Lords Sitting of 21 July 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Sheep, &c. Contagious Diseases Prevention; Hospitals (Dublin; Burial-grounds (Ireland); Lunatic Asylums (Superannuations) (Ireland); Joint-Stock Banks; Criminal Procedure; Accessories, &c. Offences of a Public Nature; Treason and Offences against the State; Forgery; Malicious Injuries to Property; Offences against Property; Offences against the Person.
2a Consolidation Fund (Appropriation); Income and Land Taxes; Stamp Duties; Racehorse Duty; Coast-guard Service; Corrupt Practices Prevention; General Board of Health Continuance; Militia Pay; Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer; Lunatic A sylums Act Amendment; Deeds (Scotland); Judicial Procedure, &c. (Scotland); Criminal Justice; Poor Law Amendment (Scotland); Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland).
3a Court of Chancery (Ireland) (Receivers); Coatham Marriages Validity; Indemnity; Nuisances Removal, &c (Scotland); Episcopal and Capitular Estates Continuance; Customs (No. 2); Railways Act (Ireland) 1851, Continuance;
1064
Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland); Bishops of London and Durham Retirement.
ROYAL ASSENT—Church Building Commission; Court of Exchequer (Scotland); Saint Sepulchre's Manor (Dublin); Mercantile Law Amendment (Scotland); Registration of Voters (Scotland); Revenue (Transfer of Charges); Survey of Great Britain, &c.; Drainage (Ireland); Grand Juries (Ireland); Statutes not in Use Repeal; Dwellings for Labouring Classes (Ireland); Aldershot Camp; Incumbered Estates (Ireland); Prisons (Ireland); Police (Counties and Boroughs).

REGISTRATION OF TITLE DEEDS— QUESTION.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he had a question to put to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack in reference to the registration of title deeds. Two or three years ago a Bill was introduced by his noble and learned Friend for the registration of title deeds. It was referred to a Select Committee, and afterwards came down to their Lordships' House, where it was passed by a large majority, and then sent down to the other House. What subsequently became of it he did not know, except that it had not passed into law. It appeared, however, that a Commission had been subsequently appointed to inquire into the subject; and the questions he wished to ask his noble and learned Friend were—first, whether that Commission had made a Report?—secondly, if not, what was the reason of the delay?—and, thirdly, whether there was any probability of a Report being made? He could not sit down without expressing in the strongest terms his regret, that various important measures which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament, and various other important measures which had been sent down from their Lordships House, had, during the present Session, been either lost or abandoned. He never recollected, in any Session, so wholesale a destruction of measures.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the answer to the first question was, that the Commission had not made a Report. That Commission was appointed under the following circumstances. The Registration of Titles Bill passed that House with very general, though not universal, concurrence, but it did not get a very favourable reception in the other House; it was referred to a Select Committee, who reported against it, but thought that a different plan for the registration of titles would be expedient,

1065
and recommended that a Royal Commission should be appointed to consider the whole subject. The consequence was, that in the following year—1854—a Commission was appointed to look into the subject; as he had already stated, they had not yet made their Report. With regard to the probability of their reporting, he might state that he had communicated privately with the Solicitor General and others who were on the Commission, and they assured him that the Commission was looking very attentively into the subject; but that they found, as he confessed he had anticipated, a great deal more difficulty in devising some tangible plan than they at first imagined. He believed, however, that they would make a Report, and he understood also that they had embodied the plans which they recommended in the shape of a Bill, which would be laid on the table of the House. He had himself prepared the heads of a Bill for a very modified registration, but he was stopped at an early period of the Session from introducing it, by the intimation that the Report of the Commission suggesting a more extended scheme would shortly be laid before Parliament; and, unless he got that Report during the recess, he should unquestionably introduce the smaller measure. With regard to the remark of the noble and learned Lord respecting the withdrawal of Bills, he shared in the regret he had expressed as to the abandonment of several important measures; but, at the same time, he was prepared to show that a considerable number of very useful ones had been passed in the course of the Session.

THE RAJAH OF COORG—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwished to put a question to the Government with respect to the treatment of the Rajah of Coorg by the East India Company. The Rajah was a prisoner of State at Benares, and some time ago he applied to the Company for leave to come to England chiefly for the purpose of superintending the education of his daughter, whom he wished to be brought up as a Christian. He obtained leave of absence for one year; at the expiration of that period he applied for an extension of leave, but it was positively refused by the Company, and as he did not return they stopped that portion of his allowance which he received in this country, the rest being applied to the support of his relatives at
1066
Benares. A more tyrannical and unjust proceeding could not well be imagined. The Rajah's medical advisers had told him that this country was more healthy for him than India; but the East India Company had sent their physician to examine him, and he said there would be no danger in his returning to India by a sea voyage, at a certain time of the year. One very important fact was, that the Rajah was prosecuting a suit against the East India Company in the Court of Chancery, and that they were demanding his return to India at the very time when his presence in this country was of the utmost importance. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) could scarcely believe that the Government knew anything of these circumstances. He wished to ask the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) what were the reasons of the Company for insisting on this nobleman's return to India, and why they had withheld the allowance which they had contracted to give him while in this country?
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the noble Marquess seemed better informed upon the details of the Rajah's case than he was, for he had not seen any of the papers, and was only acquainted with the general state of the facts. He believed that the Board of Control had no power whatever to compel the East India Company to pay the allowance which they had withheld from the Rajah. The noble Marquess had stated the facts correctly, and by his statement that the Rajah was a State prisoner, he implied that the Company had power to require the return to India of this prince, who was considered in that country to be a prisoner at war. The Company could either have given or withheld leave of absence, and therefore it was not an act of tyranny on their part to refuse to allow him to remain in England beyond the period which had been specified. He understood the local Government of India considered it was objectionable that native princes should remain permanently in England, expending here the revenues which were given to them by the East India Company. The noble Marquess had insinuated that the object of the Company in demanding the Rajah's return to India was to impede the suit which he was carrying on against them; but he could not conceive that they were actuated by any such reason. It was perfectly obvious that by the employment of lawyers he could prosecute that suit as well in India as in England.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH rose to confirm the accuracy of the noble Duke's statement, that the Board of Control had no power whatever to compel the Court of Directors to pay the Prince the sum they agreed to give him during the year he had leave of absence. The noble Marquess had stated the facts of the case correctly, and he (the Earl of Ellenborough) must say that, taking into consideration all the circumstances, the conduct of the Court of Directors, in refusing payment to the Prince, was very ungenerous and unwise; but, at the same time, he agreed with the noble Duke that it was neither for the advantage of native princes, nor, generally, for the advantage of the Government of India, that those princes should come and reside in this country in order to prosecute their claims. He had himself privately advised the Rajah of Coorg, four years ago, to return to his own country, being quite confident that it would be more to his own credit and comfort to rest in the midst of his family at Benares, where he was very much respected, than to reside as an individual unknown in this country; and he now publicly renewed that advice. As to the suit against the East India Company for the recovery of his property, he could not comprehend how a question of that kind between two Sovereigns—for such they were—could be made the subject of inquiry before the English Court, of Chancery; and he believed it would be found, in the course of the investigation, that the property neither belonged to the Court of Directors nor the Government of India, nor the Rajah, but to the Crown, and that it had been misappropriated by the Government of India. If this Prince were dispossessed of his property in consequence of military operations, it clearly, as the prize of war, belonged, not to the Government of India, but to the Crown; and if the Crown asserted its right, the Rajah would be deprived of all excuse for not returning, and the Company of any reason for conducting themselves towards him in a manner most ungenerous and un—courteous. He should, therefore, strongly recommend the noble Duke to suggest to the law officers of the Crown to inquire into the matter.

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF THE MILITIA IN IRELAND—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNON VISCOUNT DUNGANNON rose to ask the Secretary of State for War—Whether he had received any official communication
1068
of the Dismissal of fifty-seven men of the City of Limerick Artillery Militia, from Youghal, on the 5th instant, who were suffered to depart, many of them, with scarcely any clothing, and who had to proceed all the way to Limerick with only six-pence allotted to each individual? And, also, Whether it was correct that 240 men were discharged on the 10th instant from the Curragh, belonging to the Mayo Rifles, to find their way home, with only one day's pay allotted to them? It appeared, that on the 5th of July notice was given to the Limerick Artillery Militia, that such as were disposed to avail themselves of the permission, might at once proceed to their homes. About fifty-seven men availed themselves of the permission, and they were accordingly suffered to go home; but in what manner? They were deprived of their clothing, and given sixpence each, to enable them to proceed from Youghal to Limerick. On their way to Limerick they were obliged to pass the night under haystacks or in open fields, and they reached that city in a state of destitution and nakedness. It was also stated that on the 10th of July 240 men were dismissed at the Curragh from the Mayo rifles, and sent on their journey homewards with only one day's pay allotted to each of them, He had that morning learnt further that 240 men of the Queen's County Militia had been dismissed with much the same amount, and entirely deprived of their clothing, and consequently had to go about begging for raiment. It might be replied that all this was strictly according to regulations; but if such were the regulations they reflected very little honour on the country, and very little credit on the Government; and though he admitted that distress did not justify crime, yet he thought that if these men had committed any thefts, the moral responsibility would rest on those who had driven them to that course of conduct. They could not forget the circumstances under which the militia had been embodied. They would not forget the alacrity and readiness which every class of persons had shown to serve the country during the late war; and he must ask was this a fair return for such alacrity and such readiness, and for such faithful services? It might be said that these men could have applied to the parishes through which they had passed; but if they had done so they would have been sent to the next union-house; and he must ask whether the union-house was the place for

1069
those who had had the honour to wear Her Majesty's uniform? They knew not, in the present aspect of Europe, how soon the services of the militia might again be required; but was it likely that such treatment as this would ultimately tend to the advantage of Her Majesty's service and to the interests of the State in general? The Irishman was, above all others, susceptible of the feelings of gratitude, but he was equally alive to a sense of injustice and ill-treatment; and therefore the House must not be surprised if a knowledge of these facts should extend to every quarter in Ireland. He was afraid that the Government would find that they had been influenced on this occasion by a feeling of false economy. The present state of Ireland was tranquil, but that would not justify the Government in turning loose a large body of men without the means of support or the hope of employment. He had been led to believe that the disembodiment of the militia in Ireland—would not have taken place until after the harvest. But he found that the disembodiment had been fixed for not later than the 7th of August; and he must say that a more inconvenient and inappropriate time could not be selected, as at that period employment would be scarce, and difficult to be obtained. He understood that it was intended to call out the militia for twenty—eight days' training in each year, He was afraid that when the time came the muster in Ireland would be a sorry one. The feelings which existed on this subject would become general in Ireland, and he believed he might say, as a notorious fact, that from Ireland had sprung many of the most gallant and brave soldiers who had distinguished themselves in the service of this country. He did not mean to say that the Government was bound to find employment for these men; but, surely, it would have been better to have dismissed them with proper clothing, and with a sufficient gratuity. He hoped that the noble Lord the Secretary for War, would be enabled to say that these statements were unfounded; but if that, unfortunately, should not be the case, then he trusted that his noble Friend would be enabled to state that this proceeding had not been approved of, or received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. One satisfactory result would at least arise from his putting this question—it would show the people of Ireland that in both Houses of Parliament there were Members who
1070
were willing to take up their case, and to fix public and parliamentary censure upon, those who might deserve it. The noble Lord concluded, by putting his question to the Secretary for War.
LORD PANMUREsaid, the noble Lord's first question related to the dismissal of fifty-seven men of the City of Limerick Artillery Militia from Youghal on the 5th instant, and the noble Lord drew a very melancholy picture of their condition at the time of their discharge. He could only state in answer to that question that he had received no such information, either officially or privately; and he apprehended that had such an occurrence taken place it must have come to the knowledge of the Lord Lieutenant, who had recently been in Limerick, and his Lordship would have taken care to apprise him of it. In answer to the noble Lord's second question, as to the discharge of 240 men from the Curragh with only one day's pay, he had to state that the men were permitted—not discharged—to retire from the regiment and go to their homes, in order to find employment, which they had been led to expect was open to them. They were allowed the proportion of pay and gratuity due to them up to that time, and thus provided for the journey home they quitted the service. With regard to the disembodiment of the militia he had already stated that it was the intention of Government that the disembodiment should take place at a time when the men could be employed in the harvest. He saw nothing in the present state of Ireland to prevent them doing this, and justice required that they should deal with the Irish militia in the same way that they dealt with the English and Scotch, and this would be done.

THE SLAVE TRADE IN THE BRAZILS.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY rose to move, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies of any Correspondence that has lately taken place between Her Majesty's Government or the British Envoy at Rio Janeiro and the Brazilian Government on the subject of the Slave Trade. As he saw that the correspondence had been promised to the other House of Parliament by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he might assume that the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) would at once concur in his Motion. It might be supposed, therefore, that he need not detain their Lordships, but the subject was one of paramount importance,

1071
and he might have no other opportunity of calling attention to it during the present Session. It appeared that owing to a correspondence, which he could not describe in any other terms than as ill-judged, the Brazilian Government were greatly offended with the Government of this country, and the discussions that had taken place in consequence in the Representative Assembly of Brazils appeared to threaten a dissolution of the amicable relations between the two countries. It seemed to him that there was scarcely a single country the friendship and alliance of which were of greater consequence to Great Britain than the friendship and alliance of the Brazils. It was entitled to English sympathies, as well from its position as from its character. Without offending that Government or the Sardinian Government, he might say of Brazil that it was the Sardinia of South America; for, while the other States of South America, with the exception of Chili, were almost all under the despotism of republican anarchy, the Brazilians were enjoying a constitutional Government and every day reaping increased prosperity. Looking at it through our material interests, their trade with Great Britain was immense; and, looking forward to the changes and chances which might affect our relations with the United States, there was no country the alliance of which would be of greater consequence than the Brazils, supposing, unfortunately, that we should be at war with the United States. If we should then be on unfriendly terms with the Brazils, privateers might be sent from the Brazilian coast to annoy our trade, and adventurers from the United States might thus inflict very great injury upon our commerce. Great Britain had always been on very good terms with the Brazilian empire; but at times there had been disputes with it, not in reference to any points of policy, but in relation to the slave trade, which used to be carried on with great barbarity and to a great extent in the Brazils. In 1826, a treaty was made with the Brazilian Government for the total abolition of the slave trade, and mixed courts were appointed for the trial of offences. Matters, were, however, shortly afterwards in so unsettled a state in the Brazils that the slave trade was not suppressed as was desired; and in 1845, the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen), who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, took a strong step, which he would not find fault with, as it answered its purpose,
1072
and was, perhaps, necessary at that time. An Act of Parliament was passed, prohibiting all Englishmen from carrying on the slave trade, permitting British cruisers to capture all vessels engaged in the slave trade within Brazilian waters, and empowering them to cruise in all Brazilian waters and to seize slave vessels under the very guns of Brazilian fortresses. No stronger step could have been taken—nothing could be more insulting to an independent nation, and the Brazilian Government naturally felt the deepest indignation and anger, although they were obliged to submit to the superior force of this country. Years passed on, and partly by the efforts of our cruisers—and, it was only justice to say, partly in consequence of the sincere and loyal co-operation of the Brazilian Government—the slave trade in that country decreased most rapidly. In 1852, when the Earl of Derby came into power, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) found that the irritation and humiliation of the Brazilian Government were exceedingly great, for they thought Great Britain had legalised a kind of piracy for the purpose of abolishing the slave trade. Of course, no Act of Parliament of this country could interfere with international law, but the Act of Parliament protected those who acted under it. The Government of Lord Derby thought the time had come when the action of this law might be modified, and said they felt so much confidence in the loyal intention of the Brazilian Government to suppress the slave trade, that they would—not abolish that Act—but suspend it. From this time the Act had remained suspended, and the slave trade had decreased most rapidly, so that in the course of two or three years not more than two or three slavers were seen on that coast, and they had been captured and taken. About the end of 1855, however, a slaver managed to land a cargo—and it appeared that forty-seven of these slaves were kidnapped and taken up the country. Out of those forty-seven, ten or twelve made their escape, so that not more than about twenty of these slaves were carried into the interior. It surely would have been sufficient to have pointed out this to the Brazilian Government, and to have asked for an explanation; but, instead of that, Mr. Jerningham, our Chargé d'Affaires at Rio, presented a note to the Brazilian Government, the terms of which, to say the least, were most un-courteous. He might not be in order, and it would certainly be anomalous if he

1073
were to read the supposed despatch, as published in the public journals, when he was moving for a correct copy of the correspondence; but he did not exaggerate the fact in characterising it as most un-courteous. Mr. Jerningham, after stating the extreme disappointment of the English Government at the laxity of the Brazilian Government, proceeded at once to say that, if there were any repetition of such a ground of complaint, the humiliating Act of 1845 would be put in force; and, not satisfied with that mortifying threat, he further said that British vessels would enter the harbours and rivers of the Brazils and seize the slavers, and that, if the Brazilian courts did not convict the offenders, English courts would be found to have the courage to do so. He had hoped that, from the moment the noble Earl entered the Foreign-office, a certain style which pervaded the correspondence of that office would be at an end. The style he alluded to commenced in the year 1830, and continued to the year 1841. It then disappeared, but it began again in the year 1846, and continued to the end of the year 1851. It was a very peculiar style. Whatever the circumstances, the stereotyped despatch opened by expressing the unqualified displeasure of Her Majesty's Government, and concluded with some menace. The Minister of Foreign Affairs always sounded his trumpet from the highest note in the gamut, and the consequence was he could never use any other note without descending in the scale. He did not think that was a judicious mode of conducting our foreign affairs, because strong nations retaliated by insolent replies, and weak nations retained a dislike to the English Government rankling in their minds, and, perhaps, leading to a dislike of the English people. Although he might have had to find fault with his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) for exhibiting too much of the fortiter in re, he never anticipated having to accuse him of the want, as in this case, of suaviter in modo. The note from the Brazilian Minister in reply, displayed great anger and mortification, but was written in very dignified language. He did not wish to quote the note, but the Brazilian Minister said he had explained this very case to Mr. Jerningham that he had shown Mr. Jerningham that many of the slaves had been recaptured, and that he had promised to recapture as many more as possible. That interview took place
1074
early in February, and the note was written on the 7th of March. He supposed that in the meantime a despatch had been received from the Foreign Office in reply to the first account of the transaction which was sent home. The Brazilian Minister subsequently showed that only twenty slaves remained not recaptured, and he said the pursuit was stopped because the prevalence of yellow fever made it certain some of the troops would be lost. The Brazilian Minister detailed the difficulties incident to the geographical nature of the country, and closed his despatch by expressing his astonishment at the humiliating threat of the English Minister, when on the 4th of February Mr. Jerningham had complimented the Brazilian Government on the capture of the Mary Smith. When the Brazilian Chambers met—and he would say in passing that he had been much surprised at the talent which had been shown in their debates—great indignation at such a note being presented to the Brazilian Government was expressed by all parties. The King sympathised with that disapprobation. The public press, to a unit, was very violent against us, and two of the most distinguished speakers denounced our conduct as most unjust and insulting. Other members of the Chambers, perhaps with less judgment, but not with less power of mischief, said very openly—
"If we are merely to be considered as the slaves and servants of Great Britain—if Great Britain is to inflict these threats on us, perhaps to be followed by stronger measures, the only thing we can do is to form other alliances."
And then they plainly set forth the advantages of an alliance with the United States, observing that, with respect to slavery, they would meet with no difficulties whatever. He would ask the noble Earl whether such an alliance between the Brazils and the United States was desirable for this country? Considering the amount of our trade with the Brazils, their political position and their descent from our most ancient allies, the Portuguese, he conjured the noble Earl to pay that respect to the Brazilian Government which he thought they deserved, not only because it was our interest to respect them, but because they had really done their best to put an end to the slave trade. Of the good faith of the Brazilian Government he had proof in 1852, when he advised his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) to suspend the Act. He had now also private

1075
information to the same effect, on which he could depend; and, as the slave trade could only be stopped by the determination of the Brazilian Government to stop it, he entreated the noble Earl not to restrain himself—for there was no danger from him of useless and insulting threats—but to restrain the rude and mischievous zeal of his subordinates. The noble Earl concluded by moving for the correspondence referred to.
THE EARL OF CLARENDONwas understood to say that he concurred in a great deal which had fallen from the noble Earl. He thought the noble Earl had not exaggerated the importance of a good understanding between the Brazils and this country, and had correctly described the advantages to be derived from it, and he could not but regret the coolness that had arisen between the two countries. The noble Earl had accurately described the increasing prosperity of the Brazils, and the great advantage which must accrue from our alliance with a constitutional Government, which was in a state of settlement and tranquillity compared with the other States of South America. He thought, also, that we ought to be extremely grateful—and that gratitude had been constantly expressed in Parliament, in the press, and in official despatches—to the Brazilian Government for the manner in which they had co-operated in putting down the slave trade. He also took the same view as his noble Friend in reference to the Act of 1845. The Act was not in operation at the present moment, and the Brazilian Government were perfectly aware that Her Majesty's Government had no objection to alter the provisions of that Act, if provisions of equal stringency, or at all events having the same objects in view, were secured by treaty. Such a treaty was under consideration two years ago, but the Brazilian Government objected to grant the same conditions. Negotiations were still pending between the two Governments upon this point. It was, therefore, the fault of the Brazilian Government and not our fault that the Act still existed, and with it the power of menacing the Brazilian Government. But, although the slave trade had been effectually put down, there had been certain occurrences within the last year and a half which raised well-founded apprehensions that the trade might be re-established. The Brazilian Government had neglected to take any measures for effectual colonization
1076
and immigration, whereby to secure a supply of labour. The slaves had died off, and there had been a remarkable mortality, owing to cholera and yellow fever. The consequences were, that the hands for field labour were very short, the price of slaves had risen enormously, and the temptation to engage in a very profitable trade had greatly increased. As some years ago 60,000 slaves were imported annually, their Lordships would have some idea of the enormous profits derived from this nefarious traffic, and with rising prices apprehensions were naturally excited that attempts would be made to supply the slave market. Those attempts were made last year, and upon a very considerable scale, the parties no doubt speculating upon the duration of the war in which we were then engaged, and the consequent difficulty of sending a sufficient naval force either to the African or to the Brazilian coast to prevent the renewal of the traffic. In the course of the last year notice was given by the Brazilian Government to the President of the province of Pernambuco, that a slaveship was expected to land her cargo upon that coast. The vessel did arrive, and exactly at the spot which had been indicated; but the police were all absent, and it was only after some time, by the act of a gentleman residing in the vicinity, who took on himself the duties of the police, that about 160 of the slaves were seized. The vessel was a schooner of 130 tons only, which had on board no less than 250 slaves. So little vigilance had been used, so little desire existed to prevent the introduction of the cargo, that two days after the arrival of the vessel one person went down and carried off forty of the negroes, and two days later another person selected sixty others. Representations were made upon the subject to the Brazilian Government, couched in terms of courtesy, such as the noble Earl had prescribed, and such as became the spirit of friendship which had always existed between the two Governments. Complaints of negligence and connivance were made against the President of Pernambuco, who not only would not allow the police to prevent the landing, but also would not permit any inquiry to take place upon the spot, but removed the investigation to a place six leagues from that where the landing had been effected, and where all eye-witnesses of it could easily have been procured. Moreover, in order that the gentleman who had seized the 160 slaves

1077
should not give evidence upon the subject, the President included him in the list of persons accused, and thus prevented him from being examined as a witness. When these facts came to his (the Earl of Clarendon's) knowledge, he instructed Mr. Jerningham, in the event of nothing being done by the Brazilian authorities, and of no action being taken by the Brazilian Government, in consequence, to inform that Government that it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to enforce the operation of the Act of Parliament to which the noble Earl had referred. He would read an extract from the despatch of Mr. Jerningham, He wrote on the 14th of March:—
"That he had learnt with pain and disappointment that the course taken by the Imperial Government and the Imperial authorities in recovering the Africans who were stolen at Serinhaem, and in following up the prosecution of the real individuals implicated in the whole of that slave-trade affair, is far from being satisfactory; and, in consequence of instructions which the undersigned has received from Her Britannic Majesty's Government, who have approved of the conduct and zeal which Her Majesty's consul, Mr. Cowper, manifested upon the above attempt at slave trading, the undersigned begs to intimate to the Brazilian Government that if they do not use their utmost efforts in discovering the real aggressors in this or any other similar acts of slave trading, and in prosecuting them with all the rigor of the law, and punishing all such as have been engaged in such slave-trade transactions, that the British Government will be obliged again to put in force the provisions of the Act of Parliament of 1845; and that while British cruisers will exercise on the coast, in the rivers, and in the harbours of Brazil, that watchfulness and activity which the agents of the Brazilian Government neglect to use, British courts of justice will pronounce those sentences of condemnation from which Brazilian courts may be found to shrink. The undersigned, after so many assurances on the part of the Imperial Government that they were using their utmost vigilance and energy to suppress the slave trade, and to punish offenders, regrets that the lax and unsatisfactory manner of the proceedings in the province of pernambuco should occasion him to be obliged to signify to the Imperial Government the line of conduct which Her Majesty's Government will infallibly adopt in crushing and extinguishing all slave-trade transactions, if the Imperial Government do not command and force their own authorities to do their duty."
It was under those circumstances that Mr. Jerningham felt himself justified in acting upon his instructions, and in addressing to the Brazilian Government that notice to which the noble Earl had referred. It was perfectly true that the Brazilian Government was angry at that communication. It was also perfectly true that debates
1078
took place in the Brazilian Chambers upon it, and that the Brazilian Minister had addressed to himself a remonstrance, urging that it was a mortification to the feelings of the Brazilian Government. He (the Earl of Clarendon) had replied, of course, that it was not the intention nor the desire of Her Majesty's Government to mortify the Brazilian Government, and that they desired to maintain the most friendly relations with it; but that the notice had been given from a fear that, owing to the altered circumstances of Brazil, great preparations were being made for the renewal of the slave trade, and it was intended in a friendly manner to put the Government of that country upon its guard that it might take proper steps in that matter. He trusted that all ill-will, such as had been alluded to by his noble Friend as having been manifested in the Brazilian Chambers upon this subject, had disappeared, and that the Government there had recognized the justice of the representations which had been made, as indeed he believed was the case, for it had already removed the President of Pernambuco from his post, and had given the best proof of its sincerity in undertaking to suppress the slave trade by appointing in his place the former Minister to this country, than whom a more honourable or upright man did not exist. Under these circumstances, and after the explanations which had been given, he hoped the Brazilian Government had ceased to entertain any ill-will upon this question, and had acquitted Her Majesty's Government of any wish to inflict mortification upon them. With respect to the papers for which the noble Earl had moved, some of them were already printed with other papers relating to the slave trade, and the remainder of the correspondence, which had occurred since March last, would be laid before Parliament next year.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, the Act referred to had been introduced by himself ten or eleven years since, although with very great reluctance. He believed that Act was justified at the time by the circumstances which then existed, but undoubtedly it was a measure of extreme severity, only to be justified by strong necessity. At the time of the passing of the Act he had assured the Brazilian Government of his regret at having to propose such a measure, and that nothing would give him greater pleasure than being able

1079
to move for the repeal of that Act. He had even hoped that the time for repealing the Act had come, and only yesterday he had been prepared to communicate with his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary upon the subject; but he regretted to find that what he had imagined had been completely effected by the Brazilian Government had not taken place, and that there were some symptoms of a renewal of the slave trade. Under these circumstances, he could not blame the threat, as it was called, of a renewal of the Act; but he hoped, from what had taken place, that the conduct of the Brazilian Government was, and would continue to be, such as not only would render unnecessary any enforcement of the Act, but would also speedily render its total repeal justifiable and practicable. He quite agreed with the noble Earl opposite as to the interest of this country in cultivating the alliance of the Brazilian Government, for the conduct of that Government stood in favourable contrast with that of other Governments in South America. The interest we had in maintaining friendly relations with Brazil, the extent of our commercial relations with that country was such as to be a matter of paramount importance. Therefore, while approving of the energy of the measures adopted, he hoped that by kindness and conciliation the noble Earl would be able, before long, to place matters on the most satisfactory footing with the Brazilian Government.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYagreed with his noble Friend that the Brazilian Government had proved their loyalty by appointing the gentleman alluded to in place of the President of Pernambuco. He was satisfied with the explanation of the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) to a certain extent; but he thought that all that had been obtained from the Brazilian Government might have been obtained in a different manner—without the presentation of a note of remonstrance, which was an official document of extreme character. It was with the manner and not with the spirit of the communication that he found fault. He by no means wished to discommend his noble Friend's anxiety to put down the slave trade; but he did think that his noble Friend or his agent had been extremely mistaken in the manner in which they had conducted the correspondence with the Brazilian Government.
Motion agreed to.

ISMAIL AND RENI—DIPLOMATIC INTER COURSE WITH RUSSIA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he now wished to ask his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) another question of which he had given notice—namely, whether it was true that the two fortresses of Ismail and Reni, which were included in the cession of that portion of the territory which the Russian Government had made over to Turkey by the treaty of Paris, had been, as he was informed they were, totally and entirely dismantled? It was manifest, he thought, that the territory of the Delta was of little use as a bulwark to Turkey if no fortresses were maintained there. While Ismail stood as a fortress no Russian army could cross the Danube without leaving those fortresses in their rear; whereas if they were once destroyed, the whole geographical face of the country in regard to an invasion by Russia would be in the same state as before the war. Considering then that the Allies had taken a great part of Sebastopol; that they had also taken Kinburn, Kertch, Eupatoria, Kamiesch, and some of the fortresses on the Circassian coast, it appeared to him that we had had nothing like a fair exchange, even supposing that Ismail and Reni remained untouched, and still less was that the case if these places were reduced from the condition in which they were when the propositions of Austria were made to their present defenceless state. He wished to ask his noble Friend, therefore, if it were true that these fortresses had been dismantled before their evacuation by the Russians? If they had been, whether it was the result of any agreement which had been come to at the Congress at Paris? Whether the Turkish Government would not be obliged to maintain fortresses in the same position?—for in the case of a guaranteed country like Turkey there
should have been a condition that the fortresses should be maintained. He would also ask whether any fortresses were to be rebuilt on the right and left bank of the Danube; and if so, by what soldiers they were to be garrisoned?—for it was of consequence, if fortresses were to be maintained there, that they should be garrisoned by troops who would be free from the temptation of Russian intrigue. There was another question to which he was desirous of calling the attention of his noble Friend. With some degree of hurry after the peace was concluded, his noble Friend dispatched

1081
Lord Wodehouse to St. Petersburgh as Minister from the British Court, and that noble Lord had been there for at least a month; but never yet, to his (the Earl of Malmesbury's) knowledge, nor he believed to the knowledge of any one of their Lordships, had any Minister or representative appeared at St. James's from the Russian Court. Now, without being extremely punctilious upon such points, it was nevertheless desirable that diplomatic usages should be studied a little more minutely, and that we should not run any risk of jeopardising Her Majesty's dignity by sending an envoy to Russia without ascertaining that one was coming to represent that country in England. He should like to know, therefore, why no accredited Minister had yet arrived from St. Petersburgh; and when he might expect to see the Court of Russia represented at the Court of Her Majesty?
THE EARI OF CLARENDON: I will answer the questions of my noble Friend in the order in which he has put them. With regard to the question as to the fortresses of Ismail and Reni, I cannot exactly state what has been actually done as to those Danubian fortresses, because the Commissioners appointed to settle the frontier of Moldavia have been occupied with other business, and have not yet been able to give their attention to the state of those fortresses. I have heard this morning from St. Petersburgh that there had been no report received there of what had been done upon the subject. I have no doubt, however, that those fortresses have been dismantled, and I think it is a very unusual proceeding on the part of the Russian Government—a very unfortunate mode of inaugurating the peace. There were no regular precautions taken or arrangements made in the Treaty of Paris about the manner in which those fortresses should be given up. I should have considered it almost an affront to require any explanation as to the way in which a thing was to be done with regard to which there could have been no difference of opinion. I understand the Russian Government to assert that they considered that they had a right, until the boundary of the frontier was marked out, and until the country had been given over to the Allies, to demolish any fortresses on the Danube in the same manner as the Allies had to demolish the works at Sevastopol, But there is this very great distinction. Since the peace has been signed nothing has been demolished
1082
by the Allies, nor any act of aggression committed; whereas the dismantling of the fortresses of Ismail and Reni took place after the peace was signed. We being in possession of Eupatoria, of Kin-burn, and, more particularly, of Kertch, we might, in retaliation, have destroyed all the public works of those places; but we considered that, as soon as peace was signed, the places became Russian, and it would have been dishonourable on our part to meddle with those works; and, on the same principle, we contend that from the moment the peace was signed Russia had no right to meddle with these Danubian fortresses. Such, my Lords, is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on this subject, and it has been communicated to the Court of Russia; but we have as yet received no formal answer on the subject. There is another fortress to which my noble Friend has not alluded—that of Kars—concerning which I have made some inquiry from the Russian Government. The answer which I have received is, that the moment peace was signed an Imperial order was sent to Kars directing that nothing there should be destroyed—otherwise the destroying of the citadel of that fortress would have been an express violation of the Treaty of Paris; but it was stated that owing to the disturbed state of the country, those orders were delayed on the route, and before they arrived some destruction of the works had already taken place; the moment, however, the Imperial mandate reached no further damage was done. There has been a report that on a part of the territory that is to be ceded to Moldavia certain Crown lands have been sold, and the answer to an inquiry on this subject is, that some authorities were proceeding to sell Crown lands, but that the Russian Government admitted that they were no longer theirs to deal with, and the sale had been stopped. The Russian Government have stated in the strongest terms that their object is to carry on everything connected with the peace in the most faithful manner, and I can only hope that for the future nothing will occur to destroy the confidence which, after peace has been established, should exist between the different countries. With regard to the arrival of the Russian Minister in this country, I have to say that we received an official intimation from Baron Brunow when he came to this country to deliver a letter to Her Majesty, that Count Creptowitch had been appointed Minister

1083
to this country. As he had been so long in coming, and this country was left without a representative of Russia, which was somewhat disrespectful to Her Majesty, I inquired at St. Petersburgh the reason of the delay, and I have been informed that the Minister will be here at the end of the month, and that the delay had been the result of unavoidable causes.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: When the Russian Government ceded the territory on the left bank of the Pruth, of course they ceded at the same time the fortresses situated in that territory. It had been invariably the custom, so far as his memory went, when fortresses had been ceded, to insert provisions in the treaty detailing the manner in which they should be given up, and whether the guns, ammunition, archives, and plans should be included; and if the noble Earl now complained that Ismail and Reni had been dismantled the fault was his own, for not taking the precautions which all Governments had hitherto adopted of making such provisions as he had referred to. He regretted that in this instance, and in the other less important instance his noble Friend had referred to, there should be the least glimmer, or the least appearance, of any misunderstanding between this country and Russia with regard to the performance of the treaty.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: The noble Earl's remarks are founded upon the cases of fortresses which were named in the treaty. In this instance they were not named.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: Just so.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The not naming the fortresses to be surrendered was, in his opinion, au additional instance of neglect on the part of the noble Earl. The value of the ceded territory, in fact, consisted in these fortresses; and the omission to name them is, I repeat, an additional instance of negligence on the part of the noble Earl, The noble Earl admitted that in this case Russia had acted towards us, if not with a breach of faith, yet with the breach of an understanding, whilst, in another case, she had treated us with considerable discourtesy, which did not augur very well for the continuance of the patched-up peace that had been concluded. He should be glad to know, as the noble Earl had received some answer from the Russian Government with regard to his remonstrances on the subject
1084
of Kars, whether he had also received any answer, and if so, what answer, to his remonstrances as to the other fortresses, Ismail and Reni.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I must remind the noble Earl that it was not with reference to these fortresses that the territory on the banks of the Danube was ceded by Russia, nor did they form the most important part of that territory. The object of that cession of territory by the "patched-up peace," as the noble Earl terms it, but which peace has given great satisfaction to the country, was that Russia should not have access to the Danube by the continued possession of that territory. In answer to the noble Earl's question, he begged to say that he had not received from the Russian Government any conclusive reply to the communication addressed to them on the subject of Ismail and Reni.

CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATUTE LAW.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the Second Report of the Commissioners for Consolidating the Statute Law. The subject, he said, was one of rather a dull and uninviting character, but he trusted that, considering its great importance, their Lordships would allow him for a few moments to occupy their attention. It would be in the recollection of some of their Lordships that, immediately after the Session of 1854, Her Majesty was advised by the Government to issue Her Commission to a number of distinguished legal functionaries and persons who filled high stations in the law, authorising them to Consolidate the Statute Law, as far as they should consider it advisable, with power to introduce into that consolidation any portion of the common law of the land which they might think necessary to make it work smoothly and well. In accordance with a suggestion from a noble and learned Lord not now present (Lord Lyndhurst), it was made an instruction to the Commissioners not merely to consolidate the existing law but to offer any recommendation which occurred to them as to an improved method of future legislation. He need hardly say that the whole task was one of almost overwhelming difficulty. The Statutes of this realm were contained in about forty quarto volumes, printed, as their Lordships were aware, in very small type and presenting the most uninviting aspect. They numbered

1085
altogether about 15,000. At the outset, he might observe that the appointment of this Commission partook in no respect of a party character. The first point to which the attention of the Commissioners (among whom were Lords Lynd-hurst and Brougham, Lord Campbell, Sir J. Jervis, Sir Frederick Pollock, Sir James Parke, Vice Chancellor Page Wood) was directed was as to the mode in which they should proceed. It was suggested that there ought to be a sort of general sketch of the whole of those Statutes, ranged under different heads, each of which should be consolidated into one or more Statutes; and this was to a certain extent set on foot, but was found to be almost impracticable. The Commissioners formed themselves into sub-committees, and it was an instruction to one of them to endeavour to improve and simplify the language of the existing Statutes. In the endeavour, however, to improve and simplify the language in which these Statutes were couched, and to introduce any portion of the unwritten law which seemed necessary, such extreme difficulty was soon experienced that the course determined upon was to make a general and improved classification, and then to proceed to consolidate under these different heads the different Statutes. The subject was divided into criminal law—law relating to property, and the law relating to mercantile matters. That did not exhaust the subject, but it went a long way to do so. The Commissioners made a Report at the end of the last Session of Parliament, and stated what they had done; the Bills, however, upon which they were employed were not in a state to be introduced to Parliament. They found that their work would be useless unless an improved method of legislation were adopted for the future, for otherwise, very soon after consolidation was effected, the work would have to be recommenced and done over again. In their Report laid before Parliament last Session they, therefore, made the following suggestion—
"We, therefore, beg leave to submit to your Majesty that in our opinion the most effectual method for insuring simplicity and uniformity in, or otherwise improving, the form and style of future Statutes, would be the appointment of an officer or board, with a sufficient staff of assistants, whose duty it should be—To advise on the legal effect of every Bill which either House of Parliament should think fit to refer to them, and, in particular, on the existing state of the law affected by the proposed Bill, its language, and structure, and its operation on the existing
1086
law; and also to point out what Statutes it repeals, alters, or modifies; and whether any Statutes, or clause of Statutes, on the same subject-matter are left unrepealed or conflicting; so that the House may have at its command the materials which will enable it to deal properly with the Bill."
This subject was fully considered during the recess, and early in the present Session of Parliament the Commissioners came to the unanimous conclusion that the step here recommended was absolutely necessary, in order to put legislation upon a creditable footing for the future. And this is a course which the Government intend to recommend. It was necessary, however, that such a course, if taken, should be taken at the beginning of the Session of Parliament. The Commissioners had suggested, and the Government intended to propose, the appointment of an officer who should perform with regard to public Bills duties in a great measure analogous to those which were performed for private Bills by the Examiner of Private Bills, with this difference, however, that he was to be appointed by both Houses of Parliament. There was a precedent for that in the Examiner of Standing Orders, who was the same individual for both Houses, and was appointed by both Houses. Of course it would not be his duty to interfere in any way with the policy of Bills, which necessarily rested with the Legislature. It often happened, both in Bills introduced by private Members and by the Government—there being no person whose immediate duty it was to look into the public Bills to see how far they harmonised with existing laws, how far they clashed with current legislation, and how far their language was such as ought to be adopted—that blunders crept in which caused the greatest confusion, and often necessitated the repeal of the Bills themselves in the course of the next Session. Scarcely a Session elapsed without an instance of this. The appointment of such an officer would have the beneficial effect in stopping the grosser part of this evil. He had said that the Statute-book contained 15,000 Acts; but many of them would not be called laws in any other country; for they were mere matters of regulation. It had always been the policy of this country to refer to the Legislature matters which in other countries were ordinarily mere matters of administration, such as the regulation of the army and navy, financial matters, local legislation, and the like. The moment these Acts had done their duty,

1087
there was no longer any necessity that they should retain a place on the Statute-book; they were merely temporary enactments, they laid down no general rule of conduct, and they were not laws in the proper meaning of the word. At the beginning of this year the Statute Law Commission—one of whom was Mr. Coulson, whose experience in these matters was of great value—had taken the trouble to analyze the Acts passed last Session. They were 134 in number, and sixty-eight of them were merely temporary enactments, into which nobody would ever need to look when they had served the particular purpose for which they were passed. Less than one-half were laws properly so called. In bulk the difference was greater. The whole legislation of the Session occupied 1,005 pages, and of these only 226 pages were occupied by laws properly so called. There was now in existence one classification of Bills—namely, their separation into public and private Bills. It had occurred to the Commissioners that this classification might be carried much farther, by separating the annual and temporary Acts from the others. That would reduce the bulk of legislation to one-third of what it would otherwise be; and of that third one-third related only to India and the Colonies. By means of this classification the actual statute law would be reduced to the smallest space. With that view he proposed to call attention to the recommendations of the Commissioners, and the Government early next Session proposed to establish such an officer as he had already described, and he hoped both Houses would acquiesce in the appointment of some Committee, such as that which existed with regard to Private Bills, who should be in communication with this officer. During the past Session a great number of Bills had been prepared by the Statute Law Commission, some of which might have been laid before Parliament, but that he himself had not had time enough to look through them with sufficient care to be able so introduce them on his official responsibility. Others had not yet been revised by the public departments to which they related. For instance, a Bill had been prepared for the consolidation of the whole law relating to stamps, which had been laid before the Board of Stamps, but which could not, of course, be laid before Parliament until it had received the alterations which that Board might suggest. The consolidation of the criminal law had
1088
been undertaken by Lord Wensleydale, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, and Mr. Greaves, who had been formed into a Committee for that purpose. They found that there were some offences as to which consolidation would be inconvenient, and even impracticable in a great measure. There were a great many offences arising out of certain Acts done in respect to the Customs, and it was thought that the consolidation of the Customs Acts would be imperfect if it did not contain the criminal part as well as the civil part. Again, the same remark applied to the bankrupt laws:—if a bankrupt did not surrender he was liable to serious penal consequences, but to introduce that class of offences into a general measure relating to crimes and punishments would have induced the necessity of explaining the laws with respect to bankruptcy. Therefore, these two classes of offences were omitted in the Bills in question. Another class of offences which would not be found in the Bills were offences relating to religion. There was a number of old statutes on that subject, which, on consideration, the Commissioners thought it best at once to ask Parliament to repeal, because they related to the habits and usages of a bygone day. In some instances these Acts would now almost excite a smile, and, as much time would be required to consolidate all the statutes on this subject, that part of the business stood over, and was not embraced by the Bills he was now speaking of. With these exceptions, the Statute Law Commissioners had comprehended in six statutes all the law relating to indictable offences, classed under the heads of offences of high treason, of offences against public justice, against the person, of larceny and theft, of malicious injury to property, and of forgery, which he now laid upon their Lordships' table. Besides these, there was embodied in another short Bill all the Acts relating to the law with regard to principal and accessory in criminal cases, and in an eighth Bill was consolidated all the Acts relating to criminal procedure on indictments, juries, &c. These measures, the Commissioners believed, embodied all the enactments of forty Acts of Parliament, and portions of 150 others, and from his own inspection of them, he believed that they did all that they professed to do. It was necessary for him to add that, after all, unless these Bills were taken, he would not say absolutely on trust, but much more so than was done

1089
with respect to an ordinary Bill introduced for the first time, consolidation would be-come impossible. He did not mean to say that oversights might not have been committed, but they might afterwards be remedied. It would be for Parliament to decide whether, on looking over some portion of the measures, it was satisfied with the diligence bestowed on them, and would not, therefore, subject them to that strict investigation which an entirely new enactment would require. In order to justify such a demand on the confidence of Parliament, a short report would accompany each Bill, pointing out any slight alteration in the existing law whenever it was found absolutely necessary to make such alteration. The rule which the Commissioners laid down for their guidance in framing these Bills was to make no change in the law, but in some few cases it had been found that that rule could not be adhered to. It had also been an object with the Commissioners to maintain, as nearly as possible, the language of the Acts they consolidated; but inasmuch as they found that the same offences were described sometimes in one set of words, and at others in another, they had adopted that set of words which they thought the best, and adhered to it throughout. At present the written laws of the country extended over forty volumes, and embraced some 15,000 Acts of Parliament. The Commissioners thought that the whole might be reduced to about 300 (some were sanguine enough to say 250) statutes, which might all be brought within the compass of three or four moderate-sized volumes. He would now lay the Bills on their Lordships' table; but he proposed to go no further with them than the first reading in the present Session, and to leave them to be considered during the recess.
The noble and learned Lord then presented the following Bills—
A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to Criminal Procedure by Indictment [Criminal Procedure Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to Accessories to and Abettors to Indictable Offences [Accessories, &c. Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to Indictable Offences of a Public Nature [Offences of a Public Nature Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to Indictable Offences against Her Majesty the Queen and Her Government [Treason and Offences against the State Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to Indictable Offences by Forgery [Forgery Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England
1090
relating to Indictable Offences against Property by malicious Injuries [Malicious Injuries to Property Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to Indictable Offences against Property by Larceny and other Offences connected therewith [Offences against Property Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to indictable Offences against the Person [Offences against the Person Bill].
Which were severally read 1a: —

FORMATION, &c., OF PARISHES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, and for Standing Orders, No. 37 and 38, to be considered in Order to their being dispensed with, read: Said Standing Orders considered and dispensed with: House in Committee accordingly.
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
LORD PORTMAN LORD PORTMAN moved the omission of Clause 9, which empowered a Bishop, upon application from the minister or churchwardens of a church, to direct that a portion, not exceeding one-half, of the alms or voluntary contributions collected in the church or otherwise during the year, should be applicable to the maintenance of the minister and service of such church. His Lordship said that this power to authorise the Bishop to divide the alms collected at the offertory for the poor or for other purposes was founded upon a totally new principle, to which he entertained serious objections. Those persons who had contributed money for any particular charitable object would not like to see it applied, under the authority of the Bishop, for an entirely different object. Take, as an example, this case—a minister is in want of money, he obtains the aid of a very popular preacher, and asks for alms for a charity for the blind. The topic is one to arouse the feelings of every one—a large sum is contributed—the minister applies to the Bishop to divide the alms of the year, and thus obtains a considerable sum which was intended for the blind. This scheme is a part of the new so—called "Sacerdotal system," and requires to be checked. He feared that the clause would either cause great discord between the minister and his congregation, or else put an end to almsgiving in churches altogether. As it is necessary to make any Amendments before the question on the whole clause is put, he would wait until the alterations about to be proposed were discussed, and at the right time he would move to omit the whole clause, for if this principle is once admitted it will be ap-applied to all the parishes of the kingdom,

1091
though it is pretended that it is only to be applied in certain special cases.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the clause was in the Bill when it came up from the other House; but he did not like it then and he did not like it now. It had been introduced into the Bill in the Commons, where it was adopted without a division; and although he did not like it he did not intend to oppose it, because there were conflicting parties in the Church, and the introduction of the clause had tended to produce a harmony of feeling and to secure the passing of the Bill through the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested an Amendment which would meet the difficulty—namely, to add after the words "or otherwise" in the last line but one the words, "not collected for any special purpose."
THE EARL OF HARROWBYstrongly objected to the clause. If it were permitted that the money collected in the church should be appropriated to other purposes, without any person being consulted but the minister or the churchwarden, people would withhold their alms and the poor would suffer. No aid was so gratefully received or so usefully distributed as the money collected at the offertory, which was distributed by the clergy, who generally accompanied the gift with kindly and useful advice. He advised their Lordships to leave the arrangements for the minister to depend upon the spontaneous good will of the parishioners. The proposal of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) would meet a peculiar phase of the objection, but would not cover the whole of the case.
THE EARL OF DERBYthought it right to remind his noble Friend who had just sat down, and those other noble Lords who were not present on the Committee, that this clause must be considered, not on its own merits, but as taken in connection with another clause. Considerable objection had been, in the first instance, taken to the third clause; and that clause was postponed till the Committee came to the consideration of Clause No. 9. In all previous legislation on this, subject, it was required that where a district church was proposed to be established, there should be a certain positive endowment of £150 a year guaranteed in the first instance. But it was obvious that in populous parishes that would be found to be a very poor provision for the clergyman; and by
1092
Clause 3 of the present Bill there was a waiving of that preliminary provision of an endowment of £150; but to meet that state of things Clause 9 was introduced, for the purpose of providing that wherever the endowment did not exceed £200, there should be this power of applying one-half the voluntary collections to the maintenance of the clergyman and the service of the Church. This Bill had been most carefully and deliberately considered by the other House. It had gone through a Select Committee there, and had come up to their Lordships' House recommended by a large majority. It was a measure which must be taken as a compromise between persons entertaining different views in regard to Church property. The Bill had also been sent before a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, who had given the measure their most careful attention. Such being the circumstances under which the Bill now appeared before them, he thought they would be hardly dealing fairly with the House of Commons if, at the present period of the Session, they made such an Amendment in the Bill as would endanger its passage through Parliament. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would view the measure as a whole, and not reject the clause immediately under consideration. He did not think the clause unreasonable in itself, but was prepared to accede to the Amendment of his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Salisbury).
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETopposed the clause, which he considered the most objectionable feature of the Bill. The Amendment of the noble Marquess did not go far enough to remove his objection. He should move to omit the word "or," between, the words "minister and churchwardens," for the purpose of inserting "and;" for although he was opposed to the whole clause, he was anxious, if it could not be omitted, to make it less obnoxious by making the application to depend on the actions of the minister and both the churchwardens, one of whom would represent the parish.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWthought that the clause was calculated to check parochial charities in all places where the Bill applied.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he knew many instances in which the church could not be supported at all if a portion of the collections were not carried to the

1093
use of the minister. He did not think such an appropriation could have a repressing effect upon charity. Although the clause was a new clause, yet it was a correlative of the novelty of the whole Bill itself, and was an attempt to meet the spiritual wants of the populations in new and ill-provided districts by voluntary contributions. He regarded the clause as absolutely necessary to the Bill, and if it was omitted he must withdraw his support of the measure.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYcould see no necessity for mixing up two objects—the support of the clergy and the assistance of the poor. He thought it would be better to leave persons to contribute to either without forcing them to contribute to the other, whether they intended or not. He thought it would be better to withdraw the clause.
After a few words of explanation from the Bishop of OXFORD and the Earl of DERBY,
On Question, that the word "or" stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—Content 20; Not Content 20.
As the rule of the House is, that when the division is equal, it passes, pro negante, the word "or" was omitted.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthen moved to insert the word "and."
Their Lordships again divided:—Content 20; Not Content 20.
The word "and" was not inserted.
LORD PORTMANthen said, as the clause is now made nonsense, he advised the House to reject the whole clause, and not be alarmed by the threat of the Bishop of Oxford, as the Bill will pass with out the clause, and in spite of the right rev. Prelate. He ventured to correct Lord Derby as to the history of the clause in the House of Commons. It was inserted at a late stage of the Bill, and was quite unknown to almost all the House, and was, in fact, a surprise. The Select Committee of their Lordships had differed on the clause.
Their Lordships then divided on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."—Content 20; Not Content 22: Majority 2.
The clause was consequently struck out.
Other Amendments made: Moved, That the Report of the Amendments be now received; objected to; and after short Debate, agreed to. Amendments reported accordingly; and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow

BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM RETIREMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3°.
LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE moved, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. No Amendment had been introduced to remove the objections which he entertained to the measure; the correspondence which had been presented was of a most meagre character, and afforded but little information as to the negotiation which had taken place; and, believing still that too much of condition was attached to the retirement of the two right rev. Prelates, that the Bill was therefore of a simoniacal character, and that both politically and as regarded the Church, the worst consequences might be apprehended from it, he hoped their Lordships would not allow it to pass a third reading.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this Day Three Months."
THE LORD CHANCELLORprotested that there had been no negotiation whatever. When his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford) moved for the production of this correspondence, he said that he believed there were only two letters on the subject from the Bishop of London, and but one from the Bishop of Durham, and that he did not know even whether there was any answer by letter on the part of the Treasury. Of negotiation there had been none. It was perfectly true that, at a late period last year, the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury did, either verbally or by letter, inform his noble Friend at the head of the Government that it was the wish of the Bishop of Durham to resign; but nothing approaching to negotiation, and not one word of intercourse ever took place on the subject, as he believed, until the letter of the Bishop of Durham which appeared in the correspondence.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he must take leave to remind the noble and learned Lord that on a former occasion he had himself stated that there had been no negotiation; but the correspondence now produced showed that negotiation there had been. As to the correspondence, perhaps their Lordships might be in possession of the whole of that which had taken place with regard to the see of London, but it was not possible that all had been published relative to the Bishop of Durham. Why, there was not even the simple

1095
acknowledgment on the part of the Prime Minister of the proposition made to him, of his assent to it, or of the course which the Government intended to pursue. There was only a letter from the right rev. Prelate, in which he stated that he was ready to resign upon the assurance from the Government that there would be guaranteed to him an allowance of £4,500 a year. Now, he (the Earl of Derby) presumed that that assurance had been given to the right rev. Prelate. Unless, therefore, this was a note got up for the purpose of being laid before Parliament, there must, he apprehended, be some further correspondence. The noble and learned Lord now declared that there had been no negotiation, but what did this letter say?
THE LORD CHANCELLORdenied having said that there had been no negotiation. What he meant to convey was, that there had been none except what appeared from the correspondence.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Their Lordships had been told the other day that there was no negotiation whatever, that the resignation was a spontaneous act on the one part and was so accepted on the other. Now, the Bishop of Durham himself stated that he could have wished to name a later date for his resignation, but that the noble Earl (the Earl of Chichester) informed him that this might be inconvenient to the Government, and he therefore acquiesced. The Bishop of Durham, for the sake of the convenience of the Government, having thus consented to give up his see on the 1st of August, although it would be inconvenient to him to leave the palace by that day, the noble Earl having informed him that a later day than the first of August would be inconvenient to the Government—[The Earl of CHICHESTER: I did not tell him that or anything of the kind.] Well, the Bishop of Durham said so, at any rate. Here were the papers put in injustification of the course taken by the Government; and this correspondence, he maintained, showed a distinct negotiation in order to consult the convenience of the Government, and then it suited those who entered into the negotiation to say that this was not a correct representation of what took place.
THE EARL OF CHICHESTERexplained that the right rev. Prelate was under some misapprehension;—he had had no authority from the Government to negotiate with the Bishop of Durham; he had merely visited him as a friend to whom he had
1096
mentioned his wish to retire. By "inconvenient" he did not allude at all to the convenience of the Government; but he had used the word in the sense only of its not being creditable to his own character to delay his resignation beyond the day which was fixed for the resignation of the Bishop of London.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it did not appear from this correspondence that any day whatever had been fixed for the resignation of the Bishop of London.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he had voted for the second reading of the Bill, not because he thought it was a good measure, but upon the faith of the noble and learned Lord's statement that the greatest possible inconvenience would arise to the public if it did not pass. He was led to believe that the two dioceses were suffering from the illness of their Bishops; but, on the declaration of the noble Duke opposite, that he had the authority of the Bishop of Durham for stating that his diocese had not suffered in the least from his absence, he could not believe that, so far as that diocese was concerned, there was any great urgency in the case. It would have been very much better to proceed by a general measure, and he was afraid that the passing of this Bill would retard the introduction of such a general measure. They might have followed the example of the Roman Catholic Church in this particular by appointing coadjutors or suffragan Bishops, whose incomes might have been provided out of the revenues of the respective dioceses. His original objections to the Bill were very much increased by a perusal of the correspondence. The transaction might not amount legally to simony; but, looking to the meaning of the word, for a Bishop to offer to place his see in the hands of the Minister on condition of being secured a certain income by law was as much simony as anything possibly could be. The present was a very good time for considering the expediency of dividing the diocese of London. There were two cathedrals, two deans, two episcopal residences, and, above all, an ample revenue. Having voted in favour of the Bill, he should not now oppose it, but should refrain altogether from voting.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYdefended the measure, with respect to which no more negotiation had taken place than had occurred if any other course had been taken. If a general measure had been brought forward the same process—simoniacal

1097
though it might be—must have been followed. Communications must have been entered into with the Bishops to ascertain what provision they would require, and the Legislature would have been called on to enact it in the same manner.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he did not know whether this Bill involved an act of simony or not; but this he did know—that when the Bill got down to the other House, it would be designated by a much stronger name than "simony." It would be looked on there as a bargain between the Prime Minister and the Bishops, by which they, for a consideration, placed their sees in his hands—and for such transactions they had a strong name there, which they would not hesitate to apply. The allowances stipulated for were £6,000 a year in the one case, and £4,500 in the other. Suppose the House of Commons should decline to ratify this bargain, and should reduce the allowances to £3,000 a year in both cases, what a position the Government would be placed in. Their Lordships had become a party to the contract and must reject the compromise of the Commons. Of what avail, then, were all the protestations they had heard as to the necessity of this measure to avoid a scandal in the Church? This was one of the worst measures which had ever been laid before Parliament, because it singled out two individuals—who had always been looked upon with great jealousy in certain quarters on account of their large income, and he was astonished that the Government could send such a scheme down to the other House to encounter the rude treatment of Radicals and Church reformers. It should have been a general measure intended to meet all cases.
THE EARL OF POWISthought the Bishops had had but scant justice done them in this debate. If they had expressed their willingness to appoint suffragan Bishops, and to pay them the income which was to be paid to their successors, every one would have said that they had done well; but what they had done was even more disinterested. The noble Duke had stated that when the Bill went down to the other House it would be said there that the Minister had been bargaining for two bishoprics, and he thought that the proposition of a general measure would have been more advisable. Now, if that course had been followed the Minister would have been accused of taking advantage of the particular circumstances of two
1098
bishoprics to introduce a measure giving him the reversionary appointment of a large number of Bishops. He conceived that much of the feeling which had been excited in respect to the Bill was to be attributed to the attempt of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack to press it to a second reading at a time when the printed copies of the measure had not been distributed, and when their Lordships had not had an opportunity of knowing it was to come on.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONlooked on the Bill as establishing a most inconvenient and dangerous precedent. The measure was derogatory to the Church, and the correspondence laid on the table proved that there had been a bargain.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that the discussion on the Bill had not removed his objections to it. The whole course of this debate showed how unwise it was to make this a matter of individual legislation, for owing to these two particular Sees being dealt with in this way, every person who spoke on the subject, however careful he might be, ran the risk of having his statements turned into personal imputations. The Government were said to be actuated by a desire to obtain patronage, and the Bishops by a craving for money allowances; and by this means the discussion partook of a character which a general measure would have avoided. Simony, if their Lordships looked into the law respecting it, would be found to have two aspects. The expression of an intention to engage in a corrupt bargain was an evil of the deepest dye. Now, he at once and altogether acquitted the right rev. Prelates in question and those who brought in the present Bill, of the slightest tendency to an intention to commit that moral evil, and he acquitted the Government of any wrong intention to grasp at patronage—on the contrary, he was convinced that they were all actuated by a sincere conviction that the Bill was necessary for the good of the State and the interest of the Church. But there was not only the moral aspect of simony; there was, over and above, the legal aspect. Now, the present Bill did, in the most direct way, pass a peculiar privilegium or indemnity for the commission of the legal offence of simony. The legal offence was stated by 31 Eliz. c. 6, to consist in "corruptly taking for or in respect of resigning or exchanging the same directly or indirectly any pension or reward whatever." [A NOBLE LORD:

1099
Yes—corruptly taking.] Yes, the word "corruptly" was certainly used, but it was the bargain and not the incentive to it that was declared to be corrupt—the thing done and not the motive that actuated; and thus this Bill was a violation of the letter as well as of the spirit of the law. A noble and learned Lord had pointed out to him that the preamble of the Bill recited falsely the correspondence on which it professed to be founded, and observed that these words, "Whereas the said Bishops on relinquishing the income to which they are entitled in respect of their Sees are willing to receive the annual sums hereinafter provided for them during their lives," &c., had no counterpart in the correspondence, there being no expression of a willingness, after resignation, to accept those sums. The noble and learned Lord had, therefore, drawn up certain words to be inserted instead of the words now in the preamble, and they were to the following effect:—
"Whereas the said Bishop of London, on being secured during his life the clear annuity of £6,000, and the Bishop of Durham, on the assurance that an allowance of £4,520 would be granted to him, &c., were willing to resign."
The noble and learned Lord observed, that the words now in the Bill showed a shrinking from putting into plain English the direct bargain which the words implied, and being obliged to leave the House, he asked whether he (the Bishop of Oxford) would move his Amendment. He objected, then, to this Bill, for the reasons he had just stated; and, secondly, because he objected to the passing of the Bill for two of his own order, making a penal law not applicable to their future acts, and because it placed the Bishops on a different footing from the rest of the Ministry—from rectors, vicars, and other spiritual persons of the Church, He felt this to be an insuperable objection. In what an invidious position would the Bishops be placed if they were called upon to enforce the law against the clergy, they being at the same time a privileged class, exempt from the penalties of that law. As one of the class proposed to be so privileged he rejected their offer. Let the law of simony be dealt with as a whole; let this privilege, if it must be created, extend to those of the clergy who led lives of hardship and want, and who required it far more than the Bishops; but, for the sake of every class in the Church, let them not pass for the highest rank in the clergy a relaxation
1100
from which the lower ranks were to derive no benefit. There was another point to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention. By the 9 Geo. IV., c. 94, rectors and vicars were allowed to resign in favour of certain near relations of the patron, without incurring the penalties of simony; but a special provision was inserted, preventing that privilege from being exercised when the living was in the hands of the Crown. What, then, became of the argument, that they might deal with this case safely because the Crown was the patron? The Bill went right against the stream of precedent. It had been argued that, as it was manifest that there was no corruption in this case, as a necessary consequence there could be no simony. But by the law of simony, although both clerk and patron were ignorant of the transaction, and no corruption could therefore be attributed to them, yet if any other party were cognisant of an arrangement whereby money was to pass in consequence of the resignation of the benefice, the clerk would lose the benefice and never again be capable of presentation to it; and the patron would lose his patronage for that turn which would vest in the Crown. Although, therefore, there was in this case the most perfect purity—an almost heroic purity upon everything relating to money, on the part of his right rev. Friend—although it was perfectly impossible that his right rev. Friend could have dirtied his hands by any arrangement advantageous to himself, but detrimental to the interests of the Church, still, according to law, there remained a stain of simony upon the whole transaction which they were endeavouring by this Act to remove. He was anxious that their Lordships should understand the full force of the words in his right rev. Friend's letter—" if allowed by law." He had reason for saying that the meaning of those words was:— "If the general law you are about to introduce allows you, then deal with my case." He did not impute, and he never had imputed, to the Government, any attempt to deceive his right rev. Friend; but he did believe, upon his conscience, that they were holding his right rev. Friend to a bargain which he had made under a view of the case different from that which they had taken. He believed that his right rev. Friend had learnt from him as soon as from any one the nature of the Bill. His right rev. Friend had asked him what was being done with the general measure; he replied, that it

1101
had been sent back to the Government, and there was reason to expect the Government would introduce it; and his right rev. Friend also received information upon Churchill what he thought sufficient authority, although certainly not from a Member of the Government, that a general measure was within twenty-four hours to be laid before Parliament. In consequence of that expectation, he used the words "if allowed by law" in his letter, expressing his willingness to do this act, if he could do it under the general measure. Before proceeding with the Bill, they ought therefore to ascertain whether his right rev. Friend desired that it should pass, now the general measure had been dropped. He was sure that his right rev. Friend had not been informed that the general measure had not been introduced, and that this Bill was a privilegium to exempt him from penalties which would still attach to others in his position before his consent to the Bill had been obtained. He said, that the Government had not dealt fairly with one who had dealt generously and nobly with the public through a long public life. On all these grounds he must give his solemn non-content to the third reading of the Bill.
LORD DENMANintended to vote against the Bill, and regretted that the Government had not fully investigated the law respecting coadjutor Bishops before introducing it. He thought they might have proposed a general measure which would have been beneficial to the whole community.
THE LORD CHANCELLORwished it to be understood, as the question might be raised in another place, that he did not admit that the Acts to which this Bill referred would constitute simony at all, even without any Act of Parliament on the subject. As at present advised, he did not believe that the Statute of Elizabeth applied to Bishops.
On Question that "now" stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided:— Content 26; Not-Content 15:—Majority 11.

List of the CONTENT.

Lord Chancellor.

Chichester

DUKES.

Fortescue

Argyll

Harrowby

Cleveland

Kingston

Stradbroke

MARQUESS.

VISCOUNT.

Lansdowne

Middleton

EARLS.

BISHOP.

Besborough

Carlisle

1102

BARONS.

Kinnaird

Byron

Monteagle

Calthorpe

Panmure

Camoys

Portman

Churchill

Saye and Sele

De Mauley

Stuart de Decies

De Tabley

Stanley of Alderley

Foley

List of the NOT CONTENT.

DUKE.

VISCOUNT.

Somerset

Dungannon

MARQUESSES.

BISHOP

Oxford

Bath

BARONS.

Salisbury

Colchester

EARLS.

Colville

Aberdeen

Denman

Derby

Dynevor

Desart

Redesdale

Elgin

Wynford.

Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 3a accordingly.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDproposed a clause to the effect, that any surplus revenue from the two bishoprics should be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and kept distinct until Parliament should determine whether and in what way Bishops should be allowed to resign their bishoprics from age and incapacity.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not agree to the proposal.
Clause negatived.
Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROTESTS.
Die Lunœ, 21° Julii, 1856.
Against Third Reading of The Bishops of London and Durham Retirement Bill.
DISSENTIENT—"1. Because, by the Act of 26 Hen. VIII., c. 14, ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Her Majesty may, by her Royal letters patent, at the instance of any Bishop, out of two spiritual persons being learned and of good conversation, appoint a Titular Bishop for each diocese, in aid of the several Bishops, for a time to be limited by them, and such Suffragan Bishops may lawfully be paid by them out of their several revenues.
"2. Because any Act of Parliament on the subject of Resignations and Pensions of Bishops should be first considered (as it is in the nature of a Money Bill) in the Honourable the House of Commons, and should provide for the case of all living and future Archbishops and Bishops and Incumbents, and might therein incorporate an Act similar to 52 Geo. III., c. 62 (which applies solely to Ireland), for England and Wales.
"DENMAN."
DISSENTIENT— "1. Because the Bill is one of an abstract and personal character, framed to meet the case of two individual Bishops, and not one of a general and comprehensive nature.
"2. Because the Bill was introduced at so late a period of the Session as to render any discussion as regards either its principle, or the

1103
consequences it might involve by establishing an inconvenient and mischievous precedent, impossible.
"3. Because no serious evils to either diocese or to the Church in general could reasonably be apprehended from allowing matters to continue in their present condition a few months longer, when ample time would be afforded for the proper framing and full consideration of a general measure of relief calculated to prove essentially beneficial to the interests of the Church and the extension of sound religion.
"4. Because the sees of London and Durham are not at the present moment the only instance in which dioceses are deprived of the benefit of the active services of their Bishops, through age or infirmity; that such dioceses have an equal claim for consideration with those of London and Durham. Therefore, a Bill introduced to meet the case of two individual Bishops is unjust in principle, dangerous in practice, mischievous in example, and calculated to impede, rather than accelerate the progress of any future useful and comprehensive measure.
"DUNGANNON.
"For first and fourth Reasons,
"DENMAN."
House adjourned till To—morrow.