Lords Sitting of 17 June 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2ª Passengers Act Amendment: Trustees Act Extension; Suitors in Chancery Relief.
Reported.—Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Scutch Mills for Flax (Ireland).
3ª General Board of Health.
ROYAL ASSENT.—Stamp Duties (Ireland) Continuance; Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Proclamation for Assembling Parliament; Law of Wills Amendment; Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages; Apprehension of Deserters from Foreign Ships; Law of Evidence (Scotland); Public Works; London (City) Improvements; London (City) Small Debts Extension.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS (CRIMINAL JURISDICTION) BILL.
Order of the Day for Second Reading, read.
LORD WODEHOUSEmoved the Second Reading of this Bill, and stated its object, and the circumstances which made such a measure desirable. The Bill proposed to withdraw from the Ecclesiastical Courts the cognisance of causes of defamation and brawling or smiting in the church or churchyard, and was based upon the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He asked their Lordships to give, at least, an instalment of that reform which the public so earnestly desired, by assenting to the second reading of this Bill.
Moved—"That the Bill be now read 2ª."
The BISHOP of SALISBURYsaid, it had been the intention of a right rev. Friend of his (the Bishop of London), who was unable to attend, to move the rejection of this Bill; and in the absence of that right rev. Prelate, he (the Bishop of Salisbury) felt it his duty to oppose the measure. He hoped that, at this period of the Session, their Lordships would not assent to a Bill which had not originated with Her Majesty's Advisers, who would have been able to take a comprehensive
820
view of the whole subject, but with private individuals. It must not be supposed, however, that his right rev. Brethren and himself were not as desirous as any of their Lordships that a speedy and effectual remedy should be provided for any abuses which might exist in the administration of the ecclesiastical law. He fully admitted that there were many things in these courts which it was desirable to remove; and for himself he could say that he would readily co-operate in their removal. But he did not think it would be wise or prudent to pass a Bill referring to a single and small part of a great and comprehensive subject. A distinct pledge had been given in another place that the whole question should receive the consideration of the Government, and he therefore thought it the less desirable that this measure should be entertained. He objected to the Bill because it tended indirectly to repeal part of the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer, and could not therefore be entertained without the consent of Convocation; and further, because he considered that, if the subject was dealt with piecemeal, they might, unconsciously and unintentionally, trench upon principles which it was most desirable to maintain. He therefore moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day Three Months.")
LORD CAMPBELL,in supporting the second reading, said, that a Committee of their Lordships' House had investigated this subject—six of the Members of which were Prelates of the Church—upwards of twenty years ago, and they had reported in favour of a measure of the kind now submitted to their Lordships. The right rev. Prelate, however, appeared to be in favour of a more sweeping measure of reform in reference to these courts than the Bill proposed, He (Lord Campbell) would rejoice as much as any man in a measure which would effect a complete reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts; but he was afraid that was too great a task to be undertaken except by a very strong Government resolved to do what Was right. He submitted, however, that the Bill before the House was wholly unexceptionable, and did not stand in the slightest degree in the way of future legislation. There was a criminal jurisdiction which in Roman Catholic times was assumed by the Church, which, in his opinion, and he knew he was joined in that opinion by several right rev. Prelates, ought

821
never to have belonged to it: he meant the jurisdiction of a criminal nature against laymen guilty of brawling in the church, and of defamation; and it was with respect to those two offences only that this Bill proposed to abolish the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The right rev. Prelate had objected to the Bill because it was not brought forward by the Government; but that was a futile objection, seeing that every independent Peer had a right to bring forward any measure which he thought deserved the consideration of the House. He would remind the right rev. Prelate that the County Courts Act was brought into the other House by an independent Member; it received the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, and had conferred the greatest benefit on the public. The circumstance, therefore, of this Bill being introduced by an individual Member ought to be no reason why their Lordships should not support it; and he would repeat that the Bill offered no obstacle whatever to future improvement. The jurisdiction sought to be abolished was a limb which their Lordships might easily lop off from the Ecclesiastical Courts; and he did not think the right rev. Prelate had offered one single valid objection why their Lordships should not pass the second reading.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, he was entirely unable to acquiesce in the view taken by the noble and learned Lord opposite, who seemed to have entirely misrepresented the argument of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Salisbury) on a material point, though, of course, unintentionally. His right rev. Friend did not, as he understood, say he was anxious for a sweeping reform on the subject, for he was one of those who thought it prudent in matters of reform to proceed step by step. But he (the Bishop of Oxford) understood his right rev. Friend to say that, in dealing with a great case of admitted abuse, the only safe way was to lay down some principle that would enable them to legislate upon the question as a whole, instead of leaving such principle altogether unannounced and undeveloped; but instead, beginning by exploring all the small extremities of the law, and so diminishing the power of the law, while yet no remedy was provided. He (the Bishop of Oxford) was prepared to admit that the subject deserved attention, that it ought to be dealt with by the Legislature, and that great reforms ought to be introduced; and
822
it was because he believed this species of nibbling legislation was not the way to secure a great reform, but the way to leave real difficulties untouched, that he was unable to agree with the noble and learned Lord. He (the Bishop of Oxford) objected to the Bill for this reason, and he trusted their Lordships would concur with him, that it did away with the only remedy for certain great existing evils—the only mode of punishment that could be inflicted—while it did not substitute any other; and he held that to be a very vicious and irregular way of legislating. If the Bill passed, those cases of defamation in which the civil courts had no jurisdiction would be left wholly unprovided for, unless a new remedy wore given. And, with regard to the cases of brawling, the Civil Courts could not deal with them. A clergyman might preach against his parishioners, and make himself offensive to them, but they had no remedy unless a distinct libel was perpetrated, whereas he could now be proceeded against in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the mere knowledge of the fact placed it in the power of the Bishop to prevent the necessity for future complaint on the part of parishioners. Within the last two years he had received several such complaints; but the circumstance of there always being a remedy in the Ecclesiastical Courts, enabled him to terminate quarrels and restore peace. The noble Lord (Lord Wodehouse) ought therefore to have provided in his Bill a new civil jurisdiction for the trial of laymen, and a new ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the trial of clergymen; but instead of doing that, he sought to abolish the existing law without substituting any other remedy. His right rev. Friend was no more enamoured with the existing law than the noble Lord (Lord Wodehouse), but he said it was not safe to take away the ancient remedy, the abuses connected with which lay deeper and required more severe handling than the noble Lord fancied, because they were connected with the whole system of ecclesiastical administration. He (the Bishop of Oxford) admitted cases of defamation were very numerous, not in London, but in certain of the wilder parts of the country; but though the machinery provided for the purpose was very bad and imperfect, there was no difficulty in repressing the evil by its means. He was quite ready to part with this, which at present was found to be a wholesome mode of repression, if a better mode was provided; but he was against abolishing a

823
portion of an ancient complex system, when he believed there was danger of the remaining portions working badly This ancient law of the Christian Church, by which it exercised the power which must always be inherent in the Church of Christ to censure sins as sins, had existed for centuries previous to the reign of Edward VI.; and if first one and then another alteration were made in the category of offences, it would at length be reduced to a hopeless chaos of unmeaning words. It was one thing to establish a principle on a true basis not capable of abuse, and another to take away one thing, and then another, and yet leave the whole system unaltered and unchanged. At present a check was provided against a parish priest excluding any of his parishioners from the Holy Communion, because he was bound to notify the same to the Bishop, who could proceed against him in the Ecclesiastical Courts if he so thought fit—a privilege which was also conceded to the person aggrieved; but the Bill did away with that, and left the party without any redress. He had not obtained his acquaintance with the law ecclesiastical without knowing it wanted a very complete reform, and he trusted he might live to see such a reform carried out; hut it must be a reform not by individual Members of either House picking out two or three telling cases of abuse, but a reform that would bring back the system of ecclesiastical discipline to that more reasonable and more primitive state which the abuses of modern times had corrupted.
LORD WODEHOUSEintimated, in reply to the right rev. Prelate's observation, no remedy being substituted for that proposed to be abolished, that the Bill made these offences punishable as misdemeanours. He should feel it his duty to divide the House upon the Bill.
The BISHOP of OXFORDexplained that he did not say it was the inalienable right of the Church of Christ specially to deal with cases of defamation, but that the Bill was a partial interference with that discipline of the Church, which discipline was one of its inalienable rights.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) was not satisfied with this "piecemeal reform" of the ecclesiastical law, but desired to bring it back to its primitive state. Now he wished to know, and he believed a good many of their Lordships wished to know, what the primitive state of the law was to which the right rev. Prelate desired
824
them to return. Judging, not from the words, but from the tone and manner of the right rev. Prelate's speech, he thought their Lordships could easily understand at least the spirit of the system which he longed to see restored. He thought their Lordships, too, would be justified in concluding that the right rev. Prelate's professed objection to the Bill was not his real objection to it—that it was not because it was a small reform, but because it was the commencement of a reform which might lead to something further, namely, to a complete reformation of those courts which, according to his own statement were now a scandal to the country and the Church—that the right rev. Prelate was so anxious to defeat the present measure. The right rev. Prelate, however, had professed himself a radical reformer of the Church and of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He refused to reform by degrees, but desired to go at once to the root. What his scheme was it was not for him (Earl Fitzwilliam) to anticipate; but, at least, after the speech which the right rev. Prelate had just delivered, the country would know where to look for one who was desirous to destroy the corruption of the Ecclesiastical Courts, whatever he might introduce in their place.
The EARL of DERBY: It was my earnest hope, after the statements which have been made by both the right rev. Prelates, and after the representations which have been made in the other House of Parliament, and which I am quite ready to repeat on this subject—that the subjects of the ecclesiastical law and the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts should receive the earnest and anxious attention of the Government—that the noble Lord would have consented not to press the Bill which he has now laid before your Lordships. I am quite convinced that that which my noble Friend on the cross benches (Earl Fitzwilliam) appears to impute to the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), namely, as to his being found an uncompromising opponent of the existing abuses in the system ecclesiastical, will be found to be very much the reality, and not merely the insincere expression which the noble Earl in his observations, by way of taunt and ridicule, would seem to suppose they were. I am very far from saying that questions of this kind may not be properly brought forward by independent Members of Parliament in this or the other House; but, at the same time, I will venture to

825
exprsss my opinion that where there is a large question necessary to be dealt with—a question of a most difficult and complicated character, involving the removal of abuses which have arisen in the process of time, and chiefly and mainly in consequence of altered circumstances and habits—I think that, in such cases, the Government—and I do not speak particularly of this, but of any Government which have means at command, assistance to call to their aid, and counsels of able individuals to take—may and must have an opportunity of dealing with large questions much more satisfactory than independent Members of Parliament can do by separate measures, affecting only trifling questions, which, after all, do not go to the root of the evil. Not concealing from myself the great difficulty of the subject, and not presuming to lay before your Lordships a satisfactory scheme, I beg to say, at the same time, that the attention of the Government shall be devoted to the question, with the view of removing the abuses which now exist; and with that declaration, I must express a hope that the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill, and very properly called the attention of the House to a small portion of an important subject, will be contented, especially, looking at the period of the Session, and the admitted necessity on his own part for the introduction of Amendments into the Bill, which must receive the concurrence of the other House of Parliament, and that he will consent to leave the question for the present in the hands of the Government, and to wave the Motion which he has just made.
LORD WODEHOUSEwas sorry that he could not assent to the proposition of the noble Earl, but must press the measure. The country expected it, and would regard it as an earnest of that more extensive reform which was promised that evening.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that that was the first time he had heard the postponement of a Bill urged on the ground of the lateness of the Session, on the 16th of June, particularly in the case of a Bill which had passed through the House of Commons, supported by both sides of the House, and amended by the law officers of the Crown by the introduction of the only proviso which be had deemed requisite in the measure—a Bill, too, which had been brought up to their Lordships' House without one dissentient voice. If the Government had not thought
826
it a proper Bill, they ought not to have given it their approval in the other House. But they should not, at all events now, on the plea of the lateness of the Session, seek to throw over the Bill when they had given no pledge that they would undertake the reform which was admitted to be needed for those scandalous abuses. It was by no means creditable to the Government thus to reject this proposed Amendment of abuses without any prospect of a reform being put forward even as "looming in the distance."
LORD CRANWORTHsincerely hoped the noble Lord would not consent to withdraw the Bill.
LORD WODEHOUSE: Hear, hear!
LORD CRANWORTH: He rejoiced to hear that that was not the noble Lord's intention. Although the measure proposed to deal with that which was undoubtedly a very small matter, it was nevertheless an acknowledged abuse, acknowledged to be so by six right rev. Prelates who were upon the Commission; and the removal of it, so far from interfering with the great reform contemplated by Government to be made hereafter, would, in his (Lord Cran-worth's) opinion, clear the way for and facilitate the passing of such a measure. But he had a further reason why he thought the Bill should pass now, and it was that the arguments of the Bishop of Oxford went to the assertion of the doctrine that there ought to be ecclesiastical jurisdiction over laymen. Now, at a period like the present, when so much was said respecting the "encroachments" of ecclesiastical jurisdiction upon the civil rights of the country, he felt that he should be guilty of a neglect of his duty if he did not rise and enter his protest against the doctrine which inevitably flowed from the words of the right rev. Prelate. For this reason, then, if for no other, he trusted his noble Friend would presevere with the Bill.
On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided:—Content 45; Not-Content 80: Majority 35.

List of the CONTENT.

MARQUESSES.

Carlisle

Anglesea

Chichester

Clanricarde

Clare

Lansdowne

Darnley

Normanby

Ellenborough

EARLS.

Fitzwilliam

Airlie

Fortescue

Bruce

Granville

Bessborough

Grey

827

Hchester

BARONS.

Lovelace

Ashburton

Minto

Beaumont

Morley

Brougham

Rosebery

Calthorpe

St. Germans

Campbell

Scarborough

Carington

Shaftesbury

Colborne

Sefton

Cranworth

Waldegrave

Elphinstone

VISCOUNTS.

Foley

Leigh

Sydney

Lilford

Torrington

Saye and Sele

BISHOP

Stanley of Alderley

Wodehouse

Gloucester

Wrottesley

Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2ª on this day Three Months.

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
LORD LYNDHURSTbegged, before their Lordships proceeded to consider the clauses of this Bill, to say a few words with respect to the course which had been adopted in reference to it by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack; and he was the more anxious to do so, because when his noble and learned Friend proposed to have this measure referred to a Select Committee, a noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Campbell) had alleged that the object in doing so was to prevent the passing of the Bill in the present Session. It was absolutely necessary that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee; and if they had pursued any other course, or if the measure had been passed as it came up to their Lordships from the other House of Parliament, great injustice would have been done in many instances. It now appeared before their Lordships in a greatly improved shape. His noble and learned Friend on the woolsack was entitled to the sincere thanks of all those who were interested in the measure, for it was mainly by his exertions that the blemishes which had defaced the measure had been removed. As a Member of the Select Committee, he (Lord Lyndhurst) felt bound to make that statement in vindication of the conduct of his noble and learned Friend, at whose instance it had been referred to that Committee.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had never doubted for a moment that the proper course to be taken was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He had applauded
828
that mode of proceeding in their Lordships' House, particularly with regard to measures that were to effect an alteration in the law. It was the course he uniformly pursued himself; and if he had imagined, when it was proposed on the second reading of the Bill to refer it to a Select Committee, that it was intended to pass the measure this Session, he never would have opposed that Motion. But the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down, seemed to have forgotten what passed on the second reading. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack then said, that the Bill was, in his opinion, wrong in principle as well as in detail. His noble and learned Friend pointed out the injustice that Would be done to lords and tenants by the measure, and made a bold and masculine speech against the principle of the Bill. When his noble and learned Friend said that, instead of moving that it be read a second time that day three months, he should move that it be referred to a Select Committee, he (Lord Campbell) was not rash in thinking that his noble and learned Friend was of opinion that the Bill ought not to pass. He submitted that nothing had been done on his part to expose him to the censure of his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst), and he felt he had done nothing of which he should repent. He was rejoiced that the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, for the measure had undoubtedly been greatly improved by that tribunal; he was rejoiced that the Government were favourable to the Bill, though when the second reading was proposed they had exhibited symptoms of a different kind. He did not know whether the change that had since taken place had been caused by communicating with the Home Secretary. He hoped that right hon. Gentleman explained to them what had taken place in the other House, and pointed out the impropriety of Government opposing a Bill in one House of Parliament and supporting it in the other. He hoped he had made an impression upon those who influenced their Lordships' House, and that there was now a sincere desire that the Bill should pass the House and become the law of the land.
The LORD CHANCELLORhad hoped that his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Campbell) would have viewed his conduct in a better light, and that, at all events after the statement which had been made by his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Lyndhurst), he would have

829
withdrawn the censure which he had thought fit to pass upon him. His noble and learned Friend had repeated the accusation after he (the Lord Chancellor) had denied it, and asserted that he was professing and declaring one thing while he intended another. There was nothing that he wished to avoid so much as to get into a controversy with any noble Lord; but he felt his course was, holding the office he did, and considering it to be his positive duty, to tell their Lordships what his sincere opinions were on the measures that came before them. He was not to ask whether those opinions were popular of unpopular, but merely to give them the opinion he entertained. He had after laborious study and attention expressed his real opinion to their Lordships on this Bill; it was not a popular one, and his noble and learned Friend objected to it. His noble and learned Friend stated in the House, and repeated in the Committee, that he did not object to a Select Committee, but he did object to a Select Committee when it was intended for an indirect purpose; and his noble and learned Friend had repeated the assertion, though he (the Lord Chancellor) had disclaimed such an intention over and over again. He (the Lord Chancellor) had never concealed his opinions—he felt that in accepting this Bill, it was a choice of evils, and though a remedy was called for, they could not pass this measure without inflicting considerable injury on a very large number of persons. He felt that he could point out parties who would suffer deeply from the measure, and was assured that they would hear of their distress. He thought that their Lordships were responsible for the consequences, and that they ought to take leisure and care in carrying that measure. He was prepared to do anything in his power to make the measure as good as it could be made, and to lessen evils which were inevitable; and he took the liberty of stating to the Committee upstairs, that they should take care how they acted, and endeavour to prevent a great mass of evil and distress falling upon a great number of persons. He thought that his noble and learned Friend should have now adopted a different tone, and that he should have expressed his sorrow that he had over doubted the good faith in which the Select Committee was proposed, and his pleasure to find that everybody on every side of the House had but one object in view, namely, to pass as perfect a measure as possible.
830
Without meaning to say anything disagreeable to his noble and learned Friend the author of the measure, he must make this observation: he had stated, after reading the Bill in its original shape, that he could not take upon himself to say that it was a measure, unless alterations were made in it, which could effect the objects in view. No sooner had the Bill got into the Select Committee than his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) himself declared that it was the very worst drawn Bill he had ever seen. He (the Lord Chancellor) had taken a great deal of trouble with it, both in and out of the Committee. There was not a clause in it that had not been cut about in every direction. Some eight or nine new clauses had been added. In fact, he had never seen a Bill more hacked and mutilated by a Select Committee, and he had never seen one that more required it. He hoped it would now effect the object for which it was passed, their anxiety being to protect the poorer class of tenants.
LORD CAMPBELLhad not the smallest desire to interrupt the harmony of the House; but the Bill, though improved, was still a Bill for the enfranchisement of copyholds, which his noble and learned Friend some time ago thought was a measure highly objectionable and not to be effected.
The EARL of STRADBROKEsaid, it would have been perfectly impossible to pass the Bill in the shape in which it originally came from the House of Commons; and he was confident that, in proposing that it should be referred to a Select Committee, it was never the intention of the Lord Chancellor to throw out the Bill.
LORD BEAUMONTbore his testimony to the pains taken by noble and learned Lords to make the Bill of a practicable shape. A more difficult question to deal with it was scarcely possible to imagine; but he believed the Committee had completely succeeded, and that the Bill was now in a state to do the least harm and the most good of any Bill that could be framed.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, from the first moment the Committee met until the last, when the Bill assumed the shape in which it was now presented to their Lordships, there had been the most unremitting and impartial endeavours on the part of the Members to do justice between the parties whose interests were affected, that he had ever seen in the whole course of his life. It might have been anticipated, per-

831
haps, that a Committee of that House would have tended rather to a bias in favour of the lords; but on the contrary, he thought he saw sometimes an almost ridiculous sensitiveness respecting the rights of the tenants: he believed that the interests on both sides had been as fairly arranged as possible.
Amendment made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

LUNATICS BILL.
Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURY,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that the importance of the subject would, he was sure, be a sufficient excuse for his bringing it forward at this late period of the Session. It was a measure which had been long in preparation, and every week's delay in its progress had more and more contributed to manifest its necessity. The case of a Member of the other House, which had recently engaged such general attention, was one which added great force to the growing demand for legislation of the kind. It was become quite essential that persons so afflicted should not be permitted to wander about, merely because they had not committed some absolute crime. When a crime had been committed, it would be poor consolation to the sufferer, or to the sufferer's friends, or to the public, to know that the perpetrator had at last been taken into safe custody; and there was no knowing from hour to hour when the crime would take place; blows with the hand might at any moment be followed up in the case of such madmen by blows with a knife or a sword. Such cases, moreover, were not exceptional; on the contrary, they were very numerous, and they were particularly rife at moments of public excitement on any subject. The necessity of some provision of the kind was first brought under public notice by the Commissioners of Police in 1848, in a memorial to the Home Office, which arose out of the case of Mr. M—, a case that often appeared in the police courts, and was the case of a man who went about threatening the lives of various persons, but whom, in the absence of any overt act of outrage on his part, the police were not in a position to take into their charge, though he was well known to be mad, and whom, to prevent any violence on his part, no fewer than twelve policemen were engaged for several weeks in
832
watching. This danger prevailed to a much greater extent than their Lordships supposed, insomuch that the police complained of their time being occupied by duties of that kind. The law as it now stood would not permit any man to be apprehended, though notoriously and to all intents and purposes a lunatic, until he had committed some positive overt act, and then he was not brought up as a lunatic, but as having been guilty of a breach of the peace. The case of Mr. M—was but a fair sample of that of very many persons who were still at large, with very great pressure on the police, with very great danger to the public, and with obviously extreme uneasiness to the threatened parties and their friends. The measure now before their Lordships had been prepared under the sanction of the Commissioners of Police, of the Commissioners in Lunacy, and of the Home Office. Why it had not been brought in before he could not say, but he presented it now under what he considered an immediate and pressing necessity, and he trusted it would meet with their Lordships' ready concurrence. The provisions of the Bill were very simple and safe. They enacted, that in the case of any person of the description to which he had referred going about without relatives, or having relatives who did not discharge their duty, the police might go before a magistrate, and, having made deposition on oath of the facts of the manifestation of insanity, and the probability of violence, the magistrate might order the alleged lunatic to be brought before him, cause him to be examined by two medical men, and, if they pronounced him insane, make out an order for his transmission to the county lunatic asylum; or, if that should be full, to some other place of lunatic reception duly licensed and registered. The existing law (8 & 9 Vict., cap. 126) was quite inapplicable to the case in view, reaching as it did only the case of wandering lunatics, or those who were ill-treated or neglected by their relatives. The machinery of that Act, besides, was slow and clumsy, being in the hands of overseers and relieving officers. It could not be objected that this provision of the Bill narrowed the liberty of the subject, for it, on the contrary, gave far greater security against the possibility of abuse, in the reference that it made of the alleged lunacy to a magistrate in the first instance, than was given to alleged lunatics generally under the existing law;

833
but, even were it otherwise, lunatics were surely not the only persona to be considered; the public at large, and threatened parties, had at least an equal claim to protection. The other provision was, that where any keeper of a private asylum had a dangerous lunatic, for whom payments had ceased to be made, and whom he might, therefore, discharge, in such cases the keepers of the licensed houses were required to bring such persons before a magistrate, and the magistrate, on duo inquiry, might give an order for his admission into the county asylum. Such wore the provisions of this measure, which he thought did not infringe on public liberty at all; and he trusted that their Lordships would at once give it their sanction.
Moved—"That the Bill be now read 2ª."
The DUKE of RICHMONDdid not wish to oppose the measure itself, but he strongly objected to the manner in which it was proposed to add largely to the liabilities of the county rate. The relatives of lunatics who were at all in a position to pay should he made to pay for or towards their maintenance.
The LORD CHANCELLORwould not oppose the principle of this Bill; but he would suggest that his noble Friend should postpone further proceedings with it until the next Session of Parliament. It was a most important measure, and required more consideration than it was possible for their Lordships to give to it at the present advanced period of this Session. The evil of which the noble Earl complained ought to have a remedy, and next Session he should be happy to give him every assistance in his power.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYsaid, he would adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, and postpone this measure until next Session.
Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SUITORS IN CHANCERY RELIEF BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLORmoved the Second Reading of the Suitors in Chancery Relief Bill, which, his Lordship said, had now come up from the Commons, where it had undergone very great discussion and consideration, after having been framed on the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the subject. He entirely concurred in the general principle of the Bill, which might be truly called one for the relief of suitors in Chancery; not, indeed, that he could venture to promise the suitors any immediate relief as re-
834
garded the expenses of litigation, because, although this Bill would remove a great portion of the burdens which now pressed upon the suitors' fund, yet (as in all such cases) the expenses of the alteration—the compensation to old officers whose offices had been abolished—would exhaust so large a portion of the money saved by the new regulations, that it must be a considerable time before the suitors would derive that relief which the Bill was undoubtedly calculated ultimately to afford. The Bill would abolish foes and copy-money in the Court of Chancery, substituting for them a scale of stamps. It would also transfer from the suitors' fund to the Consolidated Fund the judicial salary of the Lord Chancellor, and the salaries of the Lords Justices and the Vice-Chancellors, amounting altogether to 28,000 l. a year, so that the country now took upon itself to bear, as indeed it ought to bear, the payment of the salaries of the Equity Judges. The Bill would, moreover, abolish many offices of the Court of Chancery, and would regulate and reduce the salaries of those which remained. Indeed, he believed that the number of officers attached to the Lord Chancellor, could not be further reduced consistently with the discharge of his duties. The Bill also contained an important provision, which, although it had not perhaps found a very fitting place there, he was unwilling to strike out. Its object (an obviously just one) was to prevent the poor man who became a lunatic from being burdened with the same heavy expenses which fell upon the rich man. It would, however, be necessary to exercise great care in carrying out this provision, in order that, while doing justice to the poor man, they should not throw upon the property of the rich an unfair share of the cost of the administration of the affairs of lunatics. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the second reading of this Bill, which, in order to avoid any impediments being raised, he proposed to pass without amendments, though he must guard himself against being supposed to approve of the framing and wording of some of the clauses.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that he quite agreed with his noble and learned Friend with respect to the general merits of the Bill; but, although he should not oppose the second reading, he should in Committee move two or three amendments, in order to prevent any injustice being done.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, by this Bill the clerks who were transferred with the

835
equity jurisdiction from the Court of Exchequer to that of Chancery, would only be entitled to compensation according to the number of years they had been clerks in the latter court; now, he thought they should be allowed to claim upon the number of years they had been engaged in both courts.
Bill read 2ª (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

MILITIA BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved—"That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
On Question, Resolved in the Affrmative.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1 to 5 agreed to.
On the 6th Clause,
The DUKE of CLEVELANDexpressed an opinion that a more ample security for the due discharge of these duties would be afforded if the appointment of sergeants rested with the Horse Guards, instead of with Her Majesty, as was proposed by the clause.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, he had not before had an opportunity of expressing his opinion upon the Bill; he would therefore take this opportunity of remarking that, when the Marquess of Lansdowne, on a previous evening, complained that the time for drilling was insufficient, he (the Duke of Richmond) entirely agreed with him that fifty-six days would not be sufficient time for making men fit for the line; but, at the same time, he would be very much ashamed of himself, in the regiment which he commanded, if he could not make men sufficient in that time to serve behind stone walls. There was a class of young men who had obtained their discharge from the line, but who did not like the situation of railway guard, and who ruined themselves if they opened a public-house—these men would be delighted to come into the militia regiments, and would form excellent lance-sergeants and lance-corporals. He was very glad to hear that it was intended by the Bill to introduce those who had been officers in the army and the Indian service as majors and captains of the militia, for, besides the justice that was thus done to the officers, the men would be more likely to follow them than those whom they had known as only country gentlemen. But when some said the mi-
836
litia would be of no use, he would take them even in Sussex, which was the county, if an invasion took place, that would be invaded, and he would ask whether, when it was necessary to obstruct the roads, to blow down bridges, and to raise defences, the militia would not cover the labourers when engaged in these occupations? Yet he could have no hesitation in confessing that were he to be the Chasseur Britan-nique in Sussex, he would much rather be at the head of a regiment of the line or the Guards than lead a regiment of militia; but old as he was, he believed they would teach the Chasseurs de Vincennes, were they to come into Sussex, the lesson which they had taught the Imperial Guard at Waterloo. People who laughed at invasion, if they had only seen the horrors of war, would be too happy to pay a small insurance for their safety. He had no amendment to propose on this clause—he preferred it should stand as it was; but whatever change they might make in it affecting the Lords Lieutenant, he begged, for himself and the rest of them, they would not give them more patronage. For, having something to do with the Sussex Light Infantry Militia, he had received seventy letters—including three Baronets among the writers—in regard to the adjutancy, which he was sorry on that account to say was vacant.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYobserved the appointment of adjutants was always vested in the Crown.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE,in answer to a noble Lord, explained that the drilling of the militiamen would be managed by sergeants of the line, who would be lent for the purpose from their respective regiments, to which they would return at the end of the twenty-one days, so that their military efficiency would always be maintained. If any of these sergeants gave such satisfaction to the colonels of militia regiments, as, in the event of the regiments being embodied, to make it desired that they should be attached to them, every facility for such an arrangement would be afforded by the Horse Guards. At the same time, in order that no discouragement might be given to the militia, the Bill would allow of the appointment to such office of militiamen properly qualified.
Clause agreed to; as also Clauses 7 to 24.
On Clause 25,
The EARL of STRADBROKEmoved

837
an Amendment that the period of training in each year should be twenty-eight instead of twenty-one days.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYsaid, that by the next clause Her Majesty, with the advice of Her Privy Council, might extend or reduce the period, so that the whole training in each year should not exceed fifty-six, nor be loss than three days.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEhad had a great deal to do in his earlier life with the training of Portuguese soldiers, and it was never found necessary to take more than thirty days before sending a recruit into the ranks, where he made a very good soldier. A friend of his in the Guards had assured him that his regiment used only to take thirty-five days; now, indeed, it being a period of peace, they took about sixty-five, because, having time to spare, it was not thought right to make the recruit perform the London duty till he was more completely drilled; but a soldier might be perfectly well trained for infantry purposes in thirty-five days.
A NOBLE LORDhaving suggested a more extended drill than that provided for in the Bill,
The EARL of DERBYwould wish to call the attention of their Lordships to the fact, that the House of Commons had assented to the proposed period of training, and that any increase would of necessity involve a certain expense, which would make an addition to the estimates, and there would be an additional pressure on the country. The House of Commons had at first agreed to a period of twenty-one days, and had then assented to the power given to Her Majesty, with the advice of Her Privy Council, to extend the period to fifty-six, or decrease it to three days. He quite agreed with the noble Lord that a better soldier could be made in twenty-eight than in twenty-one days; hut at the same time he thought it well that their Lordships should sanction the clause as agreed to by the House of Commons.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
Other Amendments made. The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

RETIRED LIST OF THE ARMY—BREVET RANK OF VETERAN LIEUTENANTS.
The DUKE of RICHMONDpresented a petition from old lieutenants of the Peninsular Army, and those who served during the war, praying that the Brevet Rank of
838
Captain may be conferred upon them. He (the Duke of Richmond) thought these brave veterans wore fairly entitled to this honour, which, in fact, would only put them in the position of the captains of yeomanry and disbanded corps, and which would not entail any expense on the country. These men had bled for their country, and in its service visited every part of the known world, and it really was not too much for the country to give them the brevet rank of captain which they asked, in consideration only of the wounds they had received, and the services they had rendered their country.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.

PROPERTY TAX ACT—RIGHT OF APPEAL.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, that having presented a petition on Tuesday night from Mr. Elmer, on the subject of the grievance tenant-farmers laboured under with respect to the right of appeal against overcharge of income tax, he was anxious to state that he had received a communication from his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), to the effect that an order had been issued by the Board of Inland Revenue, to the effect that tenant-farmers who held from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, or from Midsummer to Midsummer, would be entitled to appeal equally with those who held from Ladyday to Ladyday. He was glad that his noble Friend had so promptly done an act of justice to a class which was now suffering severely from the depression of the times.
The EARL of DERBY: I must disclaim the merit of having so quickly listened to the prayer of the petition presented last night; for, on inquiry, I found that the order alluded to by the noble Duke had been issued some days before. I was quite sure that the disability complained of arose from a mere technical, or rather clerical, error (if it were in the law at all), and one which the Board of Inland Revenue would have the power to correct. I was glad to find that the complaint had not only been made, and favourably received by the Board, but that the remedy had been actually applied. If the noble Duke will move for the order itself, I shall have no objection to lay it on the table of the House.
The DUKE of RICHMONDthought that that would be desirable, as then greater publicity would be given to the fact,

839
and the farmers who had received adverse answers from the local surveyors might the sooner have their grievances rectified. He, therefore, moved for the return.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned till To-morrow.