Lords Sitting of 28 July 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Arbitration Law Amendment.
2a Registrar of Meetings: Stamp Duties.
Reported.—Parish Vestries (No. 2); Entails (Scotland); Customs Duties; Dublin Parliamentary Registration.
3a Succession Duty; Missionary Bishops.

COUNTY COURTS FURTHER EXTENSION BILL—ARBITRATION LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
LORD BROUGHAM:* My Lords, the petitions which I have just laid before your Lordships, bring under our consideration the important subject of County Courts, and several of the defects existing in the great system of Local Judicature. The Bill which I presented at the beginning of the Session, for further extending that jurisdic-
834
tion, stands for a second reading this day, and I therefore take the opportunity of stating the course which I propose we should pursue with it, and with this important subject in its various branches.
That some great defects, and not a few erroneous provisions, found their way into the system, is not to be wondered at, when we recollect the manner in which the Bill of 1846 was introduced and passed. The responsibility of these defects I must peremptorily disclaim. The original and larger measure of 1830 and 1833 had been rejected by a narrow majority; and when the partial one introduced by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) was, on his quitting office, adopted by his successor, I in vain urged the postponement of it, from the end of July, when it was resolved that it should be hurried through Parliament, until the next Session, when time would be afforded for removing its defects, and bringing it to a nearer resemblance with the measure of 1833, to which the new Government of 1846 were as much pledged as I was myself, they having been in office with me when I first brought it forward. Unfortunately, it was driven through both Houses between the end of July and the end of August, when but a few Members of either House remained in town. One of the worst consequences of this precipitate proceeding was, the not paying a due attention to the choice of the Judges in some instances, and in all, the underrating the importance of their office. Aware of that importance, I had, in 1833, proposed such a salary as should secure the services of men eminent in the profession. Lord Cottenham deemed a maximum of 1,200 l. sufficient, and at once awarded the same salary of only 1,000 l. to all the sixty whom he appointed, the former plan having been to make 1,500 l. the average, and award 1,200 l. to one, 1,800 l. to another, according to the kind of the districts in which they officiated. In order to save compensation in the case of local Courts abolished, the other error was committed of appointing persons who had presided in those Courts, and who were of various capacities. I am, however, most willing to admit that generally the selection was well made, and that a body of men were appointed who have given, and justly given, and satisfaction. Of this no better proof can be required than the manner in which the system has worked (with all the imperfections arising from the manner in which it was established), and especially the small

835
number of the reversals of the judgments pronounced by those learned persons.
It would be difficult to overrate the benefits which have been derived from this great amendment of the law; and they are no friends of our judicial system who treat the new tribunals with contempt—still less are they its friends who regard them with jealousy. This jealousy is, with the paradox usual in such feelings, often found to alternate with contempt, and they are termed Small Debt Courts, in order to lower thorn in public estimation. But though, unfortunately, this name was at first applied to them in the Act, and has continued, nothing can be less descriptive of their functions. They were, by the original Bill of 1830 and 1833, to have had jurisdiction as far as 100 l. The Act of 1846 reduced this to 20 l.; but Mr. Fitzroy's most important Act of 1850, the greatest service that any layman ever rendered to the law, increased this to 50 l., and we then added the optional clause taken from the original Bill, giving them unlimited jurisdiction by consent in all cases, not only of any amount, but of any description. Then the Charitable Trusts Bill, the Succession Duty Bill, the Customs Regulation Bill, all now on the eve of passing, add important judicial functions. But take only their present jurisdiction, and compare it with that of the Superior Courts; they had above 400,000 plaints, and tried more than half of them, yearly, before the extended jurisdiction; and in 1851 the plaints were above 440,000, for an amount exceeding 1,600,000 l. Above 13,400 for sums between 20 l. and 50 l. were disposed of, 8,200 being tried. And let me observe in passing, that there being an appeal to the Courts above on all matters of law arising in this class of suits, there were only 38 appeals brought, and only 8 reversals of the local Judge's decisions, being no more than one in a thousand of the cases tried. Now, they who underrate the importance of what they contemptuously call "Small Debt Courts," would do well to bear in mind that while they tried above 8,000 actions between 20 l. and 50 l., the Superior Courts tried altogether, in the same year, 1851, exactly 1,943; this being the whole number of judgments, including those by consent. The County Courts, therefore, tried four times as many as the Superior Courts, even if we suppose that of those tried by the latter none were under 20 l. As, however, a considerable number were, the dis-
836
proportion was very much greater than four to one.
This great change in our judicial system, having now been in operation for above six years, it is manifestly our duty to profit by the experience thus afforded of its working. For, as I have once and again reminded your Lordships, in all proceedings for the amendment of the law, but indeed it may be said in all the alterations which are made in any branch of our polity, the lawgiver is bound, not only to devise his measures with all deliberation, but carefully to watch the operations of each, after it has been adopted. Human foresight can only act within narrow limits. Little are we ever able to see of what lies in advance of us; and this renders the utmost circumspection necessary, that we may at least profit by examining all that can be descried on either side. Yet even here we may not be so secure, as in casting our view behind us, and at least benefiting by the experience of the past. The wise lawgiver, then, will not only in steering his course ever have the lead in his hand that he may avoid shoals and sunken rocks; not only will he by the log ascertain the pace he moves at; but he must constantly take observations, by which he may discover if peradventure he has not departed from his course; and then, scorning to conceal his error, at once avowing his deviation, it behoves him instantly to regain the right track, in order to reach the desired haven. Thus are we now bound to examine carefully the errors which experience may have pointed out in our late changes of the law, as well as to supply the defects which were manifestly left in the plan on its first adoption.
I hear it indeed said, when I have urged, both last year and more lately, tire appointment of a Commission to inquire into the whole subject, that the experience has been too short, and that we should wait till the County Courts have been longer in operation. The answer to this objection seems decisive. Although the time has been short, the space has been vast over which the system has acted. Sixty Courts sitting twelve times a year, and in seven places each upon an average, gives the vast number of above 30,000 Courts holden. These have been under a variety of judges and officers, with a still greater variety of practitioners, and of suitors; so that it is contrary to all probability that any considerable defects of faults in the system should not have been felt and brought to

837
light. It would be endless to give all, or nearly all, the instances; one or two must suffice.
The whole finance of these Courts requires the most searching investigation. The fees or taxes on all their proceedings I have repeatedly brought before your Lordships, as an error of the grossest kind, and a hardship the most cruel to the suitor. In 1851 the suits were for 1,624,000 l., of which 815,000 l. were recovered by judgments, and 100,000 l. paid into Court without judgment. Of the remaining 709,000 l. about 500,000 l. were paid or settled out of Court on the actions being brought. The fees exacted amounted to 272,000 l., or 30 per cent on the sums recovered in Court; but take it on the whole at 1,400,000 l. and it is twenty percent on all the money recovered in and out of court, by suit or by threat. Now this has been over and over again allowed to be a grievance utterly intolerable. The Judges in the Courts above are paid by the State; the whole administration of justice ought so to be paid; and the suitors in the County Courts alone are compelled to pay for the judges who decide their causes. Some fees may be retained, as those on execution, because when the decision shows the party to be in the wrong, it is his own fault if he does not pay without a levy upon his goods; but allowing 60,000 l. of the sum now raised to be thus taken in execution fees, there remain above 200,000 l., which all are agreed must be taken off. But then inquiry is necessary as to the manner of supplying the loss and paying the officers. Such errors as have been committed in apportioning costs must be corrected; and the gross anomaly no longer be suffered to exist of having a judgment by consent, and without any contest, almost as expensive as one where the cause has proceeded to hearing.
When I first denounced these grievance before your Lordships, my noble Friends opposite, and my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, admitted that they must without delay be removed; and it wt deemed inexpedient to delay the remedy until a Commission should be able to report. It appears, however, that man other matters, and some of them connected also with the finance of the Courts, deserve examination. I have communicated to my noble and learned Friend the results of a most extensive correspondence with the officers and practitioners, and I have also handed over to him a great portion of
838
the letters and the memorials themselves. Upon some of the most important points there is an universal concurrence of opinion, among the rest, upon the finance. Upon other other points there is a considerable difference of opinion. But the whole subject seems now ripe for inquiry.
The extension of the jurisdiction is one of the most important of the subjects, and it is one to which the numerous petitions that I have presented to your Lordships both to-day and on former occasions are very anxiously addressed. The giving a discretionary power to the Judge of allowing a second action when the debt clearly exceeds the sums sued for, seems an obvious improvement. I have known six cases come in the course of a single circuit before one of the learned Judges, in each of which the sum given up for the sake of bringing the claim within the jurisdiction, was equal to the sum demanded, and in one instance thrice as large. There could be no harm in empowering the Judge to allow a second suit to the limited amount of 50 l., where, by the defendant's admission, or by some written evidence, it plainly appeared that the surplus was due. Again, the want of all equitable jurisdiction is loudly complained of. I purpose deferring the further consideration of the Bill, which I early in the Session presented for giving this extension, because I confidently hope the Commission about to be issued will fully examine this important question. Under proper guards, as by allowing a removal in the nature of a certiorari, enabling all the facts to be ascertained in the County Court, and permitting an appeal upon the equity, there seems no kind of reason why the extension should not be given. An improvement upon the law of evidence might also be made, beginning with these Courts, as the former amendment of the law did; but I think it should be extended to all the Courts. I would give the Judge in all cases the discretion of calling before, him the parties, when for any reason they did not appear to be examined. It frequently happens that one is not called in his own cause, and that then the adversary is apprehensive of calling him, and so the truth is excluded. The Court has no interest in yielding to this play of the contending parties; it only desires to come at the real merits of the case, and it should be armed with the discretion to which I refer, to be used, of course, with a due regard to the circum-

839
stances, such as the necessary absence of a party.
The important provisions on Arbitration in the County Courts Extension Bill formerly presented to your Lordships, and which you were pleased to entertain favourably, I have thought it expedient to make the subject of a separate Bill, which I am now about to present; and it greatly extends those former provisions, in consequence of the very important suggestions of some esteemed friends of mine, gentlemen belonging to the City, whose efforts in the improvement of the mercantile law cannot be too highly commended. Indeed, they are well known to such of your Lordships as have either in this Session or in 1849 attended the Committee on the Bankrupt Law. I need only mention the able and worthy Chairman of the London Association, Mr. W. Hawes, who first made me fully aware of the great hardship inflicted on traders by the state of the law respecting arbitration. Its general defects had indeed been often the subject of discussion, and to remedy them was the purpose of the clauses in the County Courts Extension Bill. But the evil consequences arising from the utter inefficacy of the common partnership article for referring disputes, had not been sufficiently considered. I am here most fortunate that I address your Lordships in the presence of my noble Friend opposite (Lord Overstone)—fortunate on every account, because they who have had the advantage of sitting with him in Committees upon the Amendment of the Law, whether as regards Registration, or Bankruptcy, or the Criminal Code, are aware how great acuteness and sagacity as well as ample experience he brings to the discussion; but particularly I am fortunate in stating before him this defect, the consequences of which he must so often have seen; I mean that in a partnership, charter party, policy, or other deed, an article to refer disputes is mere waste paper. Until the difference arises between the partners, of course it is in abeyance; and the moment it is wanted to make a speedy end of the matter in dispute, and to save the expense as well as delays and anxieties of litigation, the parties having quarrelled, both will not agree either to name an arbitrator, or, if the deed has named one, to proceed before him. Now the law as it now stands gives absolutely no remedy. Arbitration, except at Nisi Prius, is no favourite with any of our Courts—neither Courts of Law
840
nor of Equity. The most solemn covenant to refer that men can enter into, gives no right to damages at law for the breach of refusing to refer, or to specific performance in Equity, by compelling the reluctant party to proceed. Nor can any such covenant, or any other agreement to refer, be pleaded either at Law or in Equity against a party choosing to sue before the Courts in the teeth of his most solemn obligation to settle the whole before the private tribunal, It is, indeed, barely twenty years since every kind of submission was revocable at the pleasure of either party; and although that great defect was then removed, nothing can be more imperfect than the law respecting Arbitration still is. Its more glaring defects are removed in the Bill which I shall now present to your Lordships. It embraces the Arbitration Clauses of the Bill formerly laid before you, giving the benefit of the County Courts to all persons who choose to refer their disputes, of whatever kind, and who would avoid the great delay and expense attending references before private arbitrators whose remuneration depends upon the length of the procedure. But as there are cases in which parties may prefer referring to private individuals—those in whom they may have a special confidence, or who may from professional habits be peculiarly fit to conduct the inquiry—the means are afforded of making such a reference effectual, both by compelling parties to perform their agreement or covenant of reference, and by providing for the easy and expeditions conduct of the proceeding. I venture to state, that whoever takes the trouble to examine this Bill, will find it satisfactorily framed; and I speak not certainly of my own workmanship—for useful changes are made on the clauses in the County Courts Extension Bill, and the clauses which I had framed for meeting the wishes of the City gentlemen, having undergone great alteration, have received material improvement beside the addition of some valuable provisions. I have had in this the inestimable advantage of my learned friend Mr. Francis Russell's assistance—a gentleman well known in the profession as the author of the admirable work lately published on the Law of Arbitrament.
I would fain have engrafted upon this Bill another provision, approved by the Commissioners in their second and most valuable Report—I mean the enabling a Judge in certain cases to make parties

841
refer. But this requires to be guarded in a very careful manner, that abuse may not arise; and I so far differ from the Commissioners as to be of opinion that the power should only be exercised in cases where a previous attendance before a Judge has given full warning to the parties of a reference being probably forced upon them, should they proceed instead of referring immediately. I will not say that cases may not occur where, until a certain progress has been made in the trial, it is difficult to determine whether or not the cause should be settled out of Court. But, generally speaking, the great grievance of a reference is, that it takes place after all the expenses have been incurred of bringing the case to nisi prius, and that the arbitration entails the necessity of those expenses being again incurred, and a great deal more added. If, indeed, the Judge referred to the County Court, a great part of this would be spared, from the procedure being so expeditious where the arbitrator has no interest whatever in protracting it. Yet there would still be the objection to repeating much of the cost already incurred. I have, therefore, on the whole deemed it advisable to insert in the Bill no provisions of a compulsory nature, and only to deal with voluntary submissions, whether by general and prospective articles in partnership deeds, charter parties, policies, or by agreement in the particular case. That arbitration ought to be with the lawgiver a favourite—a course to be by all well-advised means facilitated and encouraged, instead of being, as in our Courts it has been, an object of aversion and discouragement—I hold to be quite clear upon every principle; and having so often failed in obtaining the assent of your Lordships to measures for establishing Courts of Reconcilement, I fondly hope that a substitute may be found for those measures in this great improvement of the Law of Arbitration. I may add, that this Bill will naturally go before the Commissioners upon the Assimilation of the Mercantile Law in the three kingdoms. In Scotland there are in the Law of Arbitration one or two material differences from our English law. One is of considerable importance, and I incline to prefer the Scotch principle. If the clause of submission in a partnership deed or other instrument specifies the arbitrator, the Courts will enforce proceeding with the reference. With us this specification makes no difference; a party cannot be
842
compelled to go on, nor can the agreement of reference to the arbitrator named be pleaded in bar. It will be for the Assimilation Commissioners to consider this among other points, and to report whether the English or the Scotch rule ought to prevail, if the present law remains unaltered; but I trust that their approval of the Bill which I now present may at once and easily assimilate the law in the two countries.
Further, it is to be presumed that the County Court Commissioners will fully digest the various statutes and incidental provisions respecting County Courts into one Act, repealing all those over which the law on this important subject lies scattered. There are no less than four statutes devoted to those Courts exclusively, eleven which contain incidentally provisions relating to them, besides three others now passing through Parliament. It is impossible to figure any case in which a digest of the law can more be wanted. The great number of persons interested as Judges, officers, and practitioners, the still larger number as suitors, renders it peculiarly desirable that the whole provisions of the law relating to this branch of judicature should be brought into a narrow compass, and be accessible by reference to a single statute.
When the jurisdiction of the County Courts shall be extended, and the other omissions in the existing Acts supplied, and when the Bankruptcy Law Commissioners shall have inquired into the best means of combining these tribunals with the Bankruptcy Courts; when such judicious arrangements shall be made as may facilitate the establishment of a local Bar in the greater provincial towns; and when the more frequent holding of assizes, both for civil and criminal trials shall be the happy results of the diminished business in the Superior Courts—then we shall have the whole measure of 1833 at length established, and shall possess a tolerably complete system of local judicature. We may well view this consummation with satisfaction. Yet I own that in me such feelings are mingled with anxiety, if not with pain, when I consider the great change which it is working in our judicial institutions—its effects upon the profession to which I am attached by every tie of respect and gratitude and affection; its effects, not upon the Bar alone, but upon the Bench, which from the Bar can never be dissociated—the Bar at once its parent,

843
its nursery, and its helpmate. We are in a transition state; and I confidently hope that, although at present some cloud may hang over our prospects, yet by due regard to the interest of the suitor, and by effectual though cautious improvements in all the procedure of all the tribunals, the prosperity of the law's professors will be found to suffer no lasting injury from the advantages which have accrued to its subjects, their clients. Of one thing I am quite certain—the profession have gained as much as the law itself, by having shown themselves friendly to its improvement, and made it possible to leave all that concerns its amendment in the hands of skilful, learned, and experienced men. Other classes of the community have not been so wise, and they have suffered from their shortsighted resistance—they as well as the reform of the system they were attached to. The pain which I have confessed to feeling for the immediate, and I trust temporary, effect of these changes in the law, had I not also felt it for other changes in which I bore a part? Who could but feel deep sympathy with our countrymen in the Colonies, reduced to distress, even to ruin, by the course of legislation in the mother country? Who could avoid lamenting over such cases as I lately presented to your Lordships, in the petition of planters whose vast fortunes had been swept away with hardly any compensation? But those unfortunate men had themselves chiefly to blame. We were ever persuaded that the abolition of the traffic could only be executed by England, but that the freedom of the slaves, after means taken to prepare them for it, was far better left in the hands of the Colonial Governments, as I repeatedly urged more than half a century ago. But deaf to all warnings, they would not stir, at once to perform their highest duties, and consult their best interests, Wherefore England was compelled to interpose, and they who had resisted all timely reform, made themselves, as ever happens, the victims of revolution. The lawyers have been better advised; they have aided, not thwarted, the progress of improvement; they have thus kept the needful changes in safe hands; and the reward of their wise foresight regarding their own interest, their early and liberal concession to the public weal, will be their remaining unscathed after the darkness of the hour has passed away.
My Lords, there are two subjects on
844
which I must further address your Lordships, one connected with local judicature, both the one and the other often before broached by me in this House. I allude to the jurisdiction of the magistrates at Sessions, and to the conduct of business in both Houses of Parliament. It was expected when the Bill of 1833 came before your Lordships, that the Local Court Judge would be chosen by the magistrates as their chairman, and the provision of that Bill, introduced with this view, was adopted also in the Act of 1846, I mean the giving the County Court Judge authority to act as justice within his district. The great advantage of such an arrangement is obvious; and, far from considering it in the light of abolishing the sessions, as a noble Friend of mine, but himself a chairman of sessions, did (Lord Salisbury), when last year I urged it upon the attention of your Lordships, I can only regard it as giving to that important jurisdiction a most useful assistance, and effecting upon it a great improvement. The aid of a learned person, filling a high judicial office, unconnected with any party, and respected by all, would in my opinion, be an acquisition of the greatest value to the respectable and useful body who, by their own free choice, had raised him to preside over them. In Ireland there is hardly an instance of the assistant barrister not being gladly, and without opposition, chosen as chairman of the sessions. In England, I grieve to say, no instance has yet occurred of this choice falling upon a County Court Judge.
I pass to the other and yet more important subject of our Private Bill legislation; perhaps I should rather say our whole Parliamentary business. But that of Private Bills demands the greatest share of our attention. It is wholly unaccountable that this power should have grown up and its exercise assumed such vast dimensions, without any adequate provision for guiding and controlling it. Well might Lord Langdale term it a truly transcendental authority which Parliament thus exercises. While all the courts of justice in the country are deciding questions that involve interests to the amount of thousands or hundreds of thousands, we are disposing of millions; and while they are acting by fixed rules and are only administering the law in each case, we are disposing of rights of property to this enormous amount, not only without any known law, but contrary to the law; setting aside settlements, break-

845
ing wills, violating men's vested rights, acting for or against infants and others incapable of consenting, or even of knowing what is done, nay, persons unborn, and who for years may not come into existence. But again, to consider the vast amount of the interests thus dealt with, and the necessity of both the facts and the rights being in each case thoroughly investigated, it surely never can be contended that the present manner of conducting these inquiries is the best, if it be not indeed the worst possible to be devised; that it either consults the great interest of discovering the truth, or the lesser, though very important interest, of giving despatch and avoiding expense. A plan of proceeding was suggested nineteen years ago by the great man whose irreparable loss we have now to deplore; and though it referred to a particular kind of Bill, it was capable of universal application. The origin of the proposal was this. Towards the end of the Session 1834, a Bill came up from the Commons, providing that any borough charged with corruption might be disfranchised by a single vote of each House, agreeing to an address, and the address assented to by the Crown. When I saw this astounding measure, which would have enabled a Minister to disfranchise any number of boroughs by obtaining in any way from the other House accidental votes, in which I felt afraid your Lordships would not very unwillingly have concurred, I saw that a great oversight alone could account for such a Bill having been passed; and I at once communicated with the illustrious Duke, then leading the opposition, and with my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Ellenborough), one of his most distinguished supporters, appealing to them, whether they could take advantage of the blunder that had been committed, how favourable soever its operation might be to their anti-reform prejudices. As I expected, both those noble persons disclaimed any such wish, and the Duke promised to consider the subject with a view to amend instead of rejecting the Bill. Next day he informed me that a plan had occurred to him; he gave me the outlines of it, and desired my assistance in filling it up, which, highly approving of the greater part, I most willingly gave. We went into the subject in detail, and, having agreed on the main principles, had the Bill referred to a Select Committee, where, after a full discussion, this plan was adopted. In any case where corruption was alleged, a Committee of
846
twelve Members of both Houses was to be appointed, seven of the Commons, and five of the Lords. These were to sit under the presidency of a Judge, who should decide on questions respecting the admission or rejection of evidence. A report, in the nature of a special verdict, should then be made on the facts proved. This report should be conclusive on those facts, and nothing more. A Bill might then be brought into either House, and should go through all the usual changes, excepting only that no further evidence should be taken in the Committee. My recollection is not distinct as to whether a new inquiry might be directed by either House in a similar joint Committee of twelve; but this is immaterial, for all must at once perceive that in hardly any instance would an unwillingness be found to abide by the result of the first inquiry. When I express my admiration of this plan, I speak without the least claim to a share in it; on two points only did I venture to differ with my illustrious Friend; the presidency of a Judge which I suggested, and the proportion of the Members between the two Houses; which he at first thought should be that of equality; but afterwards, with his wonted candour, agreed should be seven and five.
This plan was adopted by the Committee without a dissentient voice; the Bill was amended accordingly and reported to the House; it passed unanimously through its after stages, and was sent down to the Commons. There my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), frankly admitted the faults of his measure, and entirely approved of the manner in which we had corrected them. But as the whole Bill had been altered, as we had in truth sent down an entirely different Bill, there was an obvious reason against passing it by the single vote of agreeing to our amendments—the very argument, indeed, used against the Bill as it originally came up to us from the Commons. The result was that it stood over to another Session, and it has never since been taken up.
That precisely the same plan might be adopted in every case of a Private Bill, I have no manner of doubt. And an opportunity soon occurred of considering this general application. In 1837 I brought before your Lordships the whole subject of Private Bill legislation, and you were pleased to appoint a Committee to examine what changes should be made in our Standing Orders on this subject. Before going into

847
the Committee, I naturally conferred chiefly with the Duke, reminding him of our plan in 1834. My noble Friend near me (Lord Ellenborough) joined us in considering the whole matter when the Committee met. I stated to the Duke that there seemed three courses open to us, and asked which he felt disposed to recommend. There was the most effectual one, his plan of a joint Committee, but this required the concurrence of the other House. There was the adoption of new Standing Orders requiring Select Committees of five in each case, and to sit from day to day. There was a third plan, but so ineffectual that we at once rejected it. The Duke was clearly of opinion that I should try the best plan, and he said, "If they wont take that, you can retreat upon the other." I need hardly add, that with his accustomed straightforwardness he supported the proposition; but we were unable to carry it, chiefly because it was more than could be accomplished by this House alone. After considerable discussion, we adjourned, in order to give time for the consideration of another plan suggested by one of the Committee. This was almost unaanimously rejected, and the report was without any dissentient voice made in favour of the new Standing Orders, to which I had the satisfaction of obtaining also the unanimous consent of your Lordships. We expected that the Commons would have adopted them; but for many years this did not happen; it was only in 1846, I think, that the great improvement in our procedure became common to both Houses.
That it has effected a most salutary change—that it is a very great improvement upon the former system—I most entirely admit. But it leaves much to be done; leaves more evil by a good deal than it has remedied. With the view of supplying this defect, I ventured in 1846 to lay before your Lordships a series of resolutions, directing the formation of a board of competent professional men, irremovable like the Judges, not to supersede the functions of either House, but to aid both Houses, by conducting the whole inquiry into the facts of each case, and only rendering the stages of the Committee and report on any Bill unnecessary; but this also subject to the control of each House, so far as regards further inquiry, or referring back or disapproval of the Report. The state of the business in both Houses, but more especially in the Commons, has come to be such as renders some measure
848
of effectual assistance absolutely necessary; and in consequence probably of these Resolutions and the Orders of 1837, I have had the honour of a communication with the highest authority there upon this subject. I rejoice to find that the matter has thus been entered upon. It cannot be in better hands. Were I to join in the universal chorus of respectful praise which rises to that eminent individual, I should be doing a most superfluous act; but I may be allowed to bear my testimony to the great merits of the plan now in contemplation, and my satisfaction with it, notwithstanding some material differences from my own. To show the absolute necessity of a change, we need only recollect that in one year (the year before the Resolutions) there were 241 Private Acts passed, containing 13,624 sections and schedules, beside perhaps half as many which were thrown out.
But when we shall have put this branch of legislation upon a right footing, surely we cannot stop short of the other, and leave the preparation and passing of Public Acts in its present most unsatisfactory state. How often have men of all parties avowed their ardent desire to see this grievous defect remedied, whether by appointing a Minister of Justice, or a Board, or a Board acting with or under that functionary. All men are agreed on the evil. No one denies or doubts its magnitude. Yet I remember a lamented friend of mine, in this House, one of the most sagacious of observers (Lord Ashburton), saying—"This is, of all the improvements you have ever propounded, the most undoubtedly required; and, nevertheless, you will find it easier to carry all the rest than this." I would fain hope that the time approaches when the difficulty may be overcome; and if the plan now under consideration in the other House, shall next Session be there adopted, and extended to our proceedings here, I really do not despair of seeing the whole mechanism of our legislation at length framed upon principles which by deserving may command respect.
I will not detain your Lordships with any apology for having so long trespassed upon your patient attention, for which, however, I have to offer my respectful thanks. Whatever functions this House may exercise, believe me there is none so important as that which connects it with the department of justice. We can never be better employed, or more certainly secure our footing in the State, than by

849
duly administering the law, and anxiously watching over its amendment.
Order of the day discharged for the Second Reading of the County Courts Further Extension Bill.
LORD BROUGHAMthen presented the Arbitration Law Amendment Bill, and moved that it be now read a First Time.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the subject of the Bill which his noble and learned Friend had just moved should be read a first time, was one entirely worthy of the attention of the House. It must be apparent to all who had given the matter a moment's consideration, that at present private Bills before Parliament stood in a most anomalous position, partaking as they did partly of a judicial and partly of a legislative character; and the question being in this respect, amongst others, of much importance, he trusted a measure might be completed that would be satisfactory alike to their Lordships and to the parties concerned. With regard to his noble and learned Friend's Bill on the Jurisdiction of the County Courts, as that measure had been withdrawn, it was unnecessary that he should occupy their Lordships' time by comments upon it. It was, however, a subject which was worthy their Lordships' careful attention, and he admitted that there were great variations in the practice of the various County Courts; and he might add, that in deference to the opinion of his noble and learned Friend, he had determined on issuing a Commission to inquire into the state of those Courts, with the view of ascertaining if they had properly discharged their duties, and what improvements could be introduced in the practice of these Courts, and also whether any and what additional duties might be imposed upon them. With regard to the transfer to them of an equitable jurisdiction—supposing the Judges of the County Courts were able to undertake such duties—he very much doubted whether it would be so well or cheaply performed as by the Courts which now exercised that jurisdiction. His noble and learned Friend proposed to transfer to the County Court Judges functions which were at present usually exercised by Masters in Chancery; but he (the Lord Chancellor) thought this would be only to establish Masters in Chancery under another name. He could assure his noble and learned Friend, however, that the subject of County Courts should receive his most anxious consideration. His own conviction with respect to
850
those institutions was that they had been of incalculable benefit to the country; and he only hoped, that in throwing upon the Judges of the County Courts other duties than those for which they were immediately constituted, their efficiency would not be impaired in those points upon which they had proved themselves so competent and useful. The subject of fees paid in the County Courts should also form matter for immediate inquiry, and without saying that they ought all to be taken off, he thought that according to the present system they were imposed in a manner to cause the greatest instead of the least quantity of annoyance, because they were almost all, in the first instance, imposed upon the plaintiff, who had to recover them afterwards from the defendant. It would be satisfactory to his noble and learned Friend to know that his learned and excellent friend Mr. Justice Erle had consented to be a member of the intended Commission; that the Master of the Rolls had consented to be at the head of it; and that he (the Lord Chancellor) had great hopes that his hon. friend Mr. Fitzroy, the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, would also consent to be placed upon it. Of course it was impossible for that gentleman to devote much time to the subject; still his name would afford a security that the question would be honestly and fairly looked into. Several County Court Judges would also be upon it, and he thought one other Common Law Judge, in addition to Mr. Justice Erle. He thought that such a Commission, conducting their inquiries fairly and honestly, and with no bias for or against the County Courts, but with a determination to report to Parliament and the public what the actual state of these Courts was—how far they had adequately discharged their duties to what extent they could be improved, and whether any and what other functions could be usefully exercised by them—he thought the appointment of such a Commission would be of incalculable benefit, and that Parliament would then be in a position to legislate with much more daylight upon the subject than it possessed now, and be better able to judge how far any of the Bills of his noble and learned Friend might, with advantage, be passed into a law.
LORD BROUGHAMthanked the Lord Chancellor for his fair and candid statement, and took occasion to remind him that there were already many Bills passed into law respecting these Courts—that four

851
several statutes were devoted to County Courts and nothing else—that eleven statutes incidentally dealt with those Courts—and that there were three Bills then pending before Parliament in which they were also dealt with.
Bill read 1a.

SUCCESSION DUTY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
The EARL of ABERDEEN moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.
The EARL of CLANCARTY: My Lords, before this Bill passes, I wish to say a few words upon it. The objection I entertain to the Bill being to the new principle it proposes of taxing successions to land, I must express my disappointment at the precipitation with which it was hurried to a second reading, rendering it all but impossible for me or for any other noble Lord who happened to be in Ireland, or at any considerable distance from London, to receive notice in time to have been present at that stage in the consideration of the measure when its principle was properly the subject of discussion. Only three days having elapsed after the Bill was brought up from the House of Commons before it was read a second time, I was debarred from the opportunity of recording my vote upon that occasion, and was only enabled to join your Lordships when the Bill being in Committee, its details and not its principle had to be considered. The vote that was come to on Monday last upon the clause that was chiefly under discussion, was no testimony to the general merits of the Bill; nor would the Amendment that was proposed upon it have affected its principle. I confess that I had very considerable doubts on which side to give my vote, and was determined in favour of the Amendment less by the arguments used on this side of the House, than by the argument put forward by Her Majesty's Ministers in support of the Bill—namely, that it was proposed as a substitute for the income tax. Viewed in that light, the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl on this side of the House was calculated to adapt the Bill to its professed object, for by doing away with its retrospective action, it would have come gradually into full operation as the income tax died off; whereas, as the Bill now stands, the tax is likely to be at first very productive, but to become hereafter less so, as all future settlements and other dispositions of property will undoubtedly be made with a view as much as
852
possible to avoid it. My chief objection to the Bill is, that it practically ignores the fundamental principle upon which territorial property is justified and upheld by the laws of the country—namely, that it "has its duties as well as its rights," that it is held and administered, as it were, in trust for the community. The proprietor of land has duties to perform involving the expenditure of money, not alone in the payment of land tax, poor-rates, tithes, and other local assessments, but in the management, cultivation, and improvement of the soil, the support of hospitals, schools, and other institutions for the advantage of the district in which he lives, which do not devolve upon the inheritor of property in money or moveables. So strongly was the Legislature impressed with this, that the Encumbered Estates Courts was not long since established in Ireland for the express purpose of promoting the sale of such properties as were so much encumbered as to leave the owners without adequate means for fulfilling the duties that were expected from them. By this Bill there will be a creation of encumbered estates, and just at the very time when most a proprietor will need the means of turning his land to account—namely, on first coming into possession, he will, especially if he should happen to have succeeded as a distant relation, have to pay, in addition to all other necessary outgoings, before he can possibly make one farthing or receive one farthing of rent, considerably more than half the estimated annual value of his succession, and to repeat the same payment annually for four successive years. To meet this accumulation of calls upon him, he must necessarily raise money upon a mortgage, and that, perhaps, under the most disadvantageous circumstances, so that by the mere operation of this Act his estate may be at once brought into that state which the law at present regards as the condition for a forced sale—namely, its being encumbered to the amount of half its annual value. As such cases will be frequent, there will be of necessity very frequent sales of land, and a constantly recurring change of proprietors, severing that union between old families and those who have derived under them as tenants, that has so long exercised a most beneficial influence upon the social condition of the people of England; and, looking at the school in which this Bill has originated, I cannot but regard it as designed to be subversive of the influence and usefulness of the class of landlords generally. And what

853
is to compensate for all this? Why, the repeal of the soap duty and of the duty upon advertisements. Now, does any noble Lord think that there will be any more soap used in consequence of the duty being taken off? I do not believe there is a nation in the world where there is more soap used than in England, which would certainly not have been the case if the tax had been felt to be oppressive. The repeal of the duty, be assured, will neither lessen the growing number of hairy chins in the metropolis, nor sensibly cheapen your Lordships' washing bills. And as to taking off the advertisement duty, the practice of advertising certainly requires no encouragement; its very excess defeats in a great measure the interests of advertisers, and has become a positive nuisance to the public; so much so that if one takes up a periodical or desires to consult the pages of Bradshaw, one is lost in a labyrinth of advertisements about trunks, hats, surgical instruments, hosiery, &c. Now, my Lords, was it worth while for the sake of removing duties such as these, to introduce a measure so oppressive, so inquisitorial, and in its tendency so revolutionary, as that now before you? I can well understand, that, with the determined purpose of carrying it through this House, Her Majesty's Government should have opposed any previous inquiry into its probable operation. It was only by keeping consequences carefully out of their sight that the friends of the Government could have been induced to rally as they have to its support. Among the consequences, however, of having so proceeded, it is much to be deplored that the public will cease to regard the deliberations of this House as affording any guarantee, for the future, for wisdom and foresight in legislation. The tax to be imposed by this Bill is entirely new, and though but few of your Lordships may ever have to pay it, it most seriously affects the interests and position of that order which your Lordships especially represent—namely, the proprietors of land. It was due, therefore, to your Lordships and to the public, that it should have been submitted for the consideration of the House at a period of the Session when it might, if needful, have been rejected or modified, without the in-conveniences that would attend such a step when the Parliamentary Session is at its close. Had the Government felt that the measure was one that merited your Lordships' acceptance, this would have been done, and inquiry would not have been
854
avoided. The course taken, however, has been to coerce your adoption of the Bill, good or bad. First, you are not make any inquiry into its probable operation; secondly, the taxes for which it is to be a substitute are one after the other repealed; thirdly, the Bill is sent up at so late a period that its non-adoption would be tantamount to a stopping of the supplies for the public service; and, lastly, when it does come before the House, it is by the aid of votes rather than of argument that it is sought to carry it through. Notwithstanding the peculiar importance of our diplomatic relations at the present crisis of affairs upon the Continent, our embassies are ransacked for votes, and our relations with France and Belgium confided at such a crisis to mere Chargés d'Affaires, that the Ambassadors to the Courts of Paris and Brussels may be here present to aid in carrying a tax upon successions. My noble Friend, too, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is, at a few hours' notice, hurried over, and Ireland left without a governor, for he was called away before Lords Justices could be sworn to act in his absence, in order that he might assist by his vote in outnumbering those independent Peers who, the Government very naturally expected, would have mustered strong in opposition to the measure. I am bound to admit, my Lords, and the Government must have seen with surprise, that the opposition has been very feeble, and the array of their supporters was such as to warrant the belief that the measure is not viewed with any general disapprobation. Moreover, upon the only division that has been taken, the Government can boast of having had the exclusive support of the Lords Spiritual. Notwithstanding such high authority upon a financial measure, I must say "Not Content" to it. I do not regret that as it will now certainly pass, it should do so with the seeming approval of a considerable majority; but I must, before I sit down, protest against both the time and manner in which it has been brought forward, and the steps taken to enforce it upon your Lordships' acceptance, as calculated to affect the privileges of this House, and to compromise its future usefulness as a branch of the Legislature.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 3a accordingly.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that before the passing of the Bill, he wished to state his objections in the shape of

855
Amendments, not with any intention of dividing the House, but for the purpose of putting upon the Journals of the House what his objections were, to enable the country hereafter to judge between the Bill as it passed, and the objections that were made to it on that side of the House. He could not but think that the object of the Motion made the other night by his noble Friend not now present (the Earl of Derby) had been misunderstood. He was sure it was misunderstood if the House thought it was the object of his noble Friend, by a side-wind, to get rid of the Bill. He had no such intention—though he believed that many noble Lords who had voted with the Government had done so in the belief that if the Amendment were carried, it would have the effect of destroying the Bill. He (Lord St. Leonards) did not think it would have that effect, or that it was so intended. He begged to state, without any preface, the Amendments he now proposed to submit to their Lordships. He should not put his noble Friend on the woolsack to the trouble of putting the question on each of the Amendments, separately—he should be quite content if the questions were put as to all of them at the same time. In the preamble of the Bill he proposed to leave out the word "permanent," and to insert instead thereof the word "an," thus taking from the Bill the declaration that it was to be a permanent measure. In Section 2, defining what dispositions and devolutions of property shall confer succession, he would propose a proviso which was intended to be a guard against its being retrospective. The principle of the Bill was, that property was to pay, and their objection was, that, according to the Bill as it stood, a man would have to pay for property that he would never receive. He proposed to add the following proviso:—
"Provided always, that no person who shall have bonâ fide advanced money on the security of any reversionary interest on property before the 19th day of May last, or who before that day shall have bonâ fide purchased any reversionary interest in property, shall be chargeable with any succession duty under this Act, in respect of his security or purchase. Provided also, that no person who, before the said 19th day of May last, shall have bonâ fide encumbered or sold his reversionary property, shall be chargeable for succession duty beyond the value of his remaining interest in such property."
The addition of this proviso would not in any manner impair the general operation of the Act, but would operate only not to charge
856
any man with succession duty who, before the statute was in contemplation, had disposed of or charged, as he had a right by law to do, his succession; much less to charge any man who had advanced money on the security of a reversion, or who had bought a reversion. By the operation of this proviso, a man who had lent money on, or one who had bought a reversion twenty years ago, would not now have to pay ten per cent, in consequence of the passing of an ex post facto law. The next Amendment was in the same page. Their Lordships would recollect that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had pointed out to their Lordships the hardship that would accrue under this particular section, which enacted that joint tenants taking by survivorship should be deemed successors. Where persons are joint tenants, if the joint tenancy be not severed, the right of accruer takes place on the death of each; and his noble Friend, to show the difficulty that would arise, had stated what would occur in the case of a father who gave to his three daughters an estate for their joint lives. A man might give to his three daughters an estate in joint tenancy, and they might agree to live together, and not sever the joint tenancy. They paid the duty as for the father on their succession; but when one sister died the other would have to pay as a sister, and not as a child, which seemed to him to be a great hardship, and this would be increased upon the death of the second sister, when the survivor would succeed to half. He proposed to insert the following words:—
"But where any such title shall be created by the lineal ancestor of such persons, the succession or new succession by survivorship shall be deemed to accrue to the survivor under such lineal ancestor."
The effect of this Amendment would be that the survivor in such a case would have to pay as a child and not as a sister, because the right of accruer was included in the original gift from the father to his children. The next Amendment was an addition to Section 4. The section provided that where a man has a general power of appointment, and exercises it, he shall be himself deemed to be liable, and shall be considered as the successor. Let them take the case of a man who was tenant for life, with power at his death of appointing the property generally to whom he pleased; and suppose him to exercise that power, anti appoint the property to some stranger, and he was then made responsible as if

857
he had himself taken the succession. It was said to be borrowed from the Legacy Duty Act; but it had no bearing upon this question, and what he proposed was to add these words:—"That where such person shall have been already charged with duty on succession as tenant for life of the same property, no further duty shall be payable by him." The next Amendment was in Section 9. The section directed that the duty should be under the control of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, and that they should have the same powers that were given to them by the Legacy Duty Act, and then went on to enact, "and shall have all other powers and authorities requisite for carrying this Act into execution." He believed that no man had ever seen a provision of that kind before. They might say that the Commissioners should have all the powers that were given by particular Acts; but no Act of Parliament ever said before that certain Commissioners "shall have all other powers and authorities requisite for carrying the Act into execution." No person could possibly tell what "all other powers" were; and he proposed to leave out these words, "and shall have all other powers and authorities requisite for carrying the Act into execution." The next Amendment had reference to the end of Section 10, which declared what the rate of duty should be. In the Legacy Duties Acts there was an express proviso that no duty should be chargeable upon gifts passing from husband to wife, or from wife to husband, to or for the benefit of the husband or wife, or for the benefit of the Royal Family; but the framers of this Act had for the first time abandoned that proviso, which was in every Legacy Duty Act since the year 1797; and he proposed to restore it at the end of this section, and to apply it to this Bill. To effect that object, he would move the insertion of the following words:—
"Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall extend to charge with any duty any succession to property which shall be given or provided to or for the benefit of the husband or wife of the predecessor, or to or for the benefit of the Royal Family."
At the end of the same section there was something that wanted a little explanation. He was represented out of doors to have made a statement on the subject which he never did make, and which he never intended to make. It was said that he had stated it to be a hardship that where a stranger, a tenant for life, paid a higher duty than the first duty, that duty should continue to be
858
payable on all future successions. He never said any such thing; the case he had put was this: that where a man was a stranger, and property was given to him for life, upon which he paid 10 per cent as a stranger, and the same property passed by the settlement to his children, they ought to pay only as his children—namely, 1 per cent, just as if he were their predecessor. When once the property was charged with 10 per cent, he objected that it should be subject, when it went to the children, to successive charges of 10 per cent. Such charges would break the heart of a man; and he proposed to remedy the mischief by the introduction of the following words at the end of the section:—
"That where a person is tenant for life, with a gift over to his children or issue, or any of them, and he shall be chargeable with a duty exceeding 1 per cent, his children or issue entitled after him shall be chargeable only with the duty of 1 per cent just as if he were the predecessor within the meaning of this Act."
He believed that would not at all interfere with the working of this Bill. There was another addition he proposed to make to that same Section 10 of this nature. He would put the case to their Lordships of a man who had made a settlement on his daughter's marriage of 10,000 l., in the common way, on the intended husband for life, then to his daughter for life, and then to their children. That man must, if the husband should die in his lifetime, see his daughter made liable to pay duty on that property of which he had denuded himself in favour of his child. He was told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was wrong on this subject, and that the Bill would operate the other way; but he (Lord St. Leonards) must say that he had made no statement on this Bill without great consideration, and he hoped he was not speaking with too much pertinacity or self-esteem when he said that he differed from the right hon. Gentleman. He would explain to their Lordships how this stood. By the Legacy Duty Act it was provided that nothing therein contained should extend to charge with duty any legacy which should be given or pass to, or for the benefit of, the husband or wife of the deceased. Now, what was the case under this Bill? In the first place, they would find in Section 2 "predecessor" described as the testator, obligor, ancestor, or other person from whom the interest of the successor is or shall be derived; then if they turned to Section 18, the section on which that case turned, they

859
would see that no duty shall be payable by any persons in respect of a succession, where, if the same were a legacy given to them by a predecessor, they would be exempted from payment of duty in respect thereof under the Legacy Duty Act, Now, in the case he was putting of a settlement by a father, on a daughter's marriage, on the husband for life, and the wife for life, who was the predecessor? The father, beyond all question, no doubt. Who took the succession? The daughter. Would a legacy from the father to the daughter be liable to duty or not? Their Lordships knew it would. That case did not fall within the exception; and if he (Lord St. Leonards) were right, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken an erroneous view of his own Bill. On the other hand, if he were mistaken, it was very easy to show it. The way in which he proposed to remedy this error was to introduce at the end of the section these words:—
"That where a settlement shall be made by a parent or relative on the marriage of a child or relation, no succession duty shall be payable on account of the death of any person entitled under the settlement who shall die in the lifetime of the settlor."
In Section 11 he proposed an Amendment at page 5, on a point which it was perfectly clear required amendment. This section proposed to put brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law on the same footing as brothers and sisters. A brother-in-law was not to pay more than his wife, the sister of the testator, would have to pay; but that was proposed to be carried out in a way that would render it ineffective, because in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the brother-in-law or sister-in-law was not related in consanguinity to the predecessor, and the consequence was, that the proposed exception would not embrace ninety-nine cases out of a hundred of the cases which it was intended to embrace. He proposed to remedy the error by the addition of the words "or in case he or she shall not have been related in consanguinity to the predecessor, testator, or deceased person." In Section 14, he proposed to omit at the end of the clause these words, "but such duty shall be at the highest rate, which if every successor had been subject to the duty, would have been payable by any one of them." They were putting a new tax upon all the property of England, but they had not modified it to meet the exigencies of the case. Under the Bill as it stood, a man might find that he had paid too much,
860
and it was much more easy to pay a tax than to get it returned. There were a great many clauses in this Bill, by which payments were compelled to be made, and the money was promised to be returned; but whatever Her Majesty's servants might promise in that House, he thought there might be a desire to follow the example of Her Majesty's servants in other places, who put at the bottom of their bills "No money returned." The next Amendment had reference to the case of a continuing interest, as he apprehended that there were cases of that kind where the children would be compelled to pay against the real intentions of the framers of the Bill. On this point he proposed to introduce the following words:—
"Except in the case of a successor who shall have been competent to dispose by will of a continuing interest in such property, in which case the instalments unpaid at his death shall be a continuing charge on such interest in exoneration of his other property, and shall be payable by the owner for the time being in default of such interest."
He thought the Amendment suggested by the noble Earl on that side the House with respect to timber ought to be adopted; and he therefore proposed to omit altogether Section 23, which had reference to timber. It was property which did not renew itself, like land; the land lasted, but timber did not; once cut, there was an end of it. It had hitherto been their object to encourage planting, but the effect of this clause was to discourage planting. The next Amendment he would propose was in the clause stating what persons were accountable for duty. He would move, in Clause 44, the omission of the following words:—
"And all such trustees, guardians, committees, tutors, curators, husbands, and persons shall be authorised to compound, or pay in advance, or commute any duty, and retain out of the property subject to any such duty the amount thereof, or to raise such amount and the expenses incident thereto at interest on the security of such property, with power to give effectual discharges for the same, and such security shall have priority over any charge or incumbrance created by the successor."
A more dangerous power could not be given to trustees, and, besides, the clause would bear very hardly on them. In Clause 49, providing that every person accounting should be liable to verify his account by the production of books and documents, he would propose to add these words at the end, "except title deeds relating to land." The clause in this respect introduced a principle unknown to,

861
and indeed quite at variance with, the principles of our law with regard to title. Nothing could be more dangerous than to give such opportunities as were conferred by this clause for the ransacking of title deeds. Nothing could more tend to litigation, or to the insecurity of property, than to allow persons who might wish to claim property to have an opportunity of inspecting the deeds of the present holders. He recollected that when on one occasion a landowner, who had been summoned as a witness in a cause, appeared in answer to a subpœna duces tecum with his title deeds in a box, the late Lord Kenyon, who was trying the cause, asked him what he had got with him; and on being informed, he said, "Then, Sir, I advise you to sit down on the box, and let no one open it till you get home again." On Clause 52, providing for protection to bonâ fide purchasers, he moved the omission of words providing that no purchaser should be subject to the duty on property not appearing to confer a succession by reason of any extrinsic circumstance "of which he shall not have had notice at the time of such purchase." The next Amendment he would propose was in the 54th Clause, providing that the Act should be taken to commence on the 19th of May, 1853; he proposed to amend it by adding—"And shall thenceforth continue until the 19th of May, 1858, and no longer." It was impossible that both this tax and the income tax should continue during a time of peace; and by fixing the termination of this tax at the time he had named, Parliament would have an opportunity, after its operation had been well tested, of deciding whether they would continue this tax or the income tax. He had but one more Amendment to move, and that was in the schedule of charges at the end of the Bill, where he found these words:—"And where the annuity shall be given for a longer term than ninety-five years, or in perpetuity, the same shall be valued as an annuity for ninety-five years only." He proposed to leave out these words, the meaning of which had not been explained, but which appeared to him to be inconsistent with the Bill. Before he resumed his seat, he wished to say a few words on the subject of trustees. There were, in his opinion, in this Bill clauses exposing trustees to such liabilities and penalties, that it was his deliberate opinion no wise or prudent man would accept a trust after it passed. Any man who did, became a
862
Crown debtor of the property for which he was concerned, was chargeable to this duty, and was bound to give notice of every payment of money that he made in virtue of his office of trustee. It should be observed, too, that by this Act persons discharging an implied, were equally bound as those discharging an expressed, trust. This, he thought, would be a source of great hardship. These were the Amendments which he intended to have proposed in Committee; but when he saw the spirit in which the Motion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) was met by noble Lords opposite, and the majority by which it was negatived, he thought it right to withdraw from any further discussion at that stage; and he now only brought them forward that it might be clearly seen what were the grounds on which he and those who acted with him opposed the Bill, and what Amendments they desired to introduce into it. His Lordship concluded by moving the adoption of his Amendments.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that of the proposed Amendments of the noble and learned Lord, he cordially approved of one—that which made a person in beneficial possession of the property previous to any succession—the predecessor. The Bill as it stood made the settler of the property the predecessor, which it semed to him was inconsistent with the principle and scope of the Bill, and was in fact the only ground which existed for characterising it as a measure having a retrospective action. It was said in defence of this provision the other night, that it was the same as that applied by the present law to the case of personalty. But that was not the case, because if a person now left property, with a life interest to A, and remainder to B, the latter would not pay any legacy duty at all—
The LORD CHANCELLORintimated that on this point the provisions of the new law were precisely the same as the old one.
LORD BEAUMONT: The only excuse he could find for this clause was, that it cut two ways, because in the case of two or more brothers succeeding in turn to an estate left by their father, the second and subsequent brothers taking the property would only have to pay the low duty attaching to the succession of a son to a father, instead of the higher one imposed upon the succession of a brother to a brother. Still he could not help thinking that this clause was contrary to the prin-

863
ciple of the Bill; and it introduced a retrospective action which had much better have been avoided; and that it would have been much better to have taxed a succession according to the relationship of the successor to the party immediately before in beneficial possession of the property, instead of the relationship of the successor to the person by whom it was originally settled. This would have had the further advantage of avoiding the necessity of looking into the title deeds of estates—a step which would, no doubt, be attended with delay and inconvenience, although he certainly did not feel the alarm upon this point which had been expressed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards). There were other objections raised to this Bill, which, however, did not seem to him of a more serious character than must be incidental to any measure of this kind, and were certainly not of sufficient importance to warrant his dwelling upon them at that stage. He did not at all object to seeing real property and settled personalty taxed in the same manner as non-settled personalty was at present. On the contrary, he rejoiced at the removal of the existing anomaly. He must own, however, that he should have preferred a much more sweeping measure than the present. It would have been better to have repealed the existing legacy duty; and then, if there was to be a tax on successions, instead of the present complicated system of charging duty according to the consanguinity of the successor, to make every successor pay alike—a uniform tax of from 2 to 3 per cent upon all property from whoever derived: this would be far preferable to the graduated scale by which the duty was regulated under the law now in operation, and by the Bill now before the House. He believed that the high duty of 10 per cent on land derived from a stranger would be found to bear hardly upon a person coming into possession of property, very often from the very circumstance of its descending to a stranger in bad condition, and that it would tend to be injurious to that good cultivation of the soil which it was so important an object of public policy to promote. It could not be supposed that a person inheriting an estate from a distant relative would have more ready money to spare at the time of his succession, than if he had simply succeeded to his father.
LORD BERNERSwas understood to oppose the Bill on the ground that it proposed to add most unfairly to the existing heavy
864
burdens on land, and was totally opposed to the principle of equality in the taxation of property. Taking the figures of the Government, this tax would produce more than 4,000,000 l. He would ask their Lordships to consider what the land already paid. The tax on stamps, on deeds, and other instruments affecting the land, now amounted to over 2,000,000 l.; when the legacy duty was imposed by Mr. Pitt, the land tax amounted to 2,037,000 l., of which 1,136,000 l. were still unredeemed; then there was 6,000,000 l. poor-rates; composition and value of statute labour 40,800 l., highway rates 1,900,000 l., which, with some smaller burdens, made 10,310,000 l. of taxation thrown exclusively upon the land. This was exclusive of the county rate, of rates for lighting, watching, drainage, and enclosure, and other local burdens attaching to the land, which at the lowest computation amounted to 9,000,000 l.: in all 15 per cent on its value. Indeed, of the last three Chancellors of the Exchequer, two had stated the local burdens, one at 12,000,000 l., another at between 12,000,000 l. and 13,000,000 l., and the third at rather more than that amount. When such an amount of burdens were imposed upon the land, he must protest against the imposition of this new tax, and must express his dissent from the statement of one of Her Majesty's Ministers (the Duke of Argyll), that the injustice of the burdens on the land had been considered, and their inequality was redressed by this Bill. Such a statement, if it went forth to the country without being contradicted, was calculated to have a most injurious effect.
EARL GRANVILLEapprehended that the burdens on land being so large a question, and one which had been so frequently discussed in that House, it would be hardly necessary for him to go into it on the present occasion. The remarks to which the noble Lord had alluded in the close of his speech, as having been made by the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Argyll), were not intended so much to claim any particular credit for the Government, as to answer an assumption made in the course of the debate, on the opposite side, that this Bill went to impose upon land an equal duty to that already imposed upon personal property. The noble Duke's answer went to show that the duty so imposed upon realty would only be 50 per cent of the duty imposed upon personal property. With regard to what had fallen from the

865
noble Lord behind (Lord Beaumont), he was afraid that his proposal to equalise the degrees of consanguinity, and to make all successors pay alike a duty of 2 or 3 per cent, though it might bring the same sum of money into the revenue, would not be very favourable to the landed interest, for it had been shown pretty clearly that at least two-thirds of the landed estates of the country descended from father to son, and would, under the Bill, only pay the 1 per cent duty. Of course, therefore, if the duty were equalised, that would be doubled or trebled, and such a proposition would be no gain to the landed interest. The noble Lord had also expressed his opinion that the provision making the person inheriting pay according to his relationship to the original settlor of the property, was hard in its effects and contrary to the principle of the Bill; but, in considering which of the two principles to adopt—whether the successor should pay according to his relationship to his predecessor, or to the original settler of the property—Her Majesty's Government had come to the conclusion that the latter was by far the most favourable to the landed interest; and that had been the answer of the Government to a great many objections made to them. For instance, in the case of four brothers succeeding each other rapidly to property settled on them by their father, the last three successors, instead of paying the 3 per cent paid by brothers, would only pay 1 per cent as succeeding to their father. In order to be consistent, it was necessary to deal with both cases on the same principle, and that which had been adopted would, as he had shown, be far more profitable for the landed interest than the other.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, if the noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards) had remained in his place, he should have taken the liberty to reply to the complaint which that noble and learned Lord had made, of his not having had a fair opportunity of proposing his Amendments in Committee, by observing that the fault was that of the noble and learned Lord himself, and of the noble Earl under whom he acted, in having given notice of such Amendments as evidently showed that their object was not to amend the Bill, but to destroy it altogether. One of these Amendments would have had the effect of cutting off the head of the Bill, and another of them of cutting off its tail. It was quite evident that the adoption of those Amend-
866
ments would have made the Bill so ridiculous that no Minister would have thought it worth his while to adopt it. The noble and learned Lord, therefore, ought not to be surprised at the tone of the House when those Amendments were alluded to. There could be no doubt that the object was insidiously to defeat the Bill, and their Lordships would naturally reject any Amendment made in such a spirit. Had the noble and learned Lord sincerely intended to improve the Bill, and render it more useful, he had no doubt fair and proper attention would have been given to any suggestion the noble and learned Lord might have made with that view.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYobserved, that the noble Earl had spoken in a manner peculiar to himself. He had taken very good care not to expose himself to the severe reply of his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) who had left the House, and who had distinctly stated to their Lordships, when the Amendment was first introduced to their notice, that it was not intended to defeat the Bill. It was not usual in that House for any noble Lord to contradict what another noble Lord had distinctly stated to be his intention; but that on this occasion the noble Earl had thought fit to do. He begged to state, on the part of his noble and learned Friend, and on his own part, that there was no such intention as that which the noble Earl had imputed to them, His belief was that in every clause of the Bill there would be found such severity and oppression that it was not likely the country would very long submit to it. He had had no wish to speak on this occasion, for he thought it an inconvenient course to continue a discussion on a measure which it was not intended to oppose; but he could not help noticing what he considered a most unfounded and unjust aspersion, cast by the noble Earl upon his noble and learned Friend.
Amendments negatived. Then it was moved, That the Bill do pass; objected to; and on Question, Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill passed.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
The EARL of CLANCARTY: My Lords, I regret to have to call your Lordships' attention, and that of Her Majesty's Government, to the undue delay, I fear I must call it the very gross neglect, there has been about furnishing your Lordships with the information respecting the operation of the National School system in Ireland, for

867
which you agreed to an address to the Crown so long ago as the 7th of last March. The circumstances under which the information was called for, and readily promised on the part of the Government, were such as to have rendered it peculiarly incumbent upon the officials of the National Board to have used every exertion, to have afforded it with the utmost promptitude, unless they were sensible, as I believe they certainly were, that the returns called for would have convicted them of having put forward in their last annual report a statement of the successful working of the system of National education, altogether at variance with the true facts of the case. When I moved the House to call for those returns, I did so for the purpose of enabling your Lordships to judge, on the evidence of official documents, of the correctness of the statements and opinions I had expressed condemnatory of the system. With the last report of the Commissioners in my hands, I showed your Lordships that the number of children they had reported as actually under education in their schools was a gross exaggeration; that their schools were not in fact attended by nearly half as many as they reported; and that of the number really under instruction little more than one-tenth were kept at school after eleven years of age; so that the instruction given could be of any permanent advantage to but very few. For proof of this I had no need no need to call for any evidence, for it was already supplied by the returns of the Board's own inspectors, which were given in the appendix; but having no official documents to produce in support of what I further stated, I called for that information from the office of the Commissioners, which they are so reluctant to furnish, that would have established in the minds of your Lordships the opinion I had expressed of the total failure of the system of education. I expressed my belief from facts within my own knowledge, that there was little, if any, united education of the poor; that is to say, very little union of Protestant and Roman Catholic children in the same school-room, which it was the great object of the system to effect, even at the cost, to the character of a Christian people, of prohibiting the use of the Bible. The Commissioners were at the time in possession of returns upon this subject, which had been called for by the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but which they suppressed from their report, and have since withheld from your Lordships, although
868
they have been expressly called for. I further stated to your Lordships that such religious instruction as it was intended the children should receive in common, was not given them, namely, the reading of certain scripture extracts, and a volume of sacred poetry. This has been confirmed by the testimony of the noble Earl by whom the National Board was twenty-two years ago established. If the Commissioners are not aware, as they ought to be, in what schools these extracts and sacred poetry, at first obligatory, but afterwards only particularly recommended by them, are used, a short circular to the school patrons would have enabled them to have supplied your Lordships with the returns you called for. I further showed that the National education system had not received that aid of local subscription, by which its popularity and acceptance with the country was to have been tested. The Commissioners must have, in the archives of their office, records of the local aids and subscriptions annually contributed in support of their schools, otherwise they could not determine what amount it was necessary for them to contribute from the public grant. There is, however, the same withholding of information from your Lordships upon this point as upon every other that you have sought to be informed upon. The returns which were called for, would, I believe, have fully established the statements I submitted to your Lordships on the 7th of last March; if not, they would have been so far a vindication of the Commissioners, and of the system of education confided to their management, from the charges I made against them. On this account it might have been expected that diligence would have been used in getting the returns at once prepared; but, instead of that, nearly five months have elapsed without any return whatever having been made to your Lordships' address. I am unwilling to say that this delay has arisen from any wilful disrespect to this House, or from any deliberate purpose of evading a compliance with its orders; but the case calls, at least, for explanation on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Along with the representation I have felt it my duty to make to your Lordships about the returns that have been withheld, I must express my astonishment that the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government should—notwithstanding the fact universally admitted that the National system of education has failed of accomplishing the ends for which

869
it was professedly instituted—notwithstanding the unhappily debased condition of the poor population of Ireland in intellectual and moral attainments—should have lately expressed it as his deliberate opinion that the National system of education was the greatest blessing ever conferred upon Ireland. My Lords, what are the proofs of it? In what can it be said to have proved a blessing to the Irish people? Is it a blessing to Ireland that her peasantry are the most illiterate of any to be found in the Queen's dominions? Yet the education of the poor has been for the last twenty-two years carried on under this system. Has the British Government no greater blessing to bestow upon the people of Ireland than the enforcement of a Papal bull prohibiting the teaching of the Bible in the Irish National schools? If so, then God forbid that the British Government should be the dispenser of any more blessings to Ireland! In one respect, my Lords, I will admit that the National system has proved a blessing; for when its principles were announced, and the clergy of the Established Church were called upon to assist in carrying out a plan of education which restricted them from freely teaching in these schools to the children of the poor the great truths of Christianity; this outrage upon their character as ministers of the Gospel awakened them from that state of supineness with which the Church in Ireland had been till then justly reproached; and the result was, that they not only declined co-operation in the proposed plan, but, at the sacrifice of every assistance from the State, established a society for upholding scriptural education in the country, in connexion with which, as affording uniformity of action and properly regulated inspection, their own parochial schools for giving Christian education to the poor around them have been placed. The consistent stand made by the Irish clergy against the principles upon which the National system was instituted, reflects, I must say, the highest credit upon that body; and the success that has attended their efforts, in spite of many discouraging circumstances, to carry out the principle of combining religious with secular instruction for all who are willing to come to their schools, will, I trust, be appreciated by the Government in the reconsideration of the question of education in Ireland—for reconsidered it must be, now that the men of most weight and respectability upon the Board have felt it necessary to resign their
870
seats. Of the exact cause of the disagreement among the Commissioners, I am not aware; if it is, as some say, a mere difference of opinion as to whether Whately's Evidences of Christianity should be read in common or not, I am, certainly, surprised that such a question should have led to such consequences. Able as the work certainly is as a medium of Christian instruction, it was not worth contending for after the highest evidence of Christianity—namely, the Bible—had been discarded; it was a "straining a gnat, and swallowing a camel." But if the difference turned, as others say, upon the question whether the objection of any child to a particular book on religious grounds should be a sufficient reason for restricting the use of that book to the hours of religious instruction, there was, I must say, ample ground for the seceding Commissioners to separate from a majority who could support so unreasonable a proposition. The result, I trust, will be, that the Government will see the necessity of reviewing the plan of education, and making such changes in it as justice and reason require, and as are necessary for the best interests of the people. I have only now, in conclusion, to request that the noble Earl will state for what reason no return has yet been made to the Addresses of this House of the 7th of March and of the 18th of April respectively, for information connected with the state of education in Ireland?
The EARL of ABERDEENassured the noble Earl that there was not the slightest reluctance on the part of the Government to the production of the returns; it would be absurd to suppose otherwise. That the returns had been unduly delayed it was impossible to deny; but he was unable to account for the delay. The returns were very voluminous, and the persons at the disposal of the Board of Education were not numerous; this, perhaps, might be the reason why the returns had not been prepared. Nevertheless, the delay had been so great, that an inquiry should be instituted into the case. As regarded a declaration of his to which the noble Earl had adverted, he adhered to the opinion that the National system of education was the greatest blessing ever conferred on Ireland; and it was to be recollected that it originated with a noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), who was a friend of the noble Earl who now found fault with it.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, he thought as the Archbishop of Dublin, Chief Baron Greene, and the late Lord Chancellor Blackburne—the three members of the Educational Board to whom the Church looked with the greatest confidence, were reported to have withdrawn from it, the Government ought to adopt means to remodel it, and reduce its management into accordance with the original constitution of the system; for every change that had taken place had been more and more at variance with it. Unquestionably it had failed to carry out the object as a combined system of education; but still, even assuming that it had been confined to the Roman Catholic portion of the population, he conceived that it had proved one of the greatest blessings the country had enjoyed. It was impossible that they could have received a more excellent education than that afforded by the Board under Government control, and that was a great national benefit.
The EARL of DONOUGHMOREsaid, it could not be denied that the system had failed as a system of national and united education: indeed, the original idea of a united education had practically been already abandoned, and he would recommend the Government to abandon the doctrine altogether. Surely the Government must by this time have perceived that a system of united education in Ireland was not only unsuited to the condition of the country, but was impossible of execution. The aggressive action of the Roman Catholic Church, under the influence of its foreign head, had been directed to this end with undeviating energy, and would defeat any system that any Government could establish to secure a system of united education. There was a simple and easy mode, how ever, of getting over the difficulty, and that was by the Government undertaking secular instruction, and that alone, leaving the patrons of schools to provide for such religious education as they thought proper the Government grants and the system o inspection being applied only to secular instruction, and proportioned to the progress made by the pupils in different schools—that is to say, that if upon a periodical inspection it was ascertained that in any school a certain number had made a certain progress in education, the school should receive a certain amount of aid proportionate to the number of scholars; but that as to religious instruction the Government Board should have nothing to do with it. The Roman Catholics had always declared against a
872
united system of education. A gentleman, who signed himself "Paul Cullen, Archbishop of Dublin," and apostolic delegate (in defiance of the Ecclesiastical Titles Acts and other laws of the realm), had especially insisted on this point, and declared it to be a fixed doctrine and duty of the Catholic Church that Catholic children should not be educated in conjunction with Protestant children; but that Catholic children should be educated only by Catholic teachers. It was clear, therefore, that the so-called National system was unsuited to a country so Roman Catholic as Ireland, and could not by any possibility prove successful. As to other religious bodies, the same feeling to a great extent prevailed, though not perhaps accompanied by the same amount of prejudice. The Government ought to consider the question carefully, and they would discover that there was no effective mode of educating the people except by leaving religious opinions free.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he hoped it would not be supposed that there were any great number of Peers on his side of the House who were favourable to the principle of a national system of secular education uncombined with any religious instruction. If Government grants were to be confined to secular education alone, there would soon be schools without any sacred instruction at all, and he should consider such a system anything but a benefit or a boon to the country.
The EARL of HARROWBYsaid, he thought the English system would be best adapted to Ireland—a system under which religious instruction was amply provided for, and Roman Catholic as well as Protestant schools received Government aid. As to the idea of an united system of instruction for Roman Catholic and Protestant children, it was one of the wildest that had ever entered into the mind of man to imagine. The National system had perhaps produced some beneficial effects, but as an united system it had utterly failed; and no system could properly be continued in which the Church of Ireland was practically deprived of all share. It was unjust and unseemly that the clergy of that Church, merely because they had not approved of a system of education the Government had chosen to select, should have no assistance from the State, and be subjected to obloquy and odium for maintaining at the sacrifice of their own interests the sacred principle of scriptural education.
The EARL of DONOUGHMOREex-

873
plained that he had no wish to see a secular system of education, but a system in which the State only supplied secular instruction.

REVENUE OF THE DIOCESE OF SALISBURY.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYmoved for returns respecting the gross and net income of the See of Salisbury, the amount of fines for renewal of leases for lives, and other matters connected with the property of the see. He could assure their Lordships that he should occupy their attention for a very few moments, while he stated to them his reasons for moving for these returns, It was peculiarly painful to him to feel himself obliged by circumstances to intrude himself upon their Lordships' attention a second time upon a subject of almost personal concern; but he would confine his observations to a mere statement of the reasons which induced him to do so, and what were the objects which he had in view. He hoped when he had on a previous occasion stated to their Lordships that he had accepted a fixed income from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the place of the revenue derived from his see in the ordinary way, that he had said all that was necessary on the subject. The amount derived from his see had averaged about 6,700 l. a year, and he had accepted from the Commissioners the sum of 5,000 l. But it appeared that a great deal of misapprehension had gone abroad on the subject, and had been most industriously promulgated, and statements injurious in their consequences had been made. It had been stated that he, in accepting a fixed income of 5,000 l. a year from the Commissioners, had, so far from having made any sacrifice, in reality made what was commonly called a good bargain; that he had retained the full income of his see during those years when the receipts were usually large, and had ultimately resigned that income when he became aware that those receipts would, in all probability, fall off. In moving for the returns which he asked for, it was his object to show, in a manner which could not be contested, that any such supposition as that to which he had referred, not only was not founded upon fact, but was, in point of truth, diametrically contrary to fact. Before making the proposal to accept an income of 5,000 l. a year from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and transfer to them the income derived from his see,
874
he had not spoken to any one on the subject, except to his right rev. Friend below him (the Bishop of Oxford). That right rev. Prelate had on that occasion differed from him in the views which he entertained on the subject; but he would recollect that he had been firmly convinced at that time that the revenue derived from the ordinary means would not be decreased. If there were sources of revenue which appeared to be uncertain, but which an experience of fourteen years had proved to yield a large income, and if, according to the best judgment, they were likely always to continue to yield as large an income, the person changing them for other sources would not be content to rest under the imputation that he had made the exchange at a time when those sources of revenue were diminishing in value. In the position which he had the honour of occupying, he felt that to rest under such an imputation would be not only to render himself liable to fresh attacks, but also would expose the Church to imputation. It might be said that when he entered into the arrangement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners he had no sufficient ground for entertaining the supposition that what might be called the uncertain sources of revenue in his see would not produce a smaller amount than they had up to that time produced. He might be misinformed himself upon the subject; but what he said was liable to correction, for he had the advantage of seeing present the noble Earl who was the First Estates Commissioner (the Earl of Chichester); and also the Gentleman who sat at the table of their Lordships' House (Mr. Lefevre) had, as an unpaid Commissioner, afforded the advantage of his great experience, of his acquaintance with all matters of finance, and of a candid and impartial judgment. He had gone carefully through the details of the matter with those persons, and he trusted that he should not say anything which they would not be prepared to confirm, or, at all events, he hoped that if he fell into error, they would correct him. It would be more satisfactory than entering into details, and he hoped their Lordships would permit him to read a letter which he held in his hand from the noble Earl who was the First Estates Commissioner. That letter, which was dated "Whitehall-place, July 26, 1853," said—
"You may probably wish me to state in writing what I said to you in a recent conversation on the subject of your agreement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1851. That arrangement was

875
at the time considered by us to be an advantageous one for the Common Fund, and consequently could scarcely be, as has been stated, a pecuniary gain to yourself. An inspection of the septennial returns and of the state of existing leases upon lives clearly shows that there was reasonable ground for expecting that the seven years, commencing with 1851, would yield an aggregate income at the least equal to that of the preceding period. Indeed, I have no hesitation in saying that you were quite justified in the expectation entertained by you in 1851, that the period then commencing would be more productive than the former one. It was with these expectations, and on the earliest opportunity which the law afforded, that you proposed to put yourself under the new Act, and to receive a fixed income of 5,000 l. a year, and no more."
He trusted that their Lordships would deem that letter sufficient to show the falsity of the imputations which had been cast upon him; and he himself, after reading that letter, felt that it would be unnecessary to trouble their Lordships with the figures upon which such statements had been founded. He would merely generally state that the income of his see, and of the sees of his right rev. Brethren, was derived from three sources—from permanent sources or receipts, which were certain to fall in every year—from other sources, in one sense fixed, in another sense fluctuating, such as accrued and were almost certain to fall in every year, as fines upon renewal of leases for twenty-one years, renewable every seven years; and it was on account of the income derived from that source that seven years was the period fixed upon for returns to be made. The other source of revenue was considered uncertain; it was derived from the fines accruing on the renewal of leases for lives. He would assert that there was no reason to suppose that the income derived from the latter source would not, when he made his offer to the Commissioners, approach to that derived from it during the preceding period, and he would go further, and say, that there were some reasons to expect a not inconsiderable increase. In discussing this subject, he had thought it desirable to look upon the revenue derived from the renewal of fines upon leases for life now as the same as that derived in the preceding period, and only to touch upon the revenue derived from that source. It had been argued that because before making the arrangement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he had derived a large income from the renewal of fines upon leases for life; that, therefore, it was not likely that any considerable sum would accrue for a long time. In moving for the returns he now
876
pressed for, his great object was to show that such was not the case, but that the exact contrary was the fact. From a return which he held in his hand, it appeared that during the first fourteen years of his incumbency the average receipts from fines on leases for years amounted to a suns of 1,973 l. per annum; while the annual average for the seven years preceding the arrangement in the year 1851, had been only 820 l.; so that it appeared that at the very time when he entered into the arrangement the receipts from that source were unusually small, and the probability was that the receipts to be expected for the future would be greater; although, indeed, such matters were so uncertain that he himself expressed no opinion on the subject. He would at once state to their Lordships that it was perfectly true that it had so happened that during the first two years after he had entered into the arrangement, the receipts had been extremely small. But, although such was the case—and he was most willing to admit that it was so—he would also beg their Lordships to observe what was the state of the case in the third year. It was the case that what had at one time only been a matter of probability had since become a matter of absolute certainty; that the receipts from the fines upon renewal of leases for lives, which it had been expected would increase, had actually increased, and at the present moment there was a larger amount due from that source than had been due at any period since he first entered upon the incumbency. Besides two other small cases, there were four lives at the present moment vacant. He would not enter into detail on the subject, for he did not think that such a course would be desirable, nor had he as yet received all the reports; but he felt that he had a right to say that, speaking upon the best information he could obtain, it was estimated that at the present moment there was due on account of leases in which lives were vacant, the sum of 10,196 l., a sum considerably greater than the largest which had fallen due during the whole time he had held the incumbency. The effect of that would be, that if during the remaining three and a half years of the period of seven years no other leases at all were to fall vacant, the sum now due, combined with the income derived from other sources, would give an annual income of 6,236 l., while, if other leases should fall vacant, that income would, of course, be proportionately increased. The average of the receipts of

877
the see during the first three years of the present septennial period, if the leases now vacant were renewed in the ordinary manner, would be not less than 5,843 l. 19 s. These were all the facts to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention, and which he was desirous of confirming from the returns for which he moved. He did not wish to detain their Lordships longer: he felt bound, however, before be resumed his seat, to express the gratitude he felt for the kind attention which he had received. There was another thing which he wished to state, and which he considered it due to their Lordships that he should state. It was not on account of their Lordships that he had felt bound to make the statement which he had made that evening, for he felt that they were just and honourable men, and would not be ready to believe that other persons acted from unworthy motives. They would not, he was well persuaded, lightly attribute base conduct to any one, and least of all to one placed in the situation which he had been called upon to fill, he should have felt it degrading to enter into details concerning such a subject if he had only himself personally to defend. But that was not all. Such charges brought against one in his position, were calculated, if substantiated, to bring scandal upon the Church itself. And he had felt himself constrained to adopt the course which he at present pursued, to prevent that Church suffering by any imputations which had been cast upon him.
The EARL of CHICHESTERsaid, that as a member of the Ecclesiastical Commission he not only had no objection to the production of these returns, but he should rejoice at their production, being persuaded that when they were laid before their Lord-ships, it would be clearly proved how un-founded were the insinuations to which the right rev. Prelate had referred. At the time the arrangement was entered into, In (the Earl of Chichester) was fully satisfied that it would be for the benefit not of the Bishop, but of the Board; and as the right rev. Prelate had read to their Lordships letter which he had addressed to him, he would only add to the statement container in that letter, that, from a closer examination of the state of the existing leases, he had every reason to feel convinced that the right rev. Prelate, at the time of his entering into the arrangement with the Commissioners, must have anticipated that a large income would he derived from that source during the succeeding septennial period than had accrued in the preceding. He
878
would only repeat his conviction that the returns moved for would entirely prove that such was the case.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he felt it his duty to declare, in justice to the right rev. Prelate, that the law on the subject had been very much misunderstood and misrepresented. There was a great misconception as to the state of the law regarding the arrangements between the Bishops of the various sees and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In the year 1835, or 1836, when he held the office of Solicitor General, a proposition was made with the view of making an approach towards an equalisation of the resources of the different sees. The Ecclesiastical Commission took the subject into its consideration. Two modes of proceeding were suggested for carrying that object into effect. One was the fixing, first of all, what ought to be about the nominal income of each see. It was proposed that the revenues should be received by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and paid by way of salary to the Bishops. The Commissioners were to look back to see what had been the average income for seven or fourteen years, and the see was to be accepted under an obligation to pay to the Commissioners such a sum as they should fix upon at the time of his coming into it, as that which would probably leave him in possession of the right amount. For instance, supposing it to have been ascertained that the right amount for the see of Salisbury was 5,000 l. a year, and that for the preceding seven years the average income had been 6,000 l. a year, then the Bishop was to pay 1,000 l. a year. That arrangement was to operate during the whole incumbency; and, whether it was beneficial or not to the Bishop, there was no power of making any alteration. He recollected entertaining a strong opinion when the matter was first discussed in the House of Commons that the system was being based on a wrong foundation, and that it would be much better if an annual sum were paid. This conviction was strengthened by the fact which he discovered that the income of the see of Ely was, by the payment of 5,000 l. a year, reduced for the first and second years almost to nothing. In that case, when the Bishop remonstrated, the answer of the Commissioners was, that it could not be helped, that he had accepted the see charged with a fixed payment, and that if he were a loser one year, he might be a gainer the next. That appeared to him a most unsatisfactory

879
footing on which to place the resources of the hierarchy; but, on the other hand, it was but justice to the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Salisbury) and to the other Prelates concerned, to say that they had no choice in the matter; that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners fixed the sum to be paid by them with reference to the probable amount of their receipts; and that the Bishop had nothing to do but receive his income. That very unsatisfactory state of things was altered two years ago, and now the Bishops received fixed payments from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who received the whole revenues of the sees. If anything were wanted to show the necessity for the alteration, it would be found in the fact stated by the right rev. Prelate that evening, that in the present year he would, under the old arrangement, have received, besides his annual income, upwards of 10,000 l.
Returns ordered.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
LORD BEAUMONTrose to call the attention of their Lordships to the state of private business, which, he said, was such as to be productive of very serious inconvenience both to parties interested and to the House. It had happened this year, from peculiar circumstances, that many Bills sent up from the Commons had arrived late in the Session—some so late that they could not be considered if the Sessional Orders of the House should be enforced. This delay had arisen, not from the neglect of the parties, but from circumstances over which they had no control. One reason, with regard to Railway Bills, was the proceedings of the Select Committee, which had under its consideration the subject of amalgamations and working agreements; and another was owing to the appointment of numerous Election Committees, for which it was difficult to find Members, and which had occupied a very considerable period of time. One of their Lordships' Sessional Orders was that no Bill should be read the second time after the 12th July; but there was a provision in it which said that, if sufficient reason was shown, any Bill might be read the second time after the 12th July. He was informed that there were several Bills before their Lordships which, owing to the causes he had stated, had been delayed in the second reading beyond the period prescribed in the order. In such cases, where there had been no neglect on the part of the promoters, he thought their
880
Lordships were bound to appoint Committees to sit upon them, otherwise many thousands of pounds would be lost, and great inconvenience arise. There might be difficulty in finding Peers in sufficient numbers to constitute Select Committees, owing to the advanced period of the Session; but he would suggest that in the next Session the system should be revised. For his own part, he was willing to assist to the utmost of his power in discharging the private business now waiting. This year it could only be done by noble Lords volunteering to undertake it; but next year he hoped another system would be adopted. He suggested that the system of rotation should be tried, for it was really very hard that the weight and burden of business should devolve upon a few. A large number of Members of their Lordships' House were yet in town; and it was only fair that they should attend in rotation, or that some other steps should be taken to prevent the business of the House from being conducted in a way that was certainly not very creditable to it.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he should certainly be very glad to receive from the House some directions as to the relaxation of the Sessional Order in cases where he might be of opinion that the Bill ought to be read the second time. At the same time he must add, that for the sake of the House, the maintenance of the Sessional Order was of the greatest importance. It was of importance also to the other House, for it stimulated Committees there to pass Bills through by a reasonable period, and it enabled time to be given to their consideration in their Lordships' House. But if it were held that because the Session was prolonged to a more extended period than usual, that was a reason for allowing further time, he must remind their Lordships that such an argument would do away with the stimulus upon the other House to send up their Bills to this House in time. At the same time, what the noble Lord had said was true, that there had been undue delay in the other House in consequence of the proceedings of the Committee on Amalgamation Bills, and by the appointment of so many Election Committees. If their Lordships did relax the Sessional Order, be must, as far he was concerned, be extremely cautious how he acted in order to avoid any charge of partiality. The line must be broadly and simply drawn, and it must be rendered perfectly clear. In the case of several Bills, he had already recom-

881
mended that they be read the second time but there were other cases which would require much consideration, before he could adopt such a course. At the same time, if it appeared to their Lordships that special favour should be shown in the present. Session to Bills which had been unavoidably delayed, he should be happy to act upon their Lordships' opinion. He should under stand the desire of the House to be, that the Standing Orders were to be so far enforced, that where extreme diligence had not been used, or where there had been originally an imperfect construction of the Bill, there no relaxation of the Standing Orders would be conceded, but that in other cases the Bills would be allowed to go on.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEagreed with his noble Friend that the duration of the Session, irrespective of other causes, ought upon no account to be considered a good reason for a relaxation of the Standing Order. There were, however, other reasons for it, one of which was the course taken by the Government, which seemed to him to present a decided claim for some relief to the parties who were likely to suffer from the operation of the order He alluded to the Committee over which his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade presided, to which the question of railway amalgamation was referred. The Committee consumed six weeks of the Session just at the period most useful for the progress of measures of this description. This fact undoubtedly furnished a strong claim for relief. Then had also been a great demand upon the time of Members for other business, and he had reason to believe that great difficulty had been found in naming Select Committees. With regard to the private business in their Lordships' House, he must say he had seen with very considerable pain and annoyance the noble Lords who were occupied on both sides the House in managing the attendance of Members, and more especially the noble Lord entrusted by the House with the conduct of private business, obliged to go along the benches with slips of paper in their hands begging Peers in a sort of mendicant fashion, as a personal favour to themselves, to come down and discharge the duties which devolved upon them a Members of the House. This was not a position in which his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) ought to be placed; it was not a position worthy of the character of that House; and noble Lords neglected very
882
important functions if they neglected the private business of the House. He agreed, then, that some remedy for a state of things so unsatisfactory should be provided before the next Session. He hoped his noble Friend would turn his attention to this subject. He thought that his noble Friend the Chairman of their Lordships' Committees, and the Members of the House of Commons who undertook the management of private business, ought to be called together, either at the close of the present Session or the beginning of the next Session, to consider whether some improvement could not be made in the mode of transacting the private business of both Houses. At present, looking to the fact that the delay in the present instance had not been owing to any laches on the part of the promoters of many of these Bills, but that they had been prevented by accidents beyond their control, from complying with the Standing Orders, he thought that a liberal and generous view ought to be taken of the matter, and that his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) ought to be relieved from the responsibility which he wished to avoid of evincing any partiality in his selection of the Bills to be proceeded with. Their Lordships would not, he thought, object to some such rule as this, that those Bills should be allowed to proceed to a second reading, against which there were not broad grounds of negligence on the part of the promoters, At the same time he should be prepared in any future Session of Parliament to resist any similar relaxation of the Standing Orders.
LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEYsuggested that, upon a future occasion, the assistance of a Select Committee might be useful. There was already a rota for the attendance of noble Lords upon appeals; and probably some plan of that sort might he adapted to the discharge of private business.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that he would to-morrow, after what had been said, look through the Bills again, and advance those of them, in accordance with what appeared to be their Lordships' wish, in regard to which the delay could be satisfactorily explained; and if there were any upon which he was doubtful, he would ask for the assistance of a Select Committee. With regard to the adoption of a new system of appointing Committees, no one could be more relieved by an improved arrangement than himself; but there were difficulties

883
with respect to compulsory attendance, which might not have occurred to noble Lords. There would always be a greater difficulty, in consequence of the age of many of their Lordships, in securing an attendance upon private business, than in the House of Commons, where the attendance was also more regular in consequence of the Members being representatives of constituencies. In consequence of age and other causes, the rota allude to by the noble Lord as having been established upon appeals, had broken down, and the attendance of the necessary number was now managed by agreement among their Lordships. A certain amount of compulsion was necessary to get through the private business of their Lordships but the amount must be very much left to the discretion of those upon whom the appointment of the Committees usually fell. One great difficulty was in finding noble Lords to serve upon Select Committees who had no private interest in the Bills brought before them. If noble Lords would turn their attention to the subject during the recess, he should be happy to give them his best assistance. With regard to the Standing Orders, there was none more important than that their Lordships should not receive Bills after a certain time. If that rule were acted upon, there would be no difficulty in obtaining Committees; but if that rule were departed from, their Lordships would have every Session petitions for time.

THE AFRICAN SQUADRON.
The EARL of WALDEGRAVE,asked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the reduction of the naval force on the coast of Africa was temporary or not?
The EARL of CLARENDON,in answer to the inquiry of the noble Earl—a most legitimate one, after the information he must have received—wished to say, that if there were any impression abroad, either that the Government were less anxious about the suppression of the slave trade than heretofore, or that the number of the fleet was reduced, or its efficiency diminished, he felt much obliged to his noble Friend for making the inquiry, because it gave him an opportunity of saying that there was not the least intention on the part of the Government to reduce the number of the fleet, or to render it less efficient. In consequence of the notice given him by his noble Friend, he had put himself in com-
884
munication with his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty (Sir J. Graham), who had informed him that no ship had been withdrawn from the fleet of Admiral Bruce on the coast of Africa but those which accidentally required repairs, and were not fit for actual service. Since his right hon. Friend had been at the head of the Admiralty, only one ship had been withdrawn from the Admiral's fleet, and he was informed that his right hon. Friend had commissioned two ships of war in its place, and that another, and possibly a fourth, would be also sent out within the next week or ten days. He was sure the noble Earl would admit that his right hon. Friend was fully alive to the propriety and necessity of keeping up the African squadron. The noble Earl would also not fail to remember that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, with only a peace establishment at his disposal, had brought together the fleet now assembled at Spithead, the fleet now at the entrance of the Dardanelles, the large naval force necessary for the defence of the British fisheries in North America, and for guarding the coast of Cuba and Brazil, besides that which was required in China and at Rangoon. He could appeal to the noble Earl's professional knowledge and experience whether his right hon. Friend had not made a judicious distribution of the force at his command for the different exigencies of the service, and the protection of British interests in every quarter of the world.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, the statement just made by his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) must give great satisfaction to the many persons in this country who were watching the subject with the greatest possible anxiety; and he must express the gratification he had received from that statement. Their Lordships would see the exceeding importance of this great experiment, and of carrying out thoroughly whatever they undertook to do. It was like undertaking to stamp out a fire; if they intermitted their exertions before the last spark was extinguished, the flame would rekindle, and the whole work would be to do over again. It was only within a short time that a trade had grown up which was becoming the staple riches of the dwellers of those parts of the earth, and which he hoped would eventually enable us to withdraw our squadron altogether. Let their Lordships, therefore, do thoroughly the work which they had undertaken to do, while they did it. He rejoiced to hear the

885
answer which had been given by his noble Friend to this question, because it assured him (the Bishop of Oxford) that this work was being done with that vigour and efficiency which so eminently marked his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty.
House adjourned till To-morrow.