Lords Sitting of 9 June 1856

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Bagot.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Reformatory and Industrial Schools; Pawnbrokers.

THE FOREIGN LEGIONS—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREbegged to ask a question of the noble Lord the Secretary for War. The militia were now in a rapid course of disembodiment, but he believed that no steps had been taken to disband the foreign troops which had been enlisted into Her Majesty's service. It would be satisfactory to know what were the intentions of the Government as to those foreign troops, and what was the cost of those troops at present to the country.
LORD PANMUREsaid, the terms on which the foreign legions were enlisted were, that they should serve Her Majesty in every capacity the same as the other troops enlisted for the service in the line, and that they should be liable to be sent abroad to the seat of war on active service, under Her Majesty's standard, in the same way as any other troops. Neither the officers nor men of those legions, upon being disembodied, were to receive any single advantage beyond the British troops, neither would they receive any half pay. In former wars, when foreigners were enlisted, one of the conditions of service was that they should be entitled to half-pay the same as the regular army. That was not to be the case in the present instance. When the foreign legions were disembodied, the men were to be sent to their homes, or to be located in some British colony, at the expense of the Government. In the event of their being wounded, the officers and men were to come under the same regulations as the officers and men

1153
of Her Majesty's army, and receive pensions. The foreign legions that had been sent to the Crimea had distinguished themselves as much and had maintained as good order as any troops of her Majesty's service; and no doubt, had the war continued, would have conducted themselves as valiantly as any troops that had been brought into the field. The troops of the foreign legion consisted of 8,552 Germans, 3,013 Swiss, and 3,535 Italians—making together 15,100 men, and the cost of maintaining them was about £1,100 a day. The Swiss and Italian legions, he hoped, would, in the course of a very few weeks, be disembodied. With respect to the German legion, it appeared that a large portion of them were desirous of being transferred to the Cape of Good Hope. Her Majesty's Government thought that such a course was highly desirable, as those Germans were of the same character as the original settlers in that colony. Arrangements would, he hoped, shortly be made to carry out the object of their wishes by making the proposed transfer.

THE BISHOPRIC OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHbegged to call the attention of the noble Earl the President of the Council to the vacancy which had recently taken place in the united dioceses of Gloucester and Bristol. He personally deplored the late lamented event that had occurred. During the last twenty-five years he had had the good fortune to be intimately acquainted with the late Dr. Monk, and he considered his death to be a great loss to the Church. He was a man distinguished for learning, for great kindness of disposition, and for magnificent liberality. He had at heart an object which he (the Earl of Ellen-borough) rejoiced to say he, in a great degree, succeeded in accomplishing—namely, the extension of religious instruction in his diocese. When Dr. Monk was appointed Bishop of Gloucester he held that bishopric alone, and he then resided in the middle of the county and in the county town. At that time the right rev. prelate was in the habit of holding constant communication, not only with the clergy, but with the laity of his diocese, and he was thereby in every way enabled to keep a constant and vigilant watch over the spiritual wants of his diocese. He believed that the right rev. Prelate had never at any time any desire to have the
1154
bishopric of Bristol annexed to that of Gloucester. A large palace had been built at Gloucester, which was, he believed, very expensive to keep up, and that circumstance, combined with others, induced the Bishop to reside permanently at Stapleton, near Bristol, and abandon altogether his original residence. The consequence was that, in point of fact, during the last ten or fifteen years, there had virtually been a non-resident Bishop. He would not say that the ecclesiastical duties of the diocese had been neglected; he believed that they had not been; at the same time it was impossible not to feel the absence of that total want of personal communication with the gentlemen of the county which a Bishop was enabled to keep up when resident in a county town; and which increased to a great extent his usefulness. A petition to Her Majesty was at the present moment in circulation throughout the county, and, from what he had heard several months ago as to the feelings of the Members for the county and of the county gentlemen, he believed that petition would express almost universally the sense of the county in favour of the separation of the two dioceses. Under these circumstances, he would express not only the hope, but the confident expectation, that the Government would adopt no measure whatever for the purpose of filling up the existing vacancy in the diocese of Gloucester and Bristol until they had had the opportunity of ascertaining the feelings of the inhabitants of Gloucestershire on the subject he had alluded to,
LORD REDESDALEthought it impossible for any clergyman to carry on the duties of the extended see of Gloucester and Bristol in the manner in which they ought to be performed. The union of Gloucester and Bristol was effected at a time when it was determined that the number of bishops should not be increased, and it was with that object that four sees were united—namely, Bangor and St. Asaph, and Gloucester and Bristol—in order that the two new sees of Manchester and Ripon might be created. In the case of Bangor and St. Asaph the opposition to the union of those sees had proved successful; but the two dioceses in question were not so large as Gloucester and Bristol, and he thought, therefore, that the inhabitants of the latter dioceses had a decided claim upon Parliament for the separation of the two sees.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the question was one of a very difficult character, and one which could not be decided without grave consideration. In several other sees great complaints had been made of the extended area comprised within them, and of the heavy duties, therefore, devolving upon the occupants of those sees. The separation of Gloucester and Bristol was not, therefore, a question to be decided upon by itself; the other cases to which he had referred must be taken into consideration at the same time. All he could say was, that after what had passed there that evening, he had no doubt the successor to the late Bishop, whoever he might be, would be appointed subject to any future arrangements which might be come to with regard to the separation of the diocese.

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES—REPORTED DISMISSAL OF MR. CRAMPTON—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I wish to put a question to the Government on a subject which at the present moment is a source of great anxiety to the people of this country. It is reported that a packet has, within the last few hours, arrived from the United States, bringing intelligence of importance with regard to our relations with that country. I should feel obliged if the noble Earl would inform us whether any such packet has arrived, and if it has, and it be convenient to the Government, if he would give us information as to the intelligence brought.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, I understand that the Asia has arrived, and that by that packet some news of a private character has been brought, which is not quite clear—not quite intelligible. There is a report, on the one hand, that letters have been received to the 27th announcing the departure of Mr. Crampton; and, on the other, that a telegraphic message was sent on the 28th stating that there was no further news. But it is not quite clear as to what the telegraphic message alludes—whether it means that there is no further news except the dismissal of Mr. Crampton, or that Mr. Crampton's dismissal had not taken place. Her Majesty's Government have received no official information on this subject. Letters, however, will arrive either to-night or to-morrow morning from Mr. Crampton to the 27th; but until then Her Majesty's Government will not be able to give any authentic information on the subject.

MERCANTILE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
On Clause 1, which repealed the 17th section of 29 Charles II., c. 3, "for the prevention of frauds and perjuries," and the 7th section of the 9 Geo. IV., c. 14,
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Lord behind him (Lord Overstone) had presented a petition from traders of the city of London, who complained that this clause would tend to prejudice very much their commercial interests. Their Lordships were aware that this Bill had been introduced in pursuance of the report of a Royal Commission which had been instituted in consequence of complaints from Manchester, Glasgow, and various places in the north of England against the present state of the mercantile law. That Report recommended the assimilation of the laws of the two countries, and, as far as regarded personal property, the repeal of the 17th section of the Statute of Frauds. That section provided that no contract for the sale of goods for a value exceeding £10 should be valid unless it was reduced to writing, or unless part of the purchase money had been paid, or part of the goods purchased had been delivered. Now, in the case of land, it was perhaps desirable to require that all contracts should be reduced to writing; but he did not think that it was so in the case of personal property. At present the necessity of reducing contracts to writing was nullified by the provision that the contract should be valid if part of the purchase money had been paid or part of the goods delivered; and, in point of fact, it was impossible to reduce every mercantile contract to writing. It was true that it was said by some of the most respectable merchants, that they entered into contracts through the agency of middlemen or brokers, and, if it were not necessary to reduce these contracts to writing, contracts might be palmed off on them which they had never authorised. Now, he could only say that he believed that if the present Bill became law, the custom would continue the same as it was at present. The fact that in the north of England nine-tenths of the contracts made were not in writing, and that in Scotland there was no law compelling them to be so, afforded a strong presumption that that portion of the Statute of Frauds was really of no practical value; and he trusted therefore, that their Lordships would not

1157
offer any opposition to the present Bill, for by agreeing to it their Lordships would, in reality, be discouraging, not encouraging fraud.
LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he should not divide the House upon the Bill; but on the part of the merchants of London, he begged to say that the result of the inquiry which had taken place before the Select Committee had only been to strengthen the opinion of the great majority of the mercantile interest in the soundness of the views which they had all along entertained in opposition to this clause. Merchants were persons whose business necessarily led them to enter into contracts of a very extensive and complicated character. For the purpose of coming to that common agreement on which such contracts must be founded, it was obviously requisite that much preliminary conversation must take place; and the danger which the merchants apprehended was, that those inchoate and incomplete conversations would be forced upon them as binding contracts, there being no written memorandum whatever on which to found such obligations. They believed, if such were the effect of the clause, that they would be precluded from that freedom of discussion which was necessary to every satisfactory commercial contract. In order to prove that portion of the case which he thought was in dispute, he had called before the Select Committee the highest mercantile authorities in the city of London, in respect both to character, to the amount of their business, and the eminence of their abilities; but had he been required to establish the whole case, he should have called before that Committee witnesses from every branch of trade in the city of London, all testifying to the like apprehensions arising out of the peculiar nature of the transactions in their respective branches of business. It would be presumptuous in him to attempt to discuss with the learned authorities in that House the legal bearings of the question; but he was bound to say that the merchants and traders of every kind and description to whom he had referred, who were men of great intelligence and ability, were very capable of tracing out the legal bearings of provisions of this nature, and that they were fortified in all their apprehensions by the authority and advice of the professional persons in the city by whom they were usually guided. Moreover, while
1158
they were prepared to bow with great respect and deference to high legal authorities undertaking to declare what the law was and to administer it, they felt considerable apprehension when the same legal authorities came down to determine what the law ought to be, when they found that the reasons and arguments by which those legal authorities were guided, indicated the absence of a sufficient knowledge of the details of the various transactions of business and of the complicated circumstances which belonged to the course of contracts in each respective branch of trade; and at the same time they ventured to think that they were as competent judges as to what forms were applicable to matters of trade and commerce, and as to what dangers and difficulties would arise to commence from the application of particular forms of law, as the highest legal authorities that existed. He had thought it necessary to say thus much by way of caution. In that House it was impossible to contend against the combined legal opinions which undoubtedly existed in favour of the proposed clause: he had discharged his duty in representing the feelings of the mercantile body in regard to this Bill; and he rejoiced, therefore, that it must go down to another assembly, where the mercantile interests were more adequately represented than in that House, and where the objections to the measure would be more ably put forward, and, he believed, with greater effect than they could be in their Lordships' House.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had a strong conviction that the Bill would be as much approved of in the House of Commons as by their Lordships, and that by the bulk of the mercantile community the present law was condemned. It did more harm than good; it covered frauds, and did not prevent them. It was an error to imagine that it required contracts for the sale of goods to be always in writing, for it dispensed with it when there was either part payment or part delivery; and necessarily dispensed with it in those cases, for surely if the purchaser had paid his money he must have his goods, or if the seller had delivered the goods he ought to have the price. But these three exceptions ate up the rule, and gave rise to enormous litigation of the very nature it was intended to prevent. Last term the Court in which he presided had been occupied two days on

1159
this question. A horse was bought by word of mouth; and the seller then begged to retain him for a few days, and was allowed so to do. The buyer then refused to receive the horse. The Court held this borrowing of him by the seller equivalent to a delivery, and sufficient to satisfy the statute. The books swarmed with cases of that kind.
LORD ST. LEONARDSremarked, that this showed that the statute had received a large amount of judicial illustrations.
LORD CAMPBELL: At an enormous expense to suitors.
LORD ST. LEONARDS: Then the public have paid a large price for the judicial exposition of this statute, and should not be deprived of it just when its construction was settled.
LORD CAMPBELL: It is more unsettled than ever.
LORD ST. LEONARDS: No wonder if the Court of Queen's Bench take two days to deal with a trumpery case about a horse, such as we have had described. But decisions on such points had nothing to do with the substance and object of the statute, which applied to land as well as goods, and all the objections urged against the sections applying to goods equally applied to the sections relating to land. And some day it would be said, "Why retain the enactment as to land when it has been swept away with regard to goods?" And were their Lordships prepared to say that verbal bargains should dispose of estates? The argument that delivery or payment was proveable by verbal evidence had no weight, for delivery and payment were facts easily proved, and were different from the terms of a contract, which few persons could recollect accurately. He thought the noble Lord (Lord Overstone) did wisely not to divide the House; but he doubted, with him, the policy of an alteration made against the opinion of the great merchants and traders of the city of London.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYadmitted that the higher class of merchants in the city of London were opposed to the alteration of the existing law; but against that he had to state, that no inconvenience had been experienced from the law of Scotland, which was different from that of England; that the practice of the whole north of England was in conformity with the law of Scotland; and that more than a half of all the pecuniary transactions of England connected with buying and selling were
1160
conducted in defiance of the law, and without the slightest security that the parties would be able to enforce their contracts. Having stated those facts, he thought he had established a case which called for legislation, and laid a ground for asking their Lordships to supply the mercantile classes with a security which they did not at present possess. If they altered the law as now proposed, no person would be precluded from still requiring a written contract, while the great bulk of the mercantile community would be relieved from a difficulty of which they had long complained.
Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.
LORD RAVENSWORTH, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it would not be necessary for him, on the present occasion, as he had no reason to anticipate any opposition to the measure, to refer in detail to the advantages which might be expected to arise from the establishment of reformatory and industrial schools, by which the endeavour was made to check the source of crime by sending juvenile offenders to these institutions, and removing them from the contamination of bad parents. Such institutions would undoubtedly form one great means of drying up the sources of crime. That crime had recently increased was unhappily proved by statistics, and if that increase had taken place under disadvantageous circumstances—if there had been any redundancy of population or scarcity of employment, or if wages had been reduced—we could not have been surprised at the fact, however we might have deplored it. But at no time had there been such general prosperity in the agricultural, manufacturing, and mining districts, as had existed during the last few years, and yet, in the face of that prosperity, and of all the pains that had been taken to improve the condition of the labouring and mining population, there had unquestionably been an increase of crime in this country. The main objects of the present Bill were to simplify the existing modes of committing young persons to reformatory schools, to give to parents the power of removing their children from one school to another, and to give facilities for the proper identification of children. The Bill, which amended

1161
the provisions of the 17 & 18 Vict., c. 86, and the Scotch Act brought in by Mr. Dunlop, had received the sanction and concurrence of the Government, and three or four of the clauses had been brought in by the Home Secretary in the other House. He anticipated no opposition to the measure, but, should any be offered, he hoped to be able to produce satisfactory reasons why their Lordships should look upon it with favour. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
After a few words from the Earl of HARROWBY, in approval of the measure,
Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.
House adjourned till To-morrow.