Lords Sitting of 26 May 1854

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Earl Vane, after the death of his Father, by virtue of the Limitation in the Letters Patent, dated 8th July, 1823.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Prisoners Removal.
2a Dublin Port.
Reported.—Manning the Navy; Navy Pay, &c.
3a and passed.—Law of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland); Powers of Leasing (Ireland); Church Building Acts Amendment.

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA—

  TREATY BETWEEN AUSTRIA AND PRUSSIA— QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, their Lordships were aware that there had appeared in the newspapers a some-

  975
  what mysterious document, which purported to be a treaty signed between Austria and Prussia relating to the war in which this country was unfortunately engaged. He was not about to canvas the provisions of that ambiguous document at that moment, but he wished to ask his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he would lay a copy of that paper on the table of the House, accompanied, as he hoped it would be, with such despatches as might have been written to or received from Her Majesty's diplomatic agents abroad, in order to enable their Lordships to interpret the paper correctly, and to show the views by which the document was regarded by this and by other Governments. It appeared to him that there was much doubt and difficulty as to the real purport and bearing of the alliance said to have been entered into. It appeared to him that the paper had as much direction in the way of defence against the Western Powers as it had against Russia. It was true the treaty contained an article which specified certain contingencies in the event of any of which Austria and Prussia were prepared to enter into hostilities against Russia; but those contingencies were now of such on absurd nature that it appeared ridiculous to put them into a serious and important State document. Those contingencies were, that in case the Russian army should cross the Balkan, or should continue to occupy the Danubian Principalities for an indefinite period of time, or should attempt the annexation of those Principalities to Russia—in the event of any of those contingencies taking place, then Austria and Prussia would be prepared to take up arms to resist any such acts. The first of those contingencies appeared to him to be perfectly absurd, inasmuch as it could scarcely come to pass that the Russian army would be able to cross the Balkan. They might as well talk of their crossing the Alps or the Apennines, inasmuch as, being only yet opposed to the Turks, they had not been able to make the least approach to the accomplishment of such an advance. The other contingencies appeared to him to be equally absurd, and they none of them pointed out or explained the real animus of the treaty. But it was rumoured that a protocol had been lately signed at Vienna by the representatives of the Four Powers, and it was possible that that document might be of a more important character
  976
  than the protocols which had preceded it. Judging, however, from the terms in which it was described it appeared to be little more than a repetition of an abstract proposition, which had been made before, and he had almost said of an abstract truism, with respect to the nature of the contest in which this country was engaged; but it did not pledge any party to it, nor did it insure any effective co-operation on the part of Austria and Prussia with France and England in that contest. He would ask his noble Friend to lay that Protocol also on the table of the House, accompanied, as he hoped it would be, with despatches on the subject; because, if they were to have any information at all, he thought it important that their Lordships should have the fullest that could be given with respect to these matters. What had already appeared in the published papers was little calculated to afford information on the events now passing, as the last despatch laid before Parliament was of the date of March 6, from Vienna. There was another very important subject on which he wished to say a few words. He hoped the noble Earl would inform the House when he would be able to lay upon the table those papers which he believed had been promised to be produced in the other House of Parliament—he meant with respect to our relations with Greece. He believed it was a matter of notoriety—at least, it was very currently reported in the streets of Paris and of London—that an expedition had sailed both from this country and France for the purpose of occupying the Greek territories. Such an occupation by France and England, whether separately or cojointly, appeared to him to be a matter of grave consideration; but he did not intend to enter into it at the present moment; at the same time it was so grave and delicate a subject that it deserved the fullest consideration of Parliament. He hoped his noble Friend would be able to state that it would soon be in his power to explain what were the objects of that expedition, and whether or not those objects were defined and recorded in some official document. He for one should rejoice that such an expedition had taken place. There was yet another point which had an important bearing on the conduct of the war, if it were fact. It had been reported in the newspapers that Russia had concluded a treaty with Persia and other Eastern Powers. If the rumour was true,

  977
  he apprehended Her Majesty's Government must have had some information upon the subject from our diplomatic agent at the Court of Teheran. The last time he had occasion to notice the case of Persia, it appeared that our diplomatic agent stationed at the Court of Teheran was absent, and that his post was filled by a subordinate officer attached to the embassy. He thought it was of the highest importance that a person of experience, character, and intelligence should, at this moment particularly, be in that part of the world, because the relations of Russia with those Eastern Powers were matter of most serious consideration. He should be glad, therefore, if his noble Friend could tell the House whether he had reason to believe that there was any truth in the report that Russia had entered into a treaty with Persia?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: In answer to the first question of my noble Friend, respecting the convention that has been lately concluded between Austria and Prussia, I have only to say that the negotiations which were carried on during a considerable length of time between those two Powers were kept a profound secret from this and other Governments, and the treaty was only communicated to us confidentially after the ratifications had been exchanged. That treaty has since been communicated to the Conference at Vienna, at the same time that the convention entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Emperor of the French and the Ottoman Porte was communicated to the Conference. That communication took place on the 23rd of this month, and a protocol annexing the two conventions together was signed on the same day. That protocol has not yet been received in this country, but as soon as it is it shall be laid on your Lordships' table. With respect to Greece, I am prepared to lay before the House the fullest information we can give on the subject, and I am only sorry that the extreme pressure of business in the Foreign Office has prevented me from sooner laying those papers before your Lordships. They are very voluminous, and it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government that they should be quite complete. I hope in the course of three or four days—certainly in the course of next week—they will be produced; and I think your Lordships will then see that there have been ample grounds for that measure of coercion which has been
  978
  reluctantly adopted towards Greece by Her Majesty's Government, in concert with the Government of France—certainly not before it was called for. With respect to Persia, I would, in the first place, say that Colonel Sheil has not been withdrawn from the Court of Teheran, but that he is absent for the recovery of his health. But Her Majesty's representative in Persia, during his absence, Mr. Thomson, our Chargé d'Affaires at the Persian Court, is a person of great experience, and of great zeal and intelligence, and we have every reason to be satisfied with the manner in which he has conducted the affairs of Her Majesty's Government there during the unavoidable absence of Colonel Sheil. I have no reason to believe, from the intelligence which we have received either from Persia or from India, that such a treaty as that to which my noble Friend has alluded, or which has been mentioned in the papers, has been concluded between Russia and Persia. The last engagement we know of as Laving been entered into by Persia was a declaration of neutrality—a neutrality based on the ground of a determination by Persia not to vex or harass Turkey in her war with Russia; and for that purpose Persia has suspended all claims, some of them most just, which she has on Turkey. We have heard that the Russians have advanced to a small place on the Sirr, but we have no reason to believe that any treaty has been concluded between the Czar and Persia, or between him and the Government of Bokhara and Khiva.

  UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
  LORD LYNDHURST presented a petition from the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the University of Cambridge, that the two canonries in the Cathedral of Ely, mentioned in the 3rd and 4th of Victoria, cap. 113, may be permanently annexed to two professorships of divinity in the said University, and said that it was a subject which well deserved the serious consideration of their Lordships. He could not do better than call their Lordships' attention to the Report of the Commissioners on the Cambridge University. In that Report the Commissioners stated the present inadequate provision of professorships—
  "There are only three Professors of Divinity in the University, a number which is altogether inadequate either to teach or to represent this most important department of human knowledge. Of this number the first in our list is much occupied with various extraneous duties, and the efficiency of the third is diminished by the condition of his

  979
  deed of foundation, which requires him to interpolate readings with his lectures."
  They then stated the consequences of this inadequacy—
  "It is almost a necessary consequence of these defective arrangements, as well as of the want of a sufficient lecturing force, that no proper school for professional instruction in theology has been hitherto formed in the University."
  They then suggested the remedy for these evils—
  "There appears to be only one method by which evils of this nature could be effectually guarded against, which is, to increase considerably the number of theological teachers, and to give them such a share in conducting examinations as would secure a just influence to their teaching."
  But it appeared that the University had no funds by which to support these new professorships and teachers. There happened, however, to be two vacancies at this moment in the canonries of the Cathedral of Ely, and the object of the petitioners was, that the revenues of those canonries should be appropriated to the foundation of two theological professorships in the University of Cambridge. The Commissioners strongly recommended the appointment of additional theological teachers. They stated—
  "The critical exposition of the New Testament and the wide province of ecclesiastical history, which are not at present undertaken by any of the three existing professors, would alone require the addition of two new theological chairs. … We are satisfied that the best interests of the Church are closely allied with those of the University in effecting an adequate augmentation of the staff of teachers in theology. If the permanent residence of a body of learned theologians could be secured, whether engaged in the prosecution of their own studies or directing and encouraging the studies of the great body of young men who are preparing for the Church, there would be no place where professional theological education could be more effectually carried on, or where students would be less liable to that danger of having peculiar and somewhat personal views impressed upon them, to which those who resort to smaller theological institutions are sometimes exposed. The University would thus in reality become the nursing mother of the Church."
  Such was the recommendation of the Commissioners, and the petition of the University was founded entirely on that recommendation. He would avail himself of the present opportunity of calling the attention of the noble Earl to a Motion adopted in the other House of Parliament in respect to the constitution of the governing and legislative body of the University of Oxford. The vote of the other House had sanctioned the principle which upwards of a year ago was adopted by the Cambridge
  980
  University as the foundation of the constitution of their governing and legislative body. This had been approved of in the strongest manner by the Commissioners to whom he had referred. The Commissioners stated in their Report—
  "We cannot hesitate to express our pleasure to find such a proposal emanating from the University itself. It has evidently been framed with careful deliberation, and with an especial view as well to preserve a balance of power among the several colleges as also to prevent the excitements and rivalries of a more popular and unlimited mode of appointment. The suggested scheme has received the unanimous approval of the Syndicate; and we hope it may in due time receive the sanction of the Senate."
  It had since received the unanimous approval of the Senate; and he hoped that this circumstance, together with the various reforms which had taken place in Cambridge, and which were still being carried on, would lead the noble Earl and the Government to be of opinion that it would be better to place in the hands of the University the power of making reforms rather than to hand the University over to any extraneous body—adding only such powers, legislative or otherwise, as might be best adapted to enable them to carry those reforms into effect. His noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) had told them that no Bill relating to the University was in contemplation; and he hoped to find that the more the subject was considered, the more his noble Friend and the Government would be convinced of the prudence and propriety of the course he recommended.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he did not know that it was necessary for him at present to give any definite answer to the prayer of the petition presented by the noble and learned Lord. He was far from denying that the object of the petition was most important and desirable; but, at the same time, he must observe that the purpose for which these canonries had been suppressed would not altogether be accomplished by the proposal of the petitioners. The endowment of theological professorships might, no doubt, be of great use, but that was not the direct object for which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were empowered to employ the revenues of the canonries. He did not mean to say anything against the establishment of such professorships, but it might be a question whether the augmentation of poor livings and the accomplishment of other purposes under the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners

  981
  would not outweigh the advantages to be derived from the professorships. He must say that the appropriation of the two canonries already suspended and applied to professorships at Cambridge had not been altogether such as to contribute greatly to the progress of theological learning, inasmuch as one was appropriated to the professorship of Hebrew, and the other to the professorship of Greek, the most eminent professor of Greek they had ever known having been a layman. Of course, the object which the noble and learned Lord would have in view would be one directly tending to the increase and improvement of theological learning in the University, and the subject, recommended as it was in the Report, to which the noble and learned Lord had referred, very well deserved the attention of Parliament. Without giving any positive declaration on the point that evening, he assured the noble and learned Lord that the recommendations of the Commissioners, supported as they were by the noble and learned Lord and by the University, should receive the best attention.
  Petition ordered to lie on the table.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC REGU LATION BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in consequence of the absence of the Lord Chief Justice, moved, That the House be put into Committee on the said Bill on Tuesday next.
  LORD LYNDHURSTrecommended that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the proper time for discussing that question was not upon a mere Motion for postponing the Bill.
  EARL GREYthought it would be greatly to the advantage of the House to send the Bill to a Select Committee. The more he looked at the measure the more he was satisfied that it was imperfect, and would require more detailed consideration than it was likely to receive in a Committee of the whole House. He called it imperfect, because some of the most important topics connected with railway management had been deliberately excluded from it by the Government, and the House was totally ignorant of the intentions of the Government in regard to them. The subject of accidents was inti-
  982
  mately mixed up with the general management of railways, yet that had been entirely omitted from the Bill. It was impossible, in fact, to consider any one question satisfactorily without having before them the whole scheme. So, also, with regard to the Post Office arrangements. On both these points the House ought to know what the intentions of the Government were before they proceeded to dispose of the present Bill. But that was not all. He thought the Bill was defective also in not providing all that was necesary for the security and convenience of the public, and in not making arrangements on other points, in regard to which railways were greatly interested. He should be sorry to be supposed as speaking in a spirit hostile to railways. On the contrary, he was persuaded that the well-understood interests of railway companies and the public were the same. He complained particularly of the Bill, because it did nothing relative to the great question of amalgamation. When his noble Friend moved the second reading on a former evening, he did not disclose anything of the intentions of the Government upon that subject. Originally, hopes were held out, in the place of amalgamation, of some arrangement for giving railways certain districts for specified periods. In this matter railway companies had been hardly dealt with. Both during this and the last Session a great variety of amalgamation Bills had been brought forward by railway companies, but had all been either indefinitely postponed or rejected, on the ground that the whole question would be considered by the Government. He was of opinion that railway amalgamation, with due security for the public, would be very useful. It was quite clear that two railways could, by an united management, carry on their business with greater economy and efficiency than they could do with separate staffs and establishments. He thought that a certain amount of amalgamation was required; but care should be taken that in every instance advantage accrued to the public, and that due security was given against the abuse of the increased power obtained by companies. It was quite apparent that, under the existing system, competition did not answer either as regarded the companies or the public. These were only some of the points which ought to be carefully considered by the Government, and the longer they were postponed the more

  983
  difficult they would be of settlement. He entirely approved of the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, to send the Bill to a Select Committee.
  LORD LYNDHURSTwould move that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He quite agreed with the noble Earl, that the interests of the railway companies and the public, though apparently at variance, were not really so, and might be reconciled by a careful investigation before a Select Committee. Such an investigation could not, however, be entered upon in a Committee of the whole House. One question which required very careful consideration was as to the tribunal which was to decide what was a "reasonable condition" to be affixed by the railway companies to the conveyance of traffic. The Bill proposed to intrust this power to the fifteen common law and six equity Judges, each of whom might be called upon separately to pronounce an opinion upon questions not of law, so vague and so incapable of being reduced to fixed rules, that it was impossible conflicting decisions should not be given. Another result would be, that as the common law Judges were absent on circuit from London twice a year for a considerable period, the investigation of these matters would principally devolve upon the equity Judges, who were stationary. Now even at the present moment the Judges in these courts were barely able to despatch the business before them, and he was informed that when the vacation arrived, there would be a considerable arrear of business to be disposed of at a future period. The business before them would be still further increased by the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill; and if to that they added the business that would arise under this Bill, it was quite evident that all the benefits which it had been attempted to secure to the public by the late reforms in the Court of Chancery would be lost, and that the delays and arrears of business in that court would soon be as bad as ever. He thought that, in order to ensure uniformity of decisions, questions of this kind should be dealt with by one tribunal; and he would suggest that the Court of Common Pleas—the Judges of which had ample time—should be the court for that purpose as far as England was concerned. It would still remain for consideration to what tribunals in Ireland and Scotland they should intrust the decision of these
  984
  questions. Another point to which he wished to draw their attention was the desire on the part of railway companies to free themselves from the consequences of their negligence by setting up special contracts. It was for the House to decide whether they should put some restraints upon these contracts, and, on the other hand, whether in favour of the companies they would not somewhat limit their liability. He had understood, also, that the railway companies disputed their liability to carry horses and cattle under the word "traffic." He could not see why the words "horses and cattle" were not used instead of the word "traffic," which had no definite meaning whatever. These and other similar questions, which could not be dealt with in a confused debate in the whole House, might be very well considered by a Select Committee, and he should, therefore, press his Motion for referring the Bill to such a body.
  Amendment moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhoped the noble and learned Lord would not press his Amendment. The Bill was on Friday last fixed for that evening, on the express understanding that, if the Lord Chief Justice—who desired to consult the Judges with respect to some of its provisions—desired a further postponement, it should not then come on. He had received a note from the Lord Chief Justice, expressing his desire that the Bill should be further postponed; and, under these circumstances, he trusted that their Lordships would not, in the absence of the Lord Chief Justice, enter upon a discussion of the general merits of the measure, or entertain any proposition for referring it a Select Committee. He must confess that he had as yet heard no reasons which convinced him of the necessity of such a step, nor could he see why the various points that had been mentioned could not be discussed perfectly well in a Committee of the whole House. With respect to the word "traffic," it was perfectly well understood in connection with railways; and if the noble and learned Lord referred to the interpretation clause, he would find its meaning fully defined. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) near him had complained that several subjects, and particularly that of accidents, were not embraced in this measure. This Bill, however, only professed to deal with the regulations as to traffic. It was complete

  985
  as far as it went; and with respect to the subject of accidents, a distinct Bill was already prepared, and would be placed on the table of the other House in the course of a few days.
  LORD LYNDHURSTobjected to the use of an insensible word, and then attempting to attach to it a sensible meaning by a definition in the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEheld it to be highly important that the Bill should pass without delay. That something might be done to make it more perfect he would not deny, but it proposed to remedy many deficiencies now existing in railways. A number of other Bills were really dependent on the passing of this; a number of companies whose traffic was now impeded were waiting in the hope of surmounting the obstacles in their way when the Bill should be passed, and he should therefore deprecate anything which should delay its progress. As to the proposed reference to a Select Committee, he entertained no decided objection one way or the other; if the Committee would go on vigorously, and without loss of time, he would not object to the reference; but if, on the other hand, the Committee, not confining themselves to the Bill alone, should enter into all matters connected with railway traffic, he should give the proposal of the noble and learned Lord his decided opposition.
  THE EARL OF DERBYcertainly thought there was very considerable force in what had been said by the noble Lord who had just sat down as to the desirableness of passing the Bill at an early period. The proposed reference to a Select Committee was not for the purpose of considering the Bill itself, but for that which his noble Friend most deprecated, namely, for entering into extensive considerations with a view to framing a more efficient Bill, which would occupy the greater portion of this Session of Parliament. If that were the case, as he believed it to be, he would urge upon his noble and learned Friend to reconsider, or at all events not to press, the question of a reference at the present time. Before sitting down, he wished to ask the noble Lord opposite, who had the charge of the Bill, whether he had considered the particular point, which had been the subject of observation by various noble Lords as well as by himself, with regard to the liability and great responsibility of railway companies, and the possibility of their avoiding that responsibility by a simple notice; and whether he were
  986
  prepared to introduce, on the part of the Government, a provision to prevent that avoidance?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the case had been most fully considered, and he was informed that railway companies were subject to precisely the same liabilities as common carriers. There was, therefore, no necessity for introducing a special provision on the question; it would only be necessary to enforce the laws at present existing.
  EARL GREYsaid, that railway practice abounded in cases of injustice and oppression, which were not heard of in connection with the profession of a common carrier. If this Bill was not to be referred to a Select Committee, and if Her Majesty's Government should not propose any more effectual measure, he did trust that some of their Lordships would move for a Select Committee on the general subject, with a view to ascertaining whether some further legislation were not necessary. The Bill, as it stood, was a most insufficient attempt to deal with a subject of very great and urgent importance.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that by the common law, carriers were obliged to receive all goods given to them to carry. They had attempted, however, to get rid of their liability on account of the goods by putting up notices limiting their liability. As, however, the goods were not always delivered at places where those notices were posted, it was decided that they were of no effect. They next affixed a notice limiting their liability to the receipt which they gave for the goods, and this would have been effectual in the then state of the law. Parliament, however, then stepped in, and by the 11th Geo. IV. declared that they would not allow their liability to be limited by these notices, but it was at the same time provided that this Act should not prevent parties entering into any special contract. Taking advantage of that the railway companies had by a special notice made it part of the contract on which goods were received, that they would not be liable for loss or injury from whatever cause it might arise. Now, this was not in accordance with the spirit of the Act of George IV. It was an evasion of it; a species of fraud which should be prevented by this Bill.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the Lord Chief Justice had expressly declared that these notices were so much waste paper; and that if the railway

  987
  company refused to take cattle or horses or other goods, except upon the terms of such a special contract, it was perfectly competent to any one to bring an action for damages against them in a court of law. The remedy was precisely the same against a railway company as against a common carrier who refused to take goods except on special contract.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice had exclusive reference to the non-effect of notices issued by railway companies in defeating the operation of the Act introduced by himself for giving damages for personal injuries. It was all very well saying that an action would lie against a railway company if they refused to take goods; but how unequal was the contest between an individual and a powerful company?
  EARL GREYcould not at all agree that those notices were mere waste paper, for he knew of a case in which the Court of Common Pleas, setting aside the verdict of a county court, held that, by the publication of such a notice, the Newcastle and Berwick Railway Company had freed themselves from a liability which would otherwise have attached to them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas afraid that this inequality was inherent in the nature of things, and that it would still operate whatever might be the nature of the remedy provided. He thought the subject of the liability of railway companies was not yet fully understood by the House. Every common carrier was bound to take goods which were tendered to him, and he believed that railway companies were equally subject to this liability. In former times, no doubt, carriers—on account of the nature of their conveyances—were not required to carry cattle. But now, when they—at least railway companies—had the means of doing this, they were, he had no doubt, just as much bound to receive cattle and horses, if tendered to them, as any common carrier was to take a parcel which was put into his hands. Nor could they refuse to take such horses and cattle except on the terms of a special contract, although, no doubt, if a party did enter into such a contract with them, he would be bound by its terms.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwished to know whether the Government would have any objection to insert in the present Bill a clause precisely in the words of that of the 11 Geo. IV., the Act relating to carriers, declaring that the tickets issued
  988
  by railway companies should not affect their liability as common carriers, except in cases where a special contract was properly constituted, and where the parties sending the goods had the option of entering into or of refusing such contract.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that if it were the opinion of the noble Earl and of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) that such a clause was necessary, he should have no objection to insert it in the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEpointed out that the 6th clause provided that, when any proceedings should be taken for any contravention of the Act, an order should be issued by the court, imposing a penalty upon the company only if such a thing should be done in future. The complainant was, therefore, not to have any damages himself, and no private party would complain upon these terms. The clause ought to be altered, and the party enabled to bring his action for damages and his action to have the company restricted at one and the same time.
  EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, the noble Lord had objected to sending the Bill to a Select Committee, seemingly because he had wished to make their Lordships' House a Select Committee. Undoubtedly there existed a strong objection to a Select Committee at this period of the Session; but if the noble and learned Lord let slip the present opportunity, he would get no other this year of bringing under the consideration of Parliament, Her Majesty's Ministers, and the House of Commons, those matters which had been improperly omitted in the Bill. Such a Committee would not be exclusively confined to the questions contained in the Bill, but would take the opportunity of duly deliberating on all those questions which they might think worthy of being introduced into it. It was upon that very ground that he (Earl Fitzwilliam) had come to the opinion that the appointment of such a Committee would be most desirable. If the subject were not fully gone into, their Lordships would not have credit given them for wishing to legislate satisfactorily upon this important question.
  LORD BEAUMONThad no objection whatever to go into Committee on this Bill; but before he agreed to that Motion he should like to understand whether it was proposed that a Select Committee should sit on this Bill or on the general subject of railways. If it was merely pro-

  989
  posed that a Select Committee should sit on this Bill, as the Bill was a very short one, and omitted nearly all the matters concerning railways, and contained only one or two clauses on the outside, the Committee might confine themselves to that subject, and in the course of a single day make the necessary alterations. If, however, on the other side, they were now to do what it was their duty at some time to do, namely, to go into the whole of the question of railways, and were to select the occasion of this Bill for fulfilling that intention, then he would say that he must object to the Motion; for although they were bound to consider the question, he thought it would be injudicious to take the opportunity of this Bill to appoint a Select Committee for the purpose. He thought so, not so much because of the delay as on other grounds. He believed the whole of the legislation on the subject of railways must be matter of compromise, because, in consequence of the power which the railway interest had in another place, they could not expect to carry a complete measure; and he was not quite certain whether the Government had not been wise to divide the subject into various Bills, in the hope of getting some of these Bills through, and of obtaining some good, which they certainly would have failed to obtain if they had put all that was desirable into one Bill. He agreed that the Bill was imperfect as a matter of legislation, and that most important matters were omitted; but he was fully convinced that a more perfect measure would not have succeeded in another place, and he would rather get the little they could get than by attempting more to lose all. The objection raised by his noble Friend opposite was one that particularly struck him the other day. It was proposed to take away the power of recovering damages by the party aggrieved, though they gave to the public at large a power of procedure by which the aggrieved party could obtain an injunction from a court of justice to prevent the repetition of the wrongdoing; and it struck him that that was one of the compromises which had been effected in another place. He thought the matter would be much better discussed in a Committee upstairs; and on the condition that this Bill alone should be the matter for consideration, he would have no objection whatever to agree to the proposition of the noble and learned Lord opposite.
  LORD ST. LEONARDStrusted that
  990
  the Government would take into consideration the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend, that the questions arising under the operation of this Bill should be referred only for adjudication to the Court of Common Pleas.
  LORD BROUGHAMthought there was every reason why those questions should be disposed of in one court. It would not only increase the facilities and experience of that court in the disposition of such questions, but preserve a uniformity of decision, and the Court of Common Pleas, to which alone it was proposed by his noble and learned Friend to refer them, was anything but over-worked.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn. Then the said Motion was, on Question, agreed to; and House to he put into Committee on the said Bill on Tuesday next.

  LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill read 3a according to order.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: In rising to move the omission of the 37th clause from the Bill to which you have just given a third reading, I beg to assure your Lordships that I have no desire to impede legislation upon the important subject which gives the title to the Bill—far from it. I am, on the contrary, most desirous that the measure you are about to send down to the other House should be in all respects so framed as to commend itself to the acceptance of the representatives of the people, and to the approval of the country—that it should be commended as well by the soundness of its principle as by the beneficial tendency and practical usefulness of its enactments—not as a one-sided and partial measure, serving one party and not serving another, still less as serving or pretending to serve one party at the expense of another, but as a measure improving and simplifying in matters of detail the very important relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland. Some, I am aware, are of opinion that legislation is not desirable; that, agitation having passed away, and landlords and tenants drawing well together, the cultivation of the land every day improving, it would be better to leave things to take their course; but although the fact is happily so, and the argument has therefore considerable force, I am of opinion, nevertheless, that legislation on the subject may with advantage, and ought now, to take place. The attention of the public has now for the

  991
  last ten years been directed to the subject, and successive Cabinets have, by the introduction of Landlord and Tenant Bills. and by the declarations and pledges of leading statesmen, raised an expectation which the contents of these Bills in a great measure warrant that greater facilities and encouragement than at present exist can be and will be given for a beneficial occupation of the land in Ireland. It is undeniable that great labour and learning have been given to the subject by men of the highest legal eminence, and that the fruits of their, labours have, from time to time, been brought under the consideration of Parliament and of the public in a manner that, while it has tended to a better understanding of the question, has produced agreement upon many important matters relative to the future tenure of land; and I think that credit should not be withheld from those to whose labours we are indebted for the simplified form in which we are now enabled to deal with the subject. Such acknowledgment I consider to be especially due to my right hon. and learned Friend Mr. Napier. To him I think it is greatly due that the crude and wild legislation of the Tenant League has been made to give way to the consideration of measures more in harmony with the rights of property, and promising of more practical advantage to the community. To that learned Gentleman was assigned, when agitation was at its height, the task—one of no small delicacy and difficulty—of drawing up those Bills which are now in substance under your consideration. Although I could not concur in all that he proposed, neither can I overlook the fact that the opinions that then prevailed both in and out of Parliament, and that had been countenanced by the leading statesmen of both parties, in favour of retrospective legislation in the matter of tenant compensation, rendered it almost necessary, in order to a full consideration of the subject, that the question of retrospective legislation should be included. I regret that it was so, and hope that sounder views now prevail; but be that as it may, the whole subject has been dealt with by the learned Gentleman in a manner that acquired for him the highest commendations, including that of the noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor of England (Lord St. Leonards); the confidence of both the late and present Government; and, lastly, the acknowledgment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) of the valuable services he had rendered to the
  992
  Select Committee, in the consideration of the Bills that are now before the House. Seeing, then, my Lords, that much real attention has been given to the subject, and that many valuable and well-considered enactments are embodied in those Bills, I trust they will become law. But while I desire to see enacted all that may be for the public advantage, all that the Committee has concurred in recommending as really desirable, I must call upon your Lordships to withhold your consent from that part of the Bill, the 37th clause, which involves a violation of a fundamental principle of property, by arbitrarily transferring, by a retrospective enactment, from landlord to tenant that which is at present the landlord's property, if he chooses to take possession of it. I do not say that it is not competent for the Legislature to interfere with private rights, if some great public object, not otherwise obtainable, should render such a step necessary; for it accords with the fullest respect for the rights of property to say, that the laws by which they are secured and upheld were framed, not for the advantage of individuals or of classes, but the benefit of the community. But the clause to which I object does not come recommended by any compensating advantage whatsoever, public or private. Now, although there are in this House many noble Lords of great learning and legal authority, I trust I may, without undervaluing their opinions, quote in support of my argument from the writings of Judge Blackstone, no mean authority on the principles of the law. He says in the chapter "On the absolute rights of individuals"—
  "So great is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorise the least violation of it—no, not even for the general good of the whole community..… The public good is in nothing more essentially interested than in the protection of every individual's private rights as modelled by the municipal law. In this and similar cases the Legislature alone can, and indeed frequently does interpose, and compel the individual to acquiesce. But how does it interpose and compel? Not by absolutely stripping the subject of his property in an arbitrary manner, but by giving him a full indemnification and equivalent for the injury thereby sustained."—Blackstone, vol. i. p. 139.
  The authority of Judge Blackstone, I think your Lordships must admit, is clearly opposed to the 37th clause of this Bill. Further, my Lords, the clause is not in any way necessary to it, but rather calculated to create dissatisfaction with its other provisions. It purports to confer a boon

  993
  upon tenants in occupation by giving them a property in that which at present by law is the property of the landlord. The tenantry will naturally inquire, as I think the landlords have a right to demand, the reason of this arbitrary transfer of one man's rights to another; and the very fact that no reason has been, or can be given for it, will necessarily awaken suspicion in the minds of the tenantry, that the Bill must elsewhere contain provisions adverse to their interests to compensate for the injustice done to the landlord. Besides, the clause has been termed "a compromise," which would seem clearly to imply that there was a kind of bargain of mutual concession. But if the other clauses of the Bill be examined, I think it will be admitted that they have no partial action; certainly none in any degree adverse to the tenant's interests, but that the common advantage has alone been consulted. Why then damage the character of this Act by a wanton violation of rights! Has the Select Committee, in submitting this Bill for your consideration, pointed out any necessity for this objectionable clause? In the absence of any special Report in favour of a principle of legislation so much at variance with the principles which usually govern the councils of this House, your Lordships should, if you do not at once expunge the clause, at least inquire what are the opinions of individual Members of the Select Committee upon it. I do not think that you will find in their opinions, as far as we can judge of them, anything to warrant its retention in the Bill. The noble Duke who brought up the Report, while he explained the general character of the measure, and adverted in particular to this clause, appeared to me to guard himself against becoming in any degree the advocate of the principle it involved. He explained how, during the period of the late famine in Ireland, when so many had to give up their lands, they lost the benefit of the fixtures they had created upon them; he showed the propriety of the change that was made in the relations of landlord and tenant in 1851, with regard to fixtures, but made out no case to call for retrospective legislation upon the subject. The general tenor of his observations was altogether opposed to interference with existing rights; he would yield nothing to agitation, and would rest the mutual engagements of landlord and tenant upon the principle of contract. My noble Friend the late Postmaster General
  994
  (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was the next that delivered his sentiments, and certainly his opinion was not in favour of the clause. Language could not have been used stronger than that in which he expressed his reprobation of it. His opinion was echoed by my noble Friend the late Under Secretary for the Colonial Department (the Earl of Desalt), by the noble Baron opposite (Lord Beaumont), and by the noble Marquess on this side of the House (the Marquess of Bath), who moved, but afterwards withdrew, his Motion for expunging the clause. Then, my Lords, the sentiments of the two noble and learned Lords, who served upon the Committee, and in whose wisdom, learning, and discretion the House so much confided, for advising upon this landlord and tenant code, were given to your Lordships. The noble and learned Lord Chief Justice not only expressed his entire disapprobation of the principle of the clause, but declared his conviction that it would be unproductive of any good, and would rather produce division and strife between parties who are now drawing well together, and yet, with strange inconsistency, he declared that he should not oppose its adoption. The other learned Lord, the late Lord Chancellor, expressed his disapproval of the clause in language not less forcible, and of peculiar weight as coming from one of such high authority, but with like inconsistency recommended your Lordships to adopt it as "a compromise." Such a proposition, coming from such a quarter, I certainly heard with no little surprise, and with the greater regret as it appeared to have influenced the noble Earl opposite, the late Colonial Secretary (Earl Grey), whose disapproval of the principle of the clause was otherwise quite as decidedly expressed as that of any Member of the Committee. The noble Lord on the back bench opposite (Lord Dufferin), who, on the first introduction of these Bills to the notice of your Lordships, so ably explained the nature and evils of the tenant right system of the north, and who was, moreover, the proposer of one of the tenant compensation Bills which the Committee felt it necessary to reject, acquiesced in, but did not approve of, the clause in its details. And the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Wicklow), although equally dissatisfied with its details, gave the clause his support, as a concession to popular demand, regretting only that the Bills last year sent up from the other

  995
  House had not been adopted in their integrity. These two noble Lords, but these only, of the Members of the Committee I have noticed, must undoubtedly be regarded as the advocates of the retrospective legislation now proposed. Of the other Members of the Committee, as none addressed the House since the Report was brought up, we have not the advantage of knowing what exactly are their opinions on this clause; but of one we may with some certainty believe that he is opposed to it—I speak of my noble Friend on the cross-bench, formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Monteagle), as he in the strongest manner denounced it, on the original introduction of the Bills; and if he had changed his mind, he would not have failed of explaining his altered views. Thus, my Lords, as far as the individual opinions of Members of the Committee can be inferred, from what they have addressed to the House, they are as nine to two against the principle of retrospective legislation; and yet the proposition is submitted to your Lordships' acceptance. The Committee, no doubt, thought that in discarding six out of the eight Bills referred to them, including the Bills under the specious titles of Tenant Compensation Bills, they had done much, and desired that the House should take its share of responsibility by dealing with the 37th clause of this Bill. It may be in your Lordships' recollection that I objected to the original constitution of the Select Committee, as including an undue proportion of English Peers, to the exclusion of the representative Peers of Ireland. I was answered that, although the Bills were exclusively Irish, the great object of maintaining the principles of private property in harmony in all parts of the United Kingdom, rendered it important that the Committee should be composed, in large proportion, of English Peers. Now, I would ask, are we to take it as the recommendation of this Committee or not, that we should interfere with vested rights? If such is the Committee's recommendation, I think, although unhappily we do not number any law Lords among the Irish Peers, that an exclusively Irish Committee might have dealt with the subject quite as successfully. But I find that, in noticing the opinions of the individual Members of the Committee, I have omitted that expressed by my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Donoughmore). He certainly stood up for the clause, and must be re-
  996
  garded as its most strenuous advocate; and if I could believe, with him, that it was to be defended upon the ground of justice, I should not object to it; that would be reason enough for its enactment. But where is the justice of it? Is there a wrong to be remedied? If so, your remedy is worse than the wrong, for, besides violating a principle, you inflict a wrong upon the landlord, and, in reality, confer no benefit whatever upon the tenant. What is the wrong for which this clause is proposed as a remedy? A tenant who has made improvements upon the land, without the consent of his landlord, has no legal right to recover his outlay if dispossessed. Well, he knew that before he made them. He, therefore, probably improved his farm, in full confidence in the equity and liberality, or in the good sense of his landlord, that he would not dispossess an improving tenant, or that, if he did so, he would compensate him for his outlay. If the landlord had not been confided in, the improvements probably would not have been made without the security of a lease, or the consideration of some abatement of rent, or other advantage. What wrong, then, is there done to any one by leaving the fulfilment of that covenant to take place as heretofore? Your interference is a wrong done to the landlord, and would not better the position of the tenant. It can only promise the harmony and mutual confidence, and good-will that subsisted between the parties; and the dispossessed tenant, instead of being freely compensated by the landlord for whatever improvement he may have made, will, by preferring his legal claim under this enactment, be left to his legal remedy, namely, of carrying away the stone, mortar, and timber, of which his house or other fixtures may have been constructed. Is not this a most unsubstantial boon to confer upon the tenant class; and will it not be regarded as a mere delusion by those whom you hope to satisfy with it? But, my Lords, there is a class of very humble occupiers by whom the operation of this clause will be severely felt—I allude to the very small farmers, the occupants of from four to sixteen acre farms, to be found for the most part in great poverty upon the encumbered and generally mismanaged estates that are being daily disposed of to English and Scotch speculators in land. With these new purchasers it is a very common practice to get up the possession of the lands, for the purpose of

  997
  creating large farms. Hitherto it has been the practice, when so doing, to make the outgoing tenant very full compensation for the value of the miserable dwelling that is to be taken down; but, under that clause of your Bill, the landlord who is thus desirous of clearing his lands will be enabled, if he pleases—and you should not afford him a legislative sanction for so doing—to tell the outgoing tenant that, by the tenant compensation clause of this Bill he is entitled, and at perfect liberty, to carry away the materials of his dwelling, but that he has no further claim. My Lords, for the tenants as well as for the landlords I would say that this clause ought to be omitted; and I would beg to remind my noble Friend that the clause he is defending is not part of his own Bill, which I considered in many respects, and especially with reference to the fixture clause, a much better one than this, but it is a clause exclusively retrospective in its action, and of no importance whatever to the working of the remainder of the Bill. I cannot but view it, my Lords, as a remnant of the worst fruits of the Tenant-League agitation—it is a compromise for popularity. But the popularity of this House can only be founded upon the respect with which your proceedings are regarded, upon your faithful guardianship of the great principles of our laws, and not upon any sacrifice of those principles. The House of Commons may be excused if, under the influence and pressure of popular constituencies, they propose concessions which sound judgment may not always justify; but you are not at liberty to do so. True, there were in the last Session Bills sent up to you, and to which your assent was asked, involving concessions to popular clamour that would have been in violation of private right, but that will not justify you in assenting to such concession. Popularity so earned is for you forbidden fruit. Adam was not excused when he said, "She gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Your Lordships should also remember that this is not a Government but a House of Lords measure. The Bill is not from the Cabinet, but from a Select Committee of this House. Let it not, then, go down to the other House with any unsound matter in it calculated in any degree to abate the respect with which the conservative character of your proceedings is commonly regarded. Let the obnoxious clause be struck out, and if the House of Commons is enamoured of retrospective
  998
  legislation where it is unnecessary, let it rest with them, and not with this House, to propose it. Hitherto improvements have been carried on by the mutual accord of landlord and tenant; it has, doubtless, not been a sufficient stimulus for improvement; but let not what has been done be interfered with, and let your legislation confine itself to a better provision for the future. I regret that it has not devolved upon some other noble Lord to advocate what I have endeavoured to recommend to your Lordships; but I trust your Lordships will, notwithstanding that they come front so uninfluential an individual, weigh the arguments I have taken the liberty of urging, in support of my Motion for omitting the 37th clause from the Bill to which you have just given a third reading.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the 37th clause.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, the Bill undoubtedly had many provisions —those particularly in relation to distress—which were highly favourable to the tenant; but neither could it be denied that it was a Bill also highly favourable to the landlords. He was not an advocate for compensation to the extent agitated by the Tenant-right League; but the tenant had by the existing law a right to protection; and, therefore, though in point of law the tenant had no relief, in point of fact he was protected in such a way that it was often worth the landlord's while to compensate him. The Bill placed the laws upon a fair basis in that respect. The present system inevitably led to great fraud; and it was only justice that something should be done to protect the tenant. If the clause were rejected, then the Bill would be regarded by the House of Commons as purely a landlord's Bill; as such it would certainly be rejected; and by that means the many valuable provisions which it contained would be lost for the present Session. He admitted there might be difference of opinion among the Members of the Select Committee; but their Report was the foundation of the measure.
  THE EARL OF DESARTsaid, he certainly could not support the Amendment, though he was opposed to giving retrospective rights over any man's property without his consent. Having, however, witnessed the divisions, and listened to the deliberations of the Select Committee on the construction of the Bill, and having seen that the object of the Committee and the House was to arrive at a just and

  999
  equilable settlement of a question, which was considered, though erroneously, he believed, as agitating all Ireland, he was of opinion that they had conscientiously adopted the measure as being the best suited for that object. At the same time, however, the Committee had not neglected its duty; and in considering the 37th clause, which involved, most certainly, the dangerous principle of the Bill, they had fenced that principle round with safeguards which he hoped would be sufficient to obviate any evil results of a serious nature. He could not, therefore, support the Amendment, though he was bound to state that less agitation on the subject existed in Ireland than was supposed. In the southern and western districts the agitation on this question, notwithstanding the vigour with which it had been promoted and the auspices under which it had been conducted, had fallen flat upon the minds of the people, who felt that their interests were safer in the hands of their natural protectors than in those of agitators, in whom they could not place the same reliance. He hoped that if the safeguards with which the Committee of that House had felt it their duty to fence the clause should be diminished by the House of Commons, any Amendments with such an object would not receive the sanction or support of Her Majesty's Government. As regarded the north, he trusted that he concessions now made would have the effect of quieting the agitation in that part of the country, and that they would be received in the spirit of conciliation in which they were offered—with gratitude.
  Their Lordships divided:—Content 10; Not Content 41: Majority 31.
  Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  PROTEST
  Against the Third Reading of the Irish Landlord and Tenant Bill.
  "DISSENTIENT,—1. Because we consider it to be of the highest importance that the law in England and in Ireland should rest on the same fundamental principles, and that any deviation from such rule should only be sanctioned by Parliament where a difference of circumstances between the two countries can be clearly proved to exist, and should then be limited strictly to such difference of circumstances.
  "2. Because in the present instant no such difference of circumstances has been established as can justify some of the enactments contained in this Bill.
  "3. Because it is our opinion that in all cases of contract, but more especially in those between
  1000
  landlord and tenant, the prosperity of both classes will best be promoted by leaving them free to enter into such covenants as shall be mutually agreed to, securing, as far as is practicable, the inviolability of these covenants when made, and affording equal and effectual remedies for maintaining and enforcing the rights of both parties.
  "4. Because the experience of two centuries has fully confirmed the judgment of Sir John Davies, whose experience as a statesman and a lawyer led him to the conviction that "the application of the English law of tenure to Ireland was essential to the well-being of the latter country."
  "5. Because the section 37 of the present Bill, in its ex post facto operation, is framed on a principle opposed to the rights of property, making a gratuitous transfer to one class of that which now belongs to another, and, in order to mitigate this act of injustice, introducing exceptions and limitations which cannot fail to lead to confusion and litigation, to be supported by doubtful and questionable evidence.
  "6. Because this provision is utterly repugnant to the faith of Parliament as pledged to the purchasers of Irish landed property under the Encumbered Estates Act—parties to whom a Parliamentary title declared good against all claims whatsoever being under this Bill made responsible for new obligations to which they have not consented, and to pecuniary burdens created by an ex post facto law.
  "7. Because we agree in the opinion of the statesman under whose authority the Devon Commission was issued, that "it is a grievous error on the part of the Legislature to interfere with the rights of property, the maintenance of which is the great characteristic of a state of social improvement, and any interference with which constitutes the greatest blow that can be given to industry and the accumulation of wealth."
  "8. Because, while we desire that an improvement should be effected in the dwellings of the cottier class, we apprehend that the provisions of this Bill, and more especially the 106th section, will fail to produce this desirable result. The future recovery of rent of cottiers' holdings being made dependent upon the proof of two allegations of fact, each of which may be made matters of litigation and controversy, the consequence will be an indisposition to invest capital in property thus rendered uncertain and unproductive; the number of dwellings for small occupiers is therefore likely to be diminished, and a new pressure cast on the very class whom it is intended to benefit.
  "9. Because we are indisposed to rely on ingenious contrivances attempted to be carried out by compulsory enactment as the true source of national improvement, rejoicing to think that the force of sound public opinion, the just appreciation of duty, and even the motives of enlarged private interest, are leading on both the proprietors and occupiers of land in Ireland in a course of judicious progress, and we therefore prefer to place our reliance upon the development of natural causes rather than to risk counteracting those causes by an unwise, though well-meant, system of legislation.

  "MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON.

  "CLANBRASSILL,

  "SOMERHILL.

  "CLONCURRY.

  "GRINSTEAD.

  "CASTLEMAINE.

  "BATH.

  "MAYO."

  "CLANCARTY.

  POWERS OF LEASING (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill read 3a, according to order.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) having called attention to the construction of the fourth section of the third clause of this Bill, and objected that it would have the effect of enabling persons having merely a life interest in an estate to grant leases extending long beyond their own terms, and calculated injuriously to affect the interest of the landlord, he had therefore consulted with those who had charge of the Bill in the other House, and the result was that he would now move the insertion of certain words to limit the operation of the clause so as to obviate the noble Earl's objection. The noble Duke then proposed a formal Amendment accordingly, to insert the words "not being subject to rent for the occupation of the land."
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that his object in drawing attention to that part of the Bill on a former night was to prevent a mere lessee for lives or a term of years from being entitled to dispose of the property of the head landlord for a considerable term after the lease had expired. He understood that the Amendment proposed had been made to meet that objection; but he thought that it went too far, as it might comprehend the case of tenants for leases of lives renewable for ever, on account of their paying a chief rent. What he desired was to exclude from the operation of the Bill tenants for leases of lives or for a term of years, and not tenants for leases of lives renewable for ever.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLexplained. The Amendments applied to persons paying rent for the land. The Amendment was prepared by Mr. Fergusson, the draughtsman of the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought the Bill gave too great power to tenants for life of an estate with regard to building leases. They might shut out the enjoyment of the mansion by granting leases for building over a beautiful prospect for ninety-nine years; and they might lease the right of shooting over the estate up to the hall door. He thought this power ought to be restricted; and he was of opinion that granting building leases in the immediate vicinity of the mansion should not be permitted. He thought that residence was the thing most desirable for the improvement of Ireland, and
  1002
  that, therefore, nothing should be done to discourage it, but on the contrary.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, unless the provisions of the Bill were adopted, a serious bar would be placed to the improvement of Ireland. There was nothing in Scotland to prevent letting for nineteen and twenty-one years. As regarded the building powers, he could assure the House that the Irish Act was far more liberal than the Bill. By the 10 Geo. I., a power was given to lease for three lives, or forty-one years, the only restriction being that the land should have been previously in cultivation; and by the 11 & 12 Geo. III. c. 21, tenants for life were seised with the power to make leases for sixty-one years of the whole estate, if they thought fit. The powers in the Bill were a great restriction on the old Irish Act. One of its advantages would be to enable landlords to grant leases, though the estate might be mortgaged. Surely their Lordships would not refuse to extend to Irish landlords such reasonable powers as were already enjoyed by landlords in England and Scotland.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he would undertake to say, without fear of contradiction, that the manner in which the supporters of this Bill were reasoning was wholly at variance with the results of the experience which every noble Lord present connected with Ireland could adduce. The ground on which they seemed to proceed was the supposition that it was owing to the shortness of leases that the little improvement of land in Ireland was to be attributed; whereas the very reverse was the fact. He saw in the House many noble Lords who were connected with Ireland, and he would put it to them whether it was not the fact that the worst-improved estates in their respective vicinities were not those, the leases granted upon which were of the longest duration? The worst cases were those in which an almost perpetual interest had been created by the improvidence of former owners. In all the more ancient settlements the general leasing power was for thirty one years and three lives, or thirty-one years or three lives, and he had seen numerous settle ments of that kind; but what did they find was the increasing practice in all parts? Why, that with a view to promote the interests of both landlord and tenants the thirty-one years' power had been abandoned, and, a twenty-one years' power

  1003
  taken; and he asked whether their Lordships could doubt that, for all agricultural purposes, a twenty-one years' lease was not preferable. If the question was considered in an analogical point of view with respect to England and Scotland, he asked whether the ordinary nineteen years' lease in the latter, and twenty-one years' in the former, had not been found beneficial agricultural leases? But there was one argument which he thought conclusive, and which must strike every one who had been accustomed to the management of an Irish estate; and that was, if they granted a twenty-one years' lease to a tenant who was an improving and a deserving man, and who was selected with a view to his age as well as his character, they might confidently put the land into his possession with the prospect of its falling in hand during his life; but if that period were extended to thirty-one years, in nine cases out of ten the land would devolve on his child or representative. There might be cases of dispute with respect to wills or intestacies, and the landlord would consequently not have the security he ought to have with regard to the improvement of the land; therefore he really thought, as a matter of common sense and discretion, they ought to import into the Bill in respect of agricultural leases that period which had been found best adapted for the interest of agriculture, both in England and Scotland, and, above all, which would be found the best adapted for the improved circumstances of Ireland. He believed that period to be twenty-one years, and was of opinion that it would satisfy every reasonable tenant. On those grounds he should certainly urge upon their Lordships the propriety of its substitution for that now in the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was well aware that the great evil of Ireland had been, on the one hand, too long leases, and, on the other, no leases at all. Every motive for exertion on the part of the tenant had been taken away. The object of the Bill was to repeal all the laws which contemplated too long leases, and on the other hand to provide such a period as would enable the tenant, by a proper exertion, as in Scotland and England, to remunerate himself for his outlay. There was no doubt that a vast majority of the settlements in Ireland contemplated a twenty-one years' lease and a life. The introduction of an element of uncertainty
  1004
  was considered to be disadvantageous, and therefore the term of thirty-one years had been named.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwas desirous that such a term should be adopted as would enable the tenant to repay himself his outlay of capital and labour. It was true that in former times thirty-one years and three lives would be the ordinary term; but at present he believed the practice in Ireland was to grant no lease at all, and where agricultural leases were granted, so far as his experience went, he had never heard of a tenant applying for a thirty-one years' lease. He himself had never granted a lease for lives, and further, he never would do so—that was to say, for an ordinary agricultural tenure. In his opinion twenty-one years was a quite sufficient term for an ordinary agricultural lease in England; and hoping to see practical agriculture in the one country assimilated to that in the other, he must say that a twenty-one years' lease afforded ample motive to improvement to an enterprising and intelligent tenant. On the other hand, he considered that they ought to reduce the powers of the tenant for life to the smallest extent that would be compatible with improvement. If his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) pressed his Motion for inserting twenty-one years instead of thirty-one, he should certainly vote in favour of the shorter term.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, the only question for the consideration of the House was, which term was best for agricultural purposes? He agreed with his noble Friend on the cross-benches (Lord Monteagle) that the old leases were the worst portion of the property of an Irish estate, as, when the lease was nearly at an end, the tenant took care not to cultivate the land in such a manner as to confer an additional value upon it when it was taken up; but both that noble Lord and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had stated that they considered twenty-one years would be the best lease. He could assure their Lordships that in the part of the country with which he was acquainted that would be considered by no means a satisfactory lease. The usual practice in his part of the country was to grant twenty-one years and a life, and the thirty-one years was considered an equivalent to that lease. Anything less than that he considered would be a discouragement to the tenantry. They had heard a great many objections to the addition of a life; but, if,

  1005
  as formerly; the life was necessary to give the tenant a vote, he doubted whether objections of such a kind would have been raised.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas in favour of adopting the shorter term proposed by the noble Lord on the cross-benches (Lord Monteagle). Wherever in this country agriculture was good, there the lease for twenty-one years was prevalent; and why should a different system be adopted in Ireland? The fault he found with regard to the measure before their Lordships was, that it was not brought in upon the responsibility of the Government or any other party. These Bills had not, in fact, been framed by the Cabinet, nor by any one in Ireland; and any noble Lord who imagined that they would satisfy the Tenant-right League must be very ignorant of the proceedings of that body at their late meetings. In fact the Bill had its origin in nothing else than the pledges which had then been given upon the hustings at election contests in Ireland; and for the sake of affording to persons deeply pledged an escape from their pledges, the House was now asked to adopt legislation, which was not proposed as the result of any deliberation of the Cabinet. He should have thought that the events of this very Session, and even of the past week, would have convinced any statesman of the serious danger to the general government of the country of bringing forward measures that were not founded upon any responsibility, and might, therefore, not be carried through that House. He mentioned this now, because he considered that there ought to be an understanding on the part of their Lordships as to what were the Bills which they would, and what they would not, pass upon the subject. He thought there was great danger in attempting to please an extreme party by passing these Bills into law; for they knew well that if the pleasure of that extreme party was to be consulted in the other House of Parliament, these Bills would be essentially, totally, and dangerously altered; and if they were to come back to this House on the last days of the Session, as was the case last year, without Government or any other party being responsible for them, they would be in danger of inflicting an injury on Ireland which they might never be able to retrieve. At the proper time he should move that the last clause of the Bill be expunged, which would make it extend to Great Britain; and he did
  1006
  hope that those among their Lordships who properly appreciated and venerated the settlements in virtue of which their properties and estates had descended to them, would recollect, when he should make that Motion, that if they intended those settlements to be continued to their posterity, they must bring them into unison and harmony with the progress and custom of the times.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he entirely disavowed, on the part of the Government, any disposition whatever to please any extreme party in Ireland by these Bills. So far as the Government had had a hand in these Bills, no such object had existed. It had undoubtedly been sought to allay any irritation which might exist on the part of any of the people of Ireland, in consequence of injustice which they might feel had been inflicted upon them; but the object of the Bills had been simply to amend the law relating to landlord and tenant, as much for the benefit of the landlord as for that of the tenant, and to satisfy those moderate men who wished the interests of both to be consulted—and not any extreme party whatever, whether of landlords or tenants. The noble Marquess, and also the noble Earl who moved the first Amendment, had complained that these Bills had been introduced without any one being responsible for them. Now, though he (the Duke of Newcastle) had introduced these Bills in the exact form in which they were last Session received from the House of Commons, in order that they might be referred to a Select Committee, to be moulded into a form for submission to the House, yet the Government—one of its Members having presided over that Committee, and having most carefully superintended the examination of these Bills, and been a party to the Amendments which were made—the Government was not prepared to throw upon that House, or upon any other person, the responsibility of these Bills. The Government accepted the responsibility of them exactly as if they had been framed under its direction, and had been introduced in the shape in which Government Bills were generally introduced. If the noble Marquess meant to deduce from his argument that the Government intended to shift upon the House the responsibility of accepting these Bills, in whatever form they might come from the House of Commons, he could assure the noble Marquess that there was no such intention; but the

  1007
  Government was not prepared to offer to the House of Commons the insult of saying that they would reject any Amendments which might be introduced into the Bills in that House. As regarded these Bills, as regarding others going from this House, the Government accepted the responsibility of them in the shape in which, they were sent down to them by their Committee, and they would judge how far the principles involved in the Bills, as they now stood, were affected by any alterations which might be made in another place, and by their honest conviction as to the condition in which they came up they would be guided in the course which they should take. Upon the point immediately under discussion—the length of the leases—he thought it would be a misfortune if the House determined to make the term twenty-one years instead of thirty-one, as proposed.
  THE EARL OF RODENsaid, that any one who had lived much in Ireland must know the great evils and the want of improvement which had been caused, and would be caused, by leases for thirty-one years. Irishmen were often told that it was necessary to legislate for Ireland in the same manner as for England, but the present Bill was a departure from that principle. He lamented the course taken by the Government on this question, and trusted that his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) would persevere in his Motion.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the Bill utterly rode over all possibility of any person making such a settlement as would prevent injury being done to his property. In fact, it did away with all restrictions by which property was preserved for the enjoyment of its owner. He thought it was but reasonable that some restrictions should be inserted in regard to the erection of buildings. He should therefore move an insertion in one of the clauses of the Bill, providing that a lease of ninety-nine years for building purposes should not be granted in regard to any land within half a mile of a mansion-house.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that this evil might be prevented, by a settlement which could be made by the owner of the fee simple.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the power of making a settlement which should have such an effect would be taken away by this Bill.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWhad no idea that the Bill would have such an effect, and be expressed a wish that his noble Friend
  1008
  on the woolsack (the Lord Chancellor) should state to the House whether such would really be the effect of its enactments.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwished the Lord Chancellor would explain what effect this Bill would have upon future settlements.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the intention of the Bill was that tenants for life in Ireland should be placed exactly on the same footing on which tenants in tail were placed in England by the Statute of Henry VIII.—that was, to enable them to grant leases.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, his noble Friend appeared to have much satisfaction from the fact that it contained a clause that would have a retrospective operation. He would beg to propose that a clause should be inserted proposing that it would have no future effect.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, these discussions were wholly irrelevant. When their Lordships passed the Scottish Entail Bill they intended to prevent any proprietor from tying up his estate in future; and in like manner what this Bill proposed to prevent was the tying up of estates, and to prevent landlords from giving any but moderate leases.
  On Amendment, to insert twenty-one years instead of thirty-one, their Lordships divided:—Content 20; Not Content 17: Majority 3.
  Amendment moved by Lord Redesdale put, and negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEhoped that those noble Lords who supported this measure for Ireland would agree to have it applied also to England. If the Bill was so useful in that country, it ought to be equally useful in the other. He moved that the Bill should apply to England as well as to Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORErose in perfectly good faith to second the Motion; so highly did he think of the advantages of this measure, that if he had an estate in England he would be glad to have this Bill applied to it.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  MANNING THE NAVY BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that in compliance with a suggestion that had been made to him, he would, with their Lordships' permission, proceed with

  1009
  this Bill before the Navy Pay Bill, although properly that pleasure should have the precedence. This alteration in the order of the two Bills was made solely from considerations of convenience. As it had been thought more convenient to allow the second reading of the Bill to pass without debate, and that any objections that might be taken to its provisions should be discussed before going into Committee, he wished, before proceeding to state the main contents of the Bill, to be allowed to refer to a misapprehension that existed out of doors as to the title of the Bill. It had been supposed that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty (Sir J. Graham) intended to adopt some new method of increasing the strength of our naval force. But the Bill was, in fact, only a prize Bill; the title "Manning the Navy," was the old one, which had been adopted on all occasions, and which it had not been thought advisable now to alter. It had always been customary at the commencement of a war to pass a measure regulating the proceedings with reference to prizes taken in the course of that war. The last Act passed on this subject was the 55 Geo. III., c. 160, which became law three or four weeks after the battle of Waterloo. It was unnecessary to state to their Lordships that without an Act of Parliament, or rather without the preliminary permission of the Sovereign, all prizes belong to the Crown, by whomsoever taken. It had been customary, however, of late years, that those prizes should be ceded to the captors of the prizes rather than carried to the public account. For this purpose a proclamation was issued by Her Majesty, at the commencement of the war, and the present Bill was now before their Lord-ships for the same purpose as that of all the prize Acts that had heretofore been passed—namely, to regulate the proceedings which might take place in the adjudication of prizes, and the distribution of the proceeds of the capture. An Act of Parliament had, invariably, been passed with reference to the prizes taken by the Navy, and the distribution of the prize money; but their Lordships were aware, no doubt, that the practice as regards the Army was different. With regard to the Army, an Order in Council was sufficient. It would be now necessary that a new Order in Council should be passed with reference to prizes taken by the Army, and he had been in communication with the Paymaster
  1010
  General of the Forces on the subject. He hoped, as soon as this Bill had become law, to be enabled to lay before Her Majesty some measure for assimilating to a greater extent the laws of the two services. Up to the present time the greatest discrepancies had existed relative to the distribution of prize money in the Army, and it was very desirable that the practice should be placed on a footing more uniform and satisfactory. With reward to the measure for the Navy, it had always been the practice to vary the Bill according to the circumstances of the war in which the country was engaged; but all the prize Acts that ever had passed had been in their character and main particulars similar, differing only according to the circumstances. On the present occasion there were circumstances which differed from any former wars in which we had been engaged, and which required that in this measure some alterations should be made from previous measures. In the first place this was the first war in which we had been engaged in which at its commencement we engage we had been in such intimate relation with an ally as we were at the present moment with France. That would make some difference in the Bills now before their Lordships, as compared with previous measures for the regulation of prize money. That morning a paper had been circulated and laid upon their Lordships' table, containing a copy of the convention which had been effected between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French upon the subject; and by that and by the Bill now under consideration it was proposed to carry out the proposals which had been made on behalf of the two Governments. Another fault which had been found under the operation of preceding prize Acts, and which was now sought to be obviated, was the great delay which had taken place in the distribution of money, the proceeds of the sale of prizes. That also would cause a difference. Another complaint which had been made—and made with great justice—had reference to the enormous waste which had been allowed on former occasions, and more especially in the last war, in many parts of the world, although more especially in the colonies of this country than on the coasts of the British Islands. A further alteration in the present Bill, which was one of omission, had reference to privateering. Their Lordships were aware that at the commencement of the war a

  1011
  proclamation had been issued, stating that no privateers would be allowed; and, therefore, many of the provisions of previous prize Acts which applied to privateering were unnecessary and had been omitted. With the exception of these few points, the provisions of the present Bill were substantially the same as those which had been passed at the commencement of previous wars. The Bill contained the usual provision as regarded bounties; but to give effect to that clause, the further intervention of Parliament would be necessary, inasmuch as it had been the practice of Parliament to vote sums of money for the service after the termination of the war. These were the principal provisions of the Bill, which he had gone over as rapidly as possible, as he wished to reserve himself to answer any objection that might be made to the measure. The first clause of the Bill to which he expected some opposition would be made was the 15th. The provisions of that clause were new in substance as well as in form. The alteration which had been made in the present measure was in consequence of the enormous loss and waste which had occurred in the course of the last war, the enormous waste of prize money, which, in many instances, had not found its way to its rightful owners. He was afraid that some of those highly respectable gentlemen, the Navy agents of London, might feel that some stigma was meant to be cast upon them by the provisions of this 15th clause. Undoubtedly, whenever an alteration of this kind took place, and when parties who had hitherto enjoyed the exercise of certain rights and duties were deprived of them, there might be some appearance of stigma cast upon them. However, he might safely say, that no such intention had existed on the part of the Legislature, and certainly there was none on the part of the Government. Undoubtedly the Government had felt that the position of the Navy agents, in respect of the duties which devolved upon them in the late war, were anomalous and improper. The Navy agents were in reality bankers and accountants, and were charged with duties which could only be properly performed by gentlemen exercising the profession of shipkeepers. It was proposed that, instead of devolving upon those agents the duties which they undertook on former occasions—and they not only undertook the duties of bankers and accountants, but prizes, when taken, were handed over to them, sold by them, and
  1012
  the proceeds, after deducting their own expenses, paid by them into the hands of those entitled to them—it was proposed now that those duties, the delivery of the vessels seized, and the sale of them, should devolve on public officers, either on the Admiralty Marshal at home, or in the colonies, the collector of Customs acting as his substitute. He had already said that no stigma was meant to be cast on the Navy agents of this country as a class; but the Government were, of course, aware that among all classes of men there were some who were not as respectable and as solvent as they ought to be. Undoubtedly that had been the case, and great hardships had been inflicted upon the captors in former instances by failures that took place among Navy agents, by which failures those who were entitled to large sums of money had been deprived of them. During the late war, in the West Indies alone, the loss in this manner had been calculated at the enormous sum of two millions of money. Now, surely, when they were placed on the eve of a war, the duration of which it was impossible to calculate, it was very improper that our sailors should be subjected to those enormous losses of advantages which it was the intention of Parliament to confer upon them. He thought their Lordships would be more ready to acquiesce in the alteration now proposed, because it would be a great boon more to the men than to the officers. In the late war it was the practice for the Navy agents to make considerable advances to the officers; in many instances very nearly equal to the amount to which they were ultimately declared entitled, so that they had no further interest to expedite the sale. But the men stood in a totally different position; no advances were ever made to them; and, while they were always condemned to a considerable loss by the delay in the payment of the money due to them, they sometimes also totally lost, through these failures, all that they had become entitled to. To obviate this serious inconvenience, it was proposed, as he had already stated, that responsible public officers should undertake the duties formerly devolving on Navy agents. A further provision was also introduced, providing that sales of prizes should in future be all by public auction. The object of that provision would be at once recognised. It removed all individual and private interest. He believed it was an established and recognised fact as regarded ships in

  1013
  particular, that, when sold under a decree of the Admiralty, they fetched a much higher price when sold by auction publicly than when privately disposed of. He believed, therefore, that in framing that provision, while they provided for a larger sum to be eventually distributed, they provided also greater security as regarded the eventual payment of that sum, and less delay in its distribution than had heretofore been experienced. It was also to be considered that the guarantee of the public purse was given in this case, and yet no danger to the public purse was incurred by the responsibility undertaken by the Paymaster General. He had reason to believe, from a note that he had received from one of those gentlemen, that the Navy agents thought they were being deprived of all remuneration for their services. That was entirely an error on their part. A careful consideration was given to this point before the Bill was introduced. By the 2 Geo. IV. c. 20, s. 29, 2½ per cent was allotted as the Commission to Navy agents upon payment of all sums to those entitled to receive them. That Act had in no way been departed from; for, by the present measure, precisely as they were entitled at the present moment, so would they be entitled if the Bill passed. They were entitled to 2½, and no more; he referred, of course, to all officers except to a captain, for from that officer, on account of the much larger share that he received, the Navy agent was entitled to 5½ per cent. There was another Act of Parliament, the 4 Geo. III. c. 93, by which the captain of a vessel and his crew were, by a majority, enabled to appoint a Navy agent. A noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) had apprehended that after the passing of this Bill that power in a captain and his crew would cease to exist; but that was an error, for this Bill did not in any way alter either the 2 or the 4 Geo. III. By the 24th and 26th clauses of the Bill, a sale by public auction was provided, and the proceeds of the sale would be paid into the hands of the Paymaster General. By clause 33 an appeal is given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council instead of to Commissioners of Appeal, as was the case during the last war. A second objection raised by the noble and learned Lord was, that the Bill had a retrospective effect. He (the Duke of Newcastle) had yet to learn that that was the case; but even if it were, he believed it would be productive of no serious damage, as it could
  1014
  only apply to one or two cases of salvage. The noble Duke concluded by moving "That the House be now put into Committee on the said Bill."
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that important as it certainly was to devise a good mode of keeping and dividing the prizes when captured, and however desirable it might be to propose new regulations, he confessed that there was in his mind a consideration more important still—to whom these prizes ought to belong. With regard to the Navy agents, all he would say was that formerly they had not only their commission of 2½ per cent, but they derived still further advantages from the keeping of the money for so long a time in their own hands. As that advantage was now to be taken from them, while their trouble was not to be lessened, he thought it was but just and fair that their commission of 2½ per cent should be increased. But the more important question was who should have the prize. With regard to the Bill itself, he was sorry that their Lordships had dispensed with discussion of the Bill on the stage of the second reading, for suggestions might have been made which would have led Her Majesty's Government to prepare Amendments for the Committee. That was now too late; and he was afraid the Bill would become an Act of Parliament in a very imperfect state, and likely to inflict great injury; for nothing could be more injurious than that at the commencement of a war Parliament should so legislate with respect to prizes, as to run the risk of creating misunderstandings and heartburnings between the two services—the Army and the Navy—which should have every inducement to act together. It must be remembered that this war—more especially in the Black Sea, which was the great theatre of operations—would be carried on by the Army and Navy in conjunction, and therefore all regulations with respect to prizes should be adapted to the new state of things which must necessarily arise. But what was the state of the case? They had seen arrangements entered into between the English and French Governments; but then that only concerned the co-operation of the fleets of the two countries, and no mention was made of an arrangement between the armies and the fleets. It was most strange, too, that although provision was made for a division in the case of the co-operation of the allied fleets, none was made for the co-operation of the allied

  1015
  armies, or even for the co-operation of our own Army. Suppose the case of a combined operation of the allied fleets and armies for the purpose of taking up a position in respect to the port of Sebastopol, by which the Russian fleet were either destroyed or compelled to go out to meet the blockading ships—could it be said that the Army, winch had co-operated in this result, should have no share in the capture or destruction of the enemy's fleet? Yet no provision was made for giving prize to the Army which should have so co-operated. The next clause related to the capture by Her Majesty's ships of a fortress—and so careful had the gentleman who drew the Bill been, in order to be precise, that he actually provided that it should be "a fortress upon land." The whole property was to belong to the captors. Here, again, there was no provision for the allied fleets, for the allied army, or for our own Army. The Bill certainly contained a clause which provided for conjoint operations of the Navy and Army; but that clause had reference only to our own Army, and not to the allied army. Indeed, in these respects, he must say that he did not recollect to have ever seen a Bill of so important a character drawn so carelessly. He must also draw attention to the provisions in the 6th clause. It provided that the officers and crew of any of Her Majesty's ships who took any fortress upon land, or any vessel in any river or creek belonging to or defended by such fortress, should have prize. He wished these conditions to be noticed. The river in which ships were taken must be defended by a fortress, and the fortress must be taken. No provision was made for the case where the fortress was not taken, but where the ship was cut out; and in order to make the ship a prize, she must be in a river or creek belonging to or defended by a fortress. So that the safest place for enemies' ships to go into would be an undefended river or creek, because there would be no inducements for our seamen to follow them, except public duty, inasmuch as they would not be prizes except they were taken in a river or creek belonging to or defended by a fortress. The next clause, the 7th, supposed a conjoint operation of Her Majesty's Army with the Navy, not merely against a fortress, but against a possession; and here a different rule applied. All these were matters of great importance, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would take
  1016
  them into serious consideration. The rule which had prevailed in the Navy with respect to prize was entirely different from that prevailing in the Army; but he apprehended that no attempt would be made to alter it as far as concerned the Army. In the Army, all the forces participated in the prize whose position could be understood to have contributed to the capture, however distant they might be from the place where the capture was effected. It was so held in the Deccan, in Scinde, in Spain, and at Waterloo, and, in fact, in was the general law of the Army. But in the proclamation, which he believed was framed in conformity with the ancient practice, it was declared that—
  "Ships or vessels being in sight of the prize, as also of tile captor, under circumstances to cause intimidation to the enemy and encouragement to the captor, shall be alone entitled to share as joint captors."
  It was much to be regretted that no attempt had been made to render the rule clear, in order that suits might be avoided. To this end two points ought to be considered—the matter of fact and the matter of opinion. The matter of fact was, whether the ship was seen, at the time of the capture, by the captor, and by the vessel taken; the matter of opinion was, she was seen under circumstances which tended to intimidate the vessel taken and to encourage the captor. There was no security whatever in any case, except where the ship was actually near, that the question I might not have to be submitted to a judicial tribunal. Now, it was most undesirable that brother officers should thus be compelled, as it were, to resort to court of law with each other in order to settle their claims; and in order to avoid this evil some clear rule ought to be established. Suppose the principle of distribution of prize which prevailed in the Army was established, and there was a combined operation of the Army and the Navy to get possession of a place or fortress. If the place were captured by the Army whilst the naval part of the force were not in sight of the fortress at the time of capture, that naval force would not, under the provisions of the existing proclamation, share with the military in the advantages derived from the capture. Now, it was most impolitic to permit the existence of such a state of things. Again, if a ship were taken, head money was allowed at the rate of 5l. a man. It was more difficult to take a fortress than a ship; but if a fortress were

  1017
  taken no head money was allowed; although a fortress might be taken by the well-sharpened cutlasses of Her Majesty's seamen. Such were some of the omissions in the Bill. Of course, their Lordships had not the power to supply them; but he hoped the Government would adopt the same rule in both cases—that where a fortress was taken the rule should be exactly the same as where a ship was taken. But he must add that it was certainly a subject of great doubt whether, in a war so peculiar as the present, it was advisable to adhere strictly to the old naval principle in respect to the right of prize. In the Baltic and in the Black Sea the enemy's fleet was confined to port. The port was blockaded by the line-of-battle ships, which blockade enabled all the smaller vessels, without any risk or danger to themselves, to take prizes. The smaller vessels then got the prizes; but the men serving in the line-of-battle ships blockading the ports, and who had the hardest work, would get nothing, unless the enemy's fleet should happen to venture out. In that case, in the event of victory proving on our side, which he could not doubt, they would obtain prize money. But the hardship of the case was that the smaller vessels would also share in the prize, although they might not assist in the battle. This was an anomaly which ought to come under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and he suggested that, considering the peculiarity of the war, the strictness of the rule ought to be modified. The Bill was a Bill for "the more effectual manning of Her Majesty's Navy;" and the object was to get men to man the large ships. But it said to the men who were asked to man these ships, "Prize money you shall have none; the prize money shall all belong to the smaller ships, because they alone will have the opportunity of obtaining it." In the last war there was danger in attempting to take prize, here there was none at all, for the smaller vessels took it, while the line-of-battle ships did the real work. Of this, however, he was sure, that as combined operations of the Army and Navy were contemplated, it was most desirable that in respect to all combined operations, there should be only one rule—that the naval man should not feel that he was fighting by the side of the soldier, and exposed to equal risk, without the chance of getting anything, while the soldier was to share in the prize. Such a state of things was contrary to equity, and
  1018
  it could not be allowed to exist. In conclusion, he expressed his conviction that material alterations were required in the Bill, in order to give satisfaction to the two services, and for the purpose of avoiding misunderstandings among the men engaged in the war.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he was not going to advocate the cause of the Navy or prize agents, but the cause of the officers and seamen of Her Majesty's Navy; being extremely apprehensive that under the system which the Bill before them proposed to establish, the distribution of prize money would not be so carefully watched over or so quickly paid as under the operation of the system which had hitherto prevailed. It was right that the House should understand what that system was, because there had been a mixing up of the two subjects, the prize agency in the Navy and the prize agency of individual officers. Under the old Act of Parliament, the mode in which prizes had been dealt with upon reaching this country was as follows:—They were received by men who had been appointed under the Act of Parliament, termed prize agents, who dealt with the captured property, after a decision passed in the Court of Admiralty, by sale, and divided the proceeds of that sale in conformity with the provisions of the law. The mode in which those agents were appointed was somewhat peculiar. They were chosen by the captain and officers of each ship, in conjunction with the majority on board, in whom the authority to make the selection was properly vested. That system enabled the officers and the ship's company to have in existence in England an agent who represented their wishes and desires in this country with respect to the disposition of their property. Now, he would ask whether it was not a matter of the greatest importance to the captors that in their absence there should be certain parties in those ports at Which the prizes might arrive in whose ability to serve them, and to dispose of their property to advantage,they might implicitly rely? Yet the Bill under their Lordships' consideration altogether ignored persons of that description, and proposed at once to deal with the captured vessel, by handing her over to the Admiralty Court and placing her in the hands of the Queen's proctor, who was to carry on the whole process connected with the matter—both for the Crown upon the one side and the captor upon the other. He had

  1019
  been informed that there was a case now pending in which the captor of a vessel which had been taken in the Baltic, and which had been put into the port of Hartlepool, had been offered 500 l. for the ship. He was, however, unable to sell her, inasmuch as no decision had at the time been come to with regard to her by the Admiralty, and the consequence had been that the vessel was now about to be sold for 200 l., and the loss of the remaining 300 l. might be attributed to the fact that the captor had no agent to take charge of ins interests. The noble Duke said, that Under the present Bill prize agents would still be enabled to act; but that was entirely a fallacious statement, for there was in the measure before the House no provision which set up anything whatsoever in the shape of prize agency; and he must be permitted to observe with reference to the imputation made against prize agents, "that there was much delay connected with the system under which they acted"—there existed in reality no greater amount of delay than had been rendered necessary by the operation of the clause of appeal, and the law had been altered even to meet that case. It had also been stated that considerable sums of money had been lost through prize agents. There could be no doubt that in the Colonies, in consequence of the character and position of the gentlemen who had been there employed as prize agents during the war, considerable loss had accrued in many instances to the captors; but he believed that neither in this city nor in the various ports throughout the country in which prize agents had been employed, had there been any instance of similar losses having been incurred. The whole of the agency proceedings was now to be done in the Marshal's office, and, considering the probable length of the war, he doubted whether the present machinery would suffice. He was perfectly sure that the loss to the captors in time and money would be more than a set-off to any advantages which they might gain, and that they would be deprived of many of the comforts and advantages they derived in the way of advances and in other ways under the old system of prize agency. Nothing could be more fallacious than the statement of his noble Friend, that though advances had been made to the officers no advances had been made to the men. His noble Friend was also mistaken in saying that there was nothing of a retrospective character in the Bill. Certain words in the fifth clause evi-
  1020
  dently showed that it would have a retrospective operation, and that it would have a very serious effect as regarded agents. A great number of important cases were at present pending, and if the Bill passed in its present shape the Navy agents would be unable to recover any remuneration. Comparing the advantages of the old system, and the disadvantages of the new system, he must say, that if ever he was again called on for active service afloat, he should infinitely prefer to have the advantages of the old system grounded on Act of Parliament, by which the captors could appoint a trustworthy agent to look after their interests in this country, to any system which would intrust their interests to the hands of a Government officer.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that the principle as regarded prize money in the Navy was very different from that which regulated the distribution of prizes in the Army, and he was firmly of opinion that in joint operations of the naval and land forces only one principle should be acted upon. In the Navy prize money was distributed among those persons only who were present at the capture; but in the Army it was distributed among those who had been instructed to be present. He did not wish on the present occasion to express any opinion as to which of those principles ought to be acted upon in joint operations, for that might form matter for much consideration; but he was firmly convinced that only one principle ought to be acted upon. As to the question as to whether the prize should be delivered to a Government officer or remain in the hands of private agents, he very much concurred in what had fallen from the noble Earl who last addressed their Lordships, that it was much more advantageous to the captors that they should employ private agents. There were two questions which he wished to put to the Government as to the operation of the measure. Under the old system there was a great convenience existing from the power of defraying small sums which might be necessary, and he wished to know if that convenience would continue to exist? It also sometimes became necessary to insure vessels, and that was formerly done by the agents, and he wished to know what would be the course adopted as to effecting insurances under the present system? He also wished to observe, with regard to the suggestion that captors had incurred loss in consequence of the failure of agents, that it had some-

  1021
  times occurred in foreign ports that an agent had become bankrupt, but he did not think that such a thing had ever taken place in London.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEwould as briefly as possible reply to the objections which had been urged by the three noble Lords who had last addressed the House against the measure. With regard to the charge of establishing a public officer in the place of prize agents, it had been suggested that there would be some hardship, inasmuch as the agents would have the same trouble as before, but would not have the same remuneration; but, in point of fact, the agents would not have the same trouble, and they would receive certain commissions, and their whole disbursement and costs would be allowed to them. With regard to the advantages to the captors of having an agent to sell the prizes in the present war, that would not be of any considerable advantage, for the agent would not be on the spot, as a great many prizes would be sold in foreign ports. He thought that in the case referred to by the noble Earl of a prize being sent from Hartlepool to London, and so having suffered a deterioration of 300 l., it was to be considered that it was not by any means certain that 500 l. had been offered for the ship, although it was just possible that some person might have casually remarked that she was worth 500 l., and he thought that the noble Earl would admit that in general, with rare exceptions, vessels bore a higher value in the port of London than in any other port in the kingdom; but even if that were not the case, the Bill contained no provision which prevented a prize being sold in any other port. The main provision of the Bill was, that, prizes should be sold by public auction, instead of, as hitherto, by private sale, and that, he conceived, every one must allow to be a great advantage, for although, undoubtedly, as a body, the Navy agents were a very meritorious class of men, still there were some doubtful characters in every class, and a public sale would be far more effective in preventing anything like jobbing than a private sale; in fact, it would preclude the possibility of it. With regard to the statement of the noble Earl, that no prize agents had failed in this country—[The Earl of HARDWICKE: During the war.] He begged the noble Earl's pardon for having misunderstood him, but another noble Lord (Lord Colchester) had not confined himself to the period of the war, and
  1022
  he could assure him that he was completely mistaken. He could not be expected to mention names, but he could inform the noble Lord that, out of thirteen failures of agents, eight had taken place in London, and two of them as recently as within the last seven years. The noble Lord had asked him two questions, to which he was most happy to give an answer. The noble Lord stated that under the old system a convenience had existed from the agents defraying small necessary expenses, and he wished to know if that would continue under the new system. He could say, in answer to that question, that the agent would be able to take out a power of attorney to defray small necessary expenses; and, with regard to the second question, instructions had been given to the Marshal of the Admiralty to insure all vessels in every case. A noble Earl who had addressed their Lordships had raised an objection of another character to the Bill. He had objected to it on the ground that there was no provision in it to regulate the distribution of prize money in conjoint operations of the naval and land forces. It had been considered by the Government that, until this measure passed into a law, the time had not arrived for undertaking to deal with that question. The provisions of this Bill were based upon former practice, and, although he was ready to admit that there might be inconvenience from the fact of two different principles coming into play in the case of joint operations, still, at the same time, he was of opinion that the disadvantages which would accrue from a change would more than counterbalance any advantage gained by departing from a system which had been found to work sufficiently well in previous wars. A change in the system would, he thought, give rise to numberless questions, and he could not help thinking that, on the whole, the arguments used were rather in favour of adherence to the present system. The course which had been adopted in the present Bill had been adopted after consultation with eminent naval officers, and after the most careful consideration by the Board of Admiralty. Another suggestion had been made, that the payment of head-money should be extended to the cases of capture of fortresses as well as of ships; but he thought the principle was liable to abuse, and it would hardly be safe to give to it any greater extension than it now had. In some such cases particular grants had been made by Par-

  1023
  liament, which secured every object of pecuniary reward in a sounder and more effectual form. It was a mistake to suppose that the Bill would have a retrospective effect. The measure was to come into operation on the 1st of June, and its operation would only date from that period, and have no retroactive effect whatever.
  On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative; House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without Amendment: an Amendment made, and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned to Tuesday next.