the matter had been already disposed of by the Appeal Committee.
LORD BROUGHAMobserved, that this was not a case of breach of privilege. It
148
might or might not be a groundless petition against his noble Friend not now present, but it could not be a breach of privilege, because the Earl of Glengall's petition had not been presented by him in his capacity as a Member of that House, but as a party to a cause before the House; and it preferred charges against the hon. Gentleman, who must, according to all principles of justice, have the opportunity of denying those charges, which he had done by this petition. He (Lord Brougham) did not enter into the merits of the case, but their Lordships had no means of granting the prayer of the petition. The facts must be dealt with by the courts below, where the cause now was, and there Mr. Duncombe would have the best opportunity of clearing himself. He (Lord Brougham) did not, however, blame Mr. Duncombe in the least for presenting this petition; it was quite natural that he should do so.
EARL of CLAREAfter a few words from the EARL of CLARE,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the original petition presented to their Lordships, contained a prayer not to entertain an appeal that had been regularly entered for hearing. The ground stated in the petition was, that the appeal had been presented contrary to an engagement between the parties. That had been referred to the Appeal Committee. Now, if an appeal had been presented contrary to good faith, the party complaining must apply to the court below for an injunction; and then the case might come regularly by appeal before their Lordships. But as it was, the House had no jurisdiction, and he had, consequently, refused the application. There had been certain allegations, imputing blame to the hon. Gentleman who had presented the last petition; and it was quite competent for him to present that petition denying those charges, and alleging that the other petition was false. It would be impossible to say, that if improper and almost fraudulent motives had been imputed to a person, he should not come to that House and deny the charges. There had been no breach of privilege.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, it was unnecessary for him to add a word more than to say, that he had nothing whatever to do with the truth of one party or the other. The petition was for an inquiry to ascertain which of the parties was right.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that the Earl of Glengall had been accused of bringing forward these accusations,

149
as if they had been published for the first time, whilst the fact was, that the accusations, whatever they might be, were first embodied in a petition presented to the Court of Chancery on the 7th February by the solicitor to Lady Edward Thynne, who was also, he believed, the solicitor to Mr. Duncombe. The Earl of Glengall was only a trustee in the case.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, I would make a proposal to my noble Friend on the Woolsack. We had this Bill before us last year. Never was a Bill so fully considered. There was a Select Committee of your Lordships upon it, and when it came down to this House, the measure was so fully approved, that it passed, I believe, without a single division. I need scarcely tell your Lordships that I then was, and still am, in favour of the principle; but as there are parties praying your Lordships to be heard by counsel against the Bill—though I must say they are not in time, for they ought to have asked to be heard before the second reading. [A noble LORD: This is the second reading.] Oh, very well! What I want to propose to my noble Friend is this—as there are some objections to the Bill, and as I myself am not satisfied with certain of its provisions, I would propose that we should postpone the second reading until after Easter, in order that, meanwhile, we should see what alterations can be made in the Bill, so that it may pass unanimously and without discussion. I am most strenuous for the principle, as I said before; but there are a variety of details which I should like to see amended.
The EARL of ELDON: I hope the noble Lord on the Woolsack will be prepared to assent to this suggestion. Your Lordships will remember how strong was the opposition to this measure on the part of the civic companies last year; and I must say that, from all I can see, their feeling towards it is still more hostile this year. I have two petitions to present to your Lordships upon the subject — one from the Worshipful Company of Coopers, praying that the Bill may not pass at all; the other from the Worshipful Company of Merchant Tailors, giving at length their reasons in opposition to the measure—reasons which apply, to a great extent, to all the other companies. My Lords, they say that by compelling them to submit their accounts and deeds to the inspection of a Commission, you will put a check upon the exercise
150
of charity, for that at present they contribute in aid of the charity funds at their disposal from the resources of other estates not held by them for charitable purposes, the particulars of which estates they will not be inclined to submit to Government inquiry. That, my Lords, is an objection which I consider very well founded; and I hope your Lordships will feel that you have no right to interfere with companies which have, under their charters, power to manage their own funds—who apply the funds which charitable persons have left at their disposal to members of their own bodies who may be in distress—who in every way satisfy the great community who constitute their respective companies that the trust is properly administered—and who have, and can show that they have, sufficient funds at their disposal to stand before the Lord Chancellor as respondents in any suit that may be brought against them. These petitioners complain, my Lords, that a heavy tax—3d. in the 1l. in some cases, and 1½d. in the 1l. in others—is to be levied on the funds of charitable estates, and they think they ought not to be subjected to such a tax. I am prepared to say, that as far as such bodies may desire to be exempted, I think this House ought to exempt them from the operation of this Bill; and I concur with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) in hoping that such exceptions and alterations will be made in the Bill as may enable us to pass it without opposition on its third reading.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not understand what the noble Earl means by saying that this Bill is more unfavourable to the petitioners than the Bill of last year. My Lords, the Bills are identical. The only difference in the present Bill from the Bill of last year is the exemption of the Universities from its operation. In all other respects the present Bill is precisely the same as the Bill of last Session.
The EARL of ELDON: Precisely?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Precisely the same. Previous to the discussion of last year, this Bill was referred by your Lordships to a Committee upstairs. That Committee was not merely of a formal character. There was a strict attendance day by day. All the Law Lords attended it; several of the Bishops, including the venerable Metropolitan, took a warm interest in it; many alterations were made in it, and it ultimately passed your Lordships without comment. It went down to the other House of Parliament; but, in consequence

151
of the delay which had occurred in discussing it before your Lordships' Committee, it was found to be too late to pass it through that House during the last Session. I do not see, therefore, the necessity for again submitting this measure to consideration; but, if such is your Lordships' pleasure, I have no objection to reconsider any clause in it which may be objected to, or to refer it to a Select Committee again, if it should be so wished. There is a slight alteration in the Bill with regard to the constitution of the tribunal for appointing trustees in municipal charities. I do not know that it is material; but if it is your Lordships' opinion that the Bill on this point should be reconsidered, I shall not object to postpone the second reading.
The EARL of ELDON: I only wish to remark, that the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I did not say that this Bill was more injurious to civic companies than the Bill of last year, but that their hostility to it was, if possible, even more decided. What I wish to urge is, that they should be excepted from the operation of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The question of exceptions was well considered last year, and the Committee came to the unanimous decision that there should be no exceptions whatever. I cannot, therefore, entertain the noble Lord's suggestion, to make exceptions from its operation.
LORD COTTENHAM: My Lords, I cannot, of course, oppose the alteration which appears in the present Bill, and to which my noble Friend on the Woolsack has referred, for it is consistent with the proposal which I myself made upon the Bill going through its second reading last year; but if I am to understand that this Bill is, with that single exception, to be passed in the same shape as it was passed last year, I shall feel it to be my duty to propose to your Lordships that it be rejected altogether. I must say, my Lords, that my objections to parts of it are very strong. I shall not go into them now, as I understand that the second reading is to be adjourned in order that the Bill may be altered; and, of course, I shall be better prepared to give an opinion upon it when we see the alterations which may be made. I would remark, however, that it does not follow, because the Bill passed unanimously through the Committee, that it should pass equally unanimously through this House.
LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, I will not say that my noble Friend is bound by
152
the fact of this Bill having passed without dissent last year to give it his support at present; for, since last year, he has had more time to consider of it—he has been refreshed by a summer's and winter's rest—and he now comes to us, "like a giant refreshed," to give us new views which, during the interval, he has adopted. But, my Lords, I must say that I hope my noble Friend will not oppose the Bill—it is a most important Bill—I can see no objection to it; and as to the argument of the noble Earl opposite, that it would stop charity, I never was so astonished in my life than in hearing such an argument. Why should it stop charity? Why should it? Because it stops the inducements to abuse? My Lords, I thought the very best reason that could be urged for contributing to a charity was, that the funds of the charity could not be misapplied.
LORD COTTENHAM: If the noble Lord will be so good as to recollect, I did oppose the Bill last year.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble Friend did not divide the House. He took part in the discussion, and urged some objections to the details, but he did not divide the House.
The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must say that there seems to me to be a great slur thrown upon public companies and on administrators by this Bill.
LORD CAMPBELL: My Lord, this being a proposal to put off the second reading of the Bill, in order that it may be further considered and amended, I certainly cannot oppose it. But it is very extraordinary. I certainly remember nothing like it. This Bill was introduced in 1844. We then had abundant opportunity to consider it. It was re-introduced last Session, and presented to us in what the noble Lord then considered a very perfect form. He brings it forward this year in a form, if possible, still more perfect; but nevertheles, now, when the second reading is about to be proposed, on the very eve of the Easter recess, at the suggestion of my noble Friend (Lord Brougham) who sometimes sits here, but whom I now see near the Woolsack, he proposes a further adjournment of the measure, that we may again consider it. My Lords, the noble Lord ought at once entirely to abandon this Bill. I cannot concur in the suggestion that this Bill, as it stands at present, can be improved. I suggest to the noble Lord to confine the operation of the Bill to charities of small amount, which cannot

153
afford the expense of an application to the Court of Chancery. In that I will honestly support him. There are a great number of charities of no more value than 100 l. a year; and to apply to the Court of Chancery, under present circumstances, with respect to charities of that value, is to open the door to a great abuse of those charities. There is no tribunal from which redress in the cases of such charities can be cheaply obtained; and I would wipe away that reproach from our jurisprudence. But the income of the charities of England to which this Bill applies amounts to no less than 1,500,000 l. a year; and to subject all these charities to the inspection of a Commission—to subject their property to a tax for the support of a Commission—to subject the trustees of the donors to the inquisition of a Commission—that, my Lords, I will strenuously resist. My Lords, when the Court of Chancery can be applied to, it is, beyond doubt, the best tribunal to which, in these cases, we can possibly resort. Instead of overthrowing its powers, let us try to simplify and cheapen the process of that Court; but do not let us create an arbitrary, despotic, irresponsible, and expensive power to supersede trustees, and under that sway to affect the political power of boroughs returning representatives to Parliament. To that course I am strenuously opposed. I expressed the same views upon the subject last Session; and I now repeat, that if the noble Lord will dismiss that part of the Bill which subjects great corporations to the authority of a Commission—if he will dismiss that part of it which enables Commissioners to interfere with trustees, and that part which gives a power over charities vested in municipal bodies, I will support him in his endeavour to simplify and cheapen the process by which interference may be obtained in the cases of charitable trusts. But I will not support the machinery which this Bill seeks to create; and to the measure, indeed, in its present shape, I shall feel bound to give my most strenuous opposition.
LORD BROUGHAM: My noble Friend is mistaken when he says that this is an unheard-of proceeding to put off a measure in order that it may be further considered. The Bill will pass with less opposition if time is given us to consider, not its principle, for that has been amply considered, but some of its little details, which there has been at present no opportunity to discuss. I have never had an opportunity to consult
154
my noble Friend on the Woolsack for one moment on this subject. My noble Friend requires rest in the autumn and winter as well as the rest of us. He goes out of town, and so do I, and we never meet again until Parliament calls us together; and since the present Session commenced, we have been so busy in your Lordships' House every morning, that really my noble Friend and I have not had a single opportunity to confer together, even for one moment, upon the subject. My Lords, I must say that I am quite astonished to hear the misrepresentations which have been made of the scope and tendency of this Bill. I could not have believed that my noble Friend who spoke last could have been addressing himself to the same measure. Why, the operation of this Bill is confined to small charities.
LORD CAMPBELL: No, no!
LORD BROUGHAM: But it is.
LORD CAMPBELL: No, no! You cannot have read the Bill.
LORD BROUGHAM: But I have read the Bill, and I know that the Bill is extended to all charities for certain other purposes, but not for administrative—not for judicial purposes. It gives no jurisdiction over large charities, though it gives a power of inquiry into their affairs. And what is the objection to that? Did not my Charity Commission—a Commission for inquiry—extend to all charities? Who objected to that? My Lords, the fact is — I know it well, no one better—that there are companies who dread the light! I will not say, "who dread the light" "because their deeds are evil," for perhaps their deeds are less "evil" than "hospitable." We all know their hospitality. I have partaken of it; my noble Friend (Lord Campbell) has partaken of it; and so, I dare say, has my noble Friend on the Woolsack. But they dread inquiry. I knew one great body in the city from which a man received 600 l. per annum. He had gone back in the world—had been less fortunate than he ought, perhaps, to have been, and he received from the Irish property of the Bridge House Estate the very liberal pension of 600 l. per annum. As far, my Lords, as applies to inquiry and to the correction of abuse, this Bill applies to all charitable estates equally; but as respects jurisdiction, it is confined to small charities which cannot afford the cost and charge of suits in equity. As to inspection, it applies equally to all, as I said before; and I cannot conceive why

155
there should not be such inspection now, just as there has been inspection before. But I am only anticipating the discussion on the Bill, which it is proposed, at my own suggestion, to postpone.
LORD CAMPBELL: My Lords, I only wish to point out to the noble Lord that by the first section of this Bill a power is given to the Commissioners proposed to be constituted, over all charitable estates of every description, and for whatever purposes. They are to have even the power to order the sale, mortgage, or exchange of their lands.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a very extraordinary thing. The object and purpose of this Bill is to secure the better administration of small charitable trusts. Its intent is to do justice where justice cannot now be done, in the cases, namely, of small charities; and, with regard to other charities to give a power of inquiry into their receipts, and the manner in which they are applied, not with a view to correct abuses, but in the conviction that, by requiring them to render periodical accounts, abuses will be checked; and that, by affording an opportunity of exposure, others will be enabled to ascertain the real facts, in order that, if requisite, proceedings may be instituted in the Court of Chancery, by which due correction might be applied. No other powers are to be given by this Bill excepting only that single power of sale, mortgage, or exchange of lands, to which my noble Friend has adverted. And what is that power? A power, my Lords, for the benefit of the charities themselves. If they want to lease, to sell, or to exchange lands for the benefit of the trust, they will, under this Bill, have the power of doing so at a moderate cost, instead of being forced to go into the Court of Chancery at a cost so great that, except in some special cases, it is impossible that an application for the purpose can be made. And what grounds are there for complaining of the Bill? What, my Lords, are the trustees of charities but public officers invested with public powers and public duties? Are they to be afraid of investigation? I should have thought, my Lords, they would have been glad to court inquiry. It would free them from suspicions founded upon vague and indistinct charges: if they unfold their accounts, show how their funds are applied, and satisfy every man that they are acting properly, what can be more desirable for themselves? Then, my Lords, as to another
156
point. An objection is taken to the proposed appointment of the trustees of municipal charities. It is argued that there is a party object in this arrangement, and that Commissioners will be more likely to be influenced by such considerations than the Masters in Chancery. I am sure your Lordships will be of opinion there is no just ground for this objection. How are the trustees appointed now? By application to a Master in Chancery, who reports to the Lord Chancellor the names of the parties whom he may deem fit and proper for the office. I admit that the masters have performed their duties fairly and properly. I do not mean to surmise that in any single appointment the Masters have been influenced in the performance of their duties by any base or political motive; but I must say that there is no better security against such motives under the present system than there will be under the proposed Commission. If this Bill pass, the trusteess of municipal charities will be appointed by the Commissioners. The Commissioners will hold their office independently of the Crown, and during good behaviour, durante se bene gesserit; and if persons properly qualified are placed in those offices, may you not expect perfect reliance to be placed on the due performance of their duties? In point of responsibility and independence, they will be on an equal footing with the Masters in Chancery. What foundation is there, then, for this charge? Why, my, Lords, I recollected that it was urged, on a former occasion, that we did not go far enough in this matter. These are principles of the Bill. I will not go into details; if I did, I might show your Lordships such "a case," that no honest man could refuse to pass it. But I have yielded to the suggestion of my noble Friend; I will defer the discussion. I do not know that any inconvenience will arise from the delay. I will confer with my noble Friend on the matters of detail about which he has a doubt. I am most desirous, as he is, that the measure should be carried through Parliament, and I am ready to make any personal sacrifice for that purpose.
LORD COTTENHAM: My Lords, it has been said of this Bill, that it gives a power to a body of Commissioners greater than is given to the Court of Chancery. My Lords, I say it does a great deal more. The Parliament itself has never exercised such powers. No Act of Parliament ever gave such authority as will be given to these Commissioners. They are to have a power

157
of selling trust property—of diverting trust funds from their original purposes, without regard to the intentions of the founders, without regard to the doctrine of cy-près! The noble Lord thinks that he has made out the case of this Bill by telling us, that the judicial powers of the Commissioners will, under its provisions, be limited to the smaller charities. Has he maintained that principle with regard to charities in the hands of the municipal corporations? No. But if the Commissioners are to have power only over the smaller charities which are in the hands of private trustees, why should not their powers be limited to the smaller charities in the hands of the municipal corporations? Why, my Lords, they can at once swamp all the trustees of municipal charities. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain to us why that is? But to pursue the discussion further would be an evil only second to the reading of the Bill itself.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I will give the noble Lord the explanation he requires. The power of appointing trustees in municipal cases is given to the Commissioners, because it is necessary to fill up vacancies. I listen with great difficulty to an application of this sort, and I have never filled up a vacancy in a body of trustees of a municipal charity until it was absolutely necessary; and why? Because, my Lords, of the cost. In the Hereford case there were seven or eight vacancies to fill up; and what do your Lordships suppose were the taxed costs of the proceeding? Upwards of 700 l.! And when it is recollected that applications of this sort must be made in consequence of deaths at intervals of every few years, I must beg you to look at the tax which is thereby imposed on the charity funds. That is the reason why I have applied this principle to municipal corporations as to the appointment of charity trustees. Why, the original appointment of trustees in the Shrewsbury case cost more than 500 l. In the Salisbury case it exceeded 400 l. In the Exeter case the cost was between 600 l. and 700 l. These sums, added together, would be sufficient to found a new charity. Is not this, I ask, an abuse for which the Legislature ought to find a remedy? I shall not presume that any one supposes that I want, by this Bill, to secure an ill-gotten power for myself or for any of my Colleagues. I know that my conduct is open to no such imputation. It is a matter in which the Court of Chancery is interested, and as such alone I treat it.
LORD COTTENHAM: I must venture to
158
vindicate the Court of Chancery from the noble Lord's aspersion. The proceedings before the Lord Chancellor certainly, in the cases of several charities, cost a large sum; but those proceedings were not of a simple character, as was, indeed, explained by the Master in his examination before the Committee. The corporations who administered these charities had different funds at their disposal: they had not taken care to keep separate accounts of the receipt and application of such funds, and great expense accordingly arose in distinguishing which was the charity property and which was not.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I recollect what Master Brougham said before the Committee. He stated that in one case 700 l. was spent in litigation out of the charity estate. It was the Norwich case; and in the Norwich case no such question arose.
LORD COTTENHAM: I do not know what Master Brougham might have said, but I know that in the Norwich case there were several important questions for consideration, and which, but for the decision in this form, would have involved them in still more expensive litigation.
VISCOUNT STRANGFORD: My Lords, I was to have had the honour of presenting a petition to your Lordships upon this subject from a very important body; but from some accident or another, it has not reached me at the House. It prayed your Lordships that the petitioners might be heard against the Bill. It was from the Worshipful Company of Skinners.
The EARL of ELDON: I think I may congratulate your Lordships upon what has passed, for I hope that advantage will be taken of the delay which will now be occasioned to strike out of the Bill all its objectionable clauses. I will now lay on the Table the petitions to which I previously adverted.
Second Reading postponed until after the Easter recess.
House adjourned.