Lords Sitting of 22 June 1857

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Bishop of Exeter.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1aCoal Whippers Offences against the Person; Larceny, &c.; Malicious Injuries to Property; Libel; Forgery; Coinage Offences; Accessories and Abettors; Deer, Game, and Rabbits.

OPIUM TRADE WITH CHINA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that it would be recollected that some time since he brought before the House the subject of the legality of the opium trade, carried on by the East India Company with China, and the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack promised to take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the subject. He begged to ask the noble and learned Lord, whether the question of the legality or illegality of this trade had been submitted to the consideration of the law officers of the Crown, in accordance with the promise which had upon a former occasion been made by the Government; and, if so, when that opinion was likely to be given?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that subsequent to the statement which was made by his noble Friend upon the subject in that House a case was prepared upon which it was proposed that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown should be taken. The case thus prepared was submitted to the authorities at the India House in order to ascertain whether the facts set forth in it were correctly stated. It was found upon communication with the President of the Board of Control that the facts were not considered to be so stated, and the document containing the case was at present under revision. The question had, in consequence, been suspended for a short period, but it was by no means the intention of the Government to delay submitting it to the notice of the law officers of the Crown beyond the time which must necessarily be occupied in endeavouring to secure a correct representation of the facts.

CANNON—QUESTION.
LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the War Department. During the late War in the Crimea, when artillery of a heavy calibre was much required, a firm in this country very patriotically contributed a gun of very large calibre, which, having been proved, was presented by them to the Government, on the condition that it would be employed at a very early opportunity against the enemy. Before it could be so used, however, the war was brought to a close, and he believed the gun was now lying at Shoeburyness. What he wished to know was, whether the noble Lord would have
108
any objection to employ this piece of artillery against an enemy with whom we were now at war in another hemisphere—the Chinese? He saw no reason why this gun should not be employed in hostilities in that country, and he wished to ask the noble Lord if he was prepared to redeem the pledge given by employing this piece of artillery in China? There was another point on which he wished to ask a question. He had been informed that six guns of large calibre, constructed upon a new principle for loading at the breech—a principle which was prohibited by patent—had been purchased in America. The manufacturers in this country considered that those arms might just as well have been east in this country, and he should be glad if the noble Lord would inform him whether the report was correct.
LORD PANMUREsaid, that with regard to the first question of the noble Lord no doubt the gun had been presented to the Government—or rather to the country—by the firm in question; but he was not aware that any distinct pledge had been given that it should be used soon against the enemy. It had been intended to so use it, but fortunately the return of peace had prevented that intention being carried into effect. It had not, however, remained in perfect inactivity at Shoeburyness, because a variety of experiments had been made with the view of testing its effects at various ranges and with various charges; though these experiments had been imperfect owing to the difficulty of constructing a carriage for such a piece of ordnance. With regard to using it against the Chinese, it was thought that the ordinary artillery would be sufficient for the purpose of that warfare, and that it would not be desirable to give up a vessel for the purpose of conveying that gun to China. With regard to the other question, the facts were, that an American gentleman had discoved a system for loading guns at the breech, and that system had been referred to the Select Committee appointed to inquire into inventions of that character, and was by them very favourably reported upon, and upon that report the Government had purchased the six guns referred to by the noble Lord. It was quite true that if the inventor had been in England those guns could, with his assistance, have been cast in this country; but they could not be cast without his leave, as the invention was protected by a patent. He was not

109
however, in this country, and therefore those guns had been purchased in America, and he believed that they would prove of considerable service.

THE CASE OF MR. DIXON.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLErose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for—
  "A Copy of the Memorial of Frederick Beverley Dixon, Esquire, of Castlewood House, Darrow, Queen's County, to The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, delivered to His Excellency on or about the 13th of July, 1854, praying for an Inquiry into the Conduct of David Brudenell Franks, Esquire, Stipendiary Magistrate, who illegally arrested and imprisoned the Memorialist's Son, a Child of between Six and Seven Years of Age, and committed other Acts contrary to Law in connection with the Prosecution of the Memorialist on a false Charge of Conspiracy to murder one Thomas Brophy, of which Charge he was acquitted at the Spring Assizes at Maryborough in 1854: Also,
  "Copy of the Memorial of the aforesaid F. B. Dixon to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, dated 6th December, 1856, praying that the Police Tax of One hundred and seventy-four Pounds Thirteen Shillings and Ninepence, which had been levied on his Property under the Crime and Outrage Act, in consequence of the said false Charge, may be refunded: And also,
  "Copy of the Answer of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury thereto, dated 1st January, 1857."
  The noble Earl said that the case of Mr. Dixon was of great importance to the due administration of justice. Mr. Dixon was a native of Norfolk, and had practised for upwards of eighteen years as a medical man in Norwich, where he married a lady named Gardner, the daughter of a Chancery barrister and one of the magistrates for the county of Westmoreland. Mr. Dixon removed in 1850 to Ireland, for the purpose of engaging in agricultural pursuits, and accordingly rented a farm at Castlewood, in Queen's County, for that purpose. In the year 1854 he got into an altercation with a peasant tenant named Brophy, which resulted in Mr. Dixon giving him notice to quit. Immediately afterwards Brophy brought a charge against Mr. Dixon of a conspiracy to murder him, by firing at him from behind a hedge, on a certain day in February. Absurd as the charge might appear, it found ready credence with Mr. Franks, one of the stipendiary magistrates, and who, appearing to be convinced of the guilt of Mr. Dixon,
  110
  thought any means justified the desired end—namely, the conviction of Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon had two children, the eldest of whom, a child between six and seven years of age, was accustomed to be taken to school, a distance of about two miles from Castlewood House. On the 20th February, Mr. Franks seized upon the child and conveyed him prisoner to the police barracks at Castle Darrow, and from thence to the county gaol at Maryborough, where he was kept in confinement for seventeen days, in order that he might give evidence to hang his own father and mother. The extraordinary trial took place on the 9th of March, 1854, before the Chief Justice Monaghan, and Mr. and Mrs. Dixon were exposed to the public gaze in the felons' dock on a charge of conspiracy to murder. It appeared that Brophy was in the habit of wearing a close-fitting cap; but on the day of the occurrence he wore a high crowned hat, which was produced in court. There were two holes through it, and the Chief Justice on examining it found that they had been made from the inside, in the Irish fashion. It would be a waste of time to tell their Lordships that, under these circumstances the jury, without a moment's hesitation, acquitted the prisoners. In reference to that trial the Lord Chief Baron, in another trial connected with the same business, thus expressed himself—
  "I think no jury could possibly arrive at any other conclusion than that of acquittal. For myself, I have not the slightest shadow of a doubt as to the perfect innocence of Dixon. I have read the information of the child, and I have often before seen extraordinary depositions, but I never saw so extraordinary and incredible a one as this."
  When Mrs. Dixon first heard of the unlawful arrest of her child she became in a frantic state, and went to the barracks to recover him. She was there rudely repulsed by the constables. From that period up to the trial she was kept up by excitement, but immediately afterwards she fell a victim to the persecution she had undergone, and died of a broken heart. Prior to the trial, and also subsequent to it, the magistrates of Castle Darrow, in consequence of this charge against Mr. Dixon, petitioned the Lord Lieutenant to send a party of police to the district, under the Crime and Outrage Act. Accordingly, a police force was sent down, although no crime or outrage had been committed by Mr. Dixon or any other person in the townland, and although there

  111
  was not a tittle of evidence to show that an increase of the police force in that quarter was necessary. He now wished to call attention to the excessive amount of impost which was laid on Mr. Dixon. The townland comprised 337 acres, 212 of which were in the occupation of Mr. Dixon, and the portion of the rate he had to pay amounted to £34 13 s. 9d. a quarter, being equal to the whole amount of the rent. The whole sum which he paid in respect of this impost was £174 13 s. 9d. In July, 1854, he petitioned the Lord Lieutenant for an Inquiry into the conduct of the stipendiary magistrate, and also for the remission of this tax, which was continued after his acquittal from this false charge. Now, he (the Earl of Albemarle) believed that the Lord Lieutenant at that time (the Earl of St. Germans) was incapable of intentionally doing an injustice to any person, but he believed that he had been ill-advised in this case in refusing both the requests of Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon was given to understand that if he had any complaint to make against the stipendiary magistrate he must seek redress in a court of law. He accordingly did bring an action against him; but in consequence of the Orange tinge which spread over the politico-religious sentiments of the good Protestants in that part of Queen's County, he wisely and prudently changed the venue to Dublin. The action was there tried by a special jury, and Mr. Dixon obtained a verdict of £500 against Mr. Franks, the stipendiary magistrate. Mr. Dixon did not now seek any reparation against that gentleman, but he wished to have refunded the sum of £174 13 s. 9d., with which he contended he had been unjustly charged, under the Crime and Outrage Act. This year an application had been made to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to that effect, but it had been refused without any reason being assigned for the refusal. It was with the view of giving some Member of the Government an opportunity of making a statement that he (the Earl of Albemarle) had brought the subject under the notice of their Lordships. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Address for the Papers referred to.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSthanked his noble Friend for giving notice of his Motion, as it had enabled him to refresh his memory as to the particulars of the case. So far from complaining of the Motion, or the speech by which it was
  112
  accompanied, ho thought that if, as his noble Friend believed, Mr. Dixon was an aggrieved person, he had done no more than his duty in placing his case for redress before the House; and he had submitted that case to their Lordships in a speech characterized by great forbearance and discretion, as well as by a friendly spirit. It was unnecessary to advert to all the circumstances of the accusation against Mr. Dixon, as the noble Earl did not ask that further proceedings should be taken against Mr. Franks, his sole object being to obtain a reimbursement of the money of which he believed he had been mulcted on account of the extra police force in his neighbourhood, and he (Earl St. Germans) would therefore confine himself to that point. He must say, however, that he thought it was hardly fair to Mr. Franks to make this serious charge against him when he had no opportunity of defending; himself. He really believed that Mr. Franks was not actuated in this matter by any unworthy motives. He was a magistrate of great experience, intelligence, and integrity, and totally unprejudiced against Mr. Dixon. But he (Earl St. Germans) wished to show, by reading extracts from certain papers he held in his hands, their Lordships that he did not exercise the discretionary power with which the Lord Lieutenant was vested by the Crime and Outrage Act on insufficient grounds in this particular instance. The first document he would refer to was a resolution agreed to at a public meeting of the magistrates of Queen's County, held at Castle Darrow on February 3,1854, and presided over by the Lord Lieutenant of the county, Lord de Vesci. That resolution related the circumstances of Brophy of Castlewood being fired at on his way home between eight and nine o'clock at night, and requested the Government to offer a reward for the apprehension of the guilty party; and in consequence of the danger in which the man's life was placed from the threats which had at various times been made to him, strongly recommended the Government to send a party of police to the locality, under the Crime and Outrage Act, to be chargeable on the townsland, but suggesting that Thomas Brophy should be exempted from that charge. The magistrates who signed that resolution included Lord Ashbrook, Mr. Deasy, M.P., and others. The Irish Government also received a memorial from

  113
  Mr. Dixon, protesting against this measure, and a second one from another party, and these were transmitted to the Lord Lieutenant of the county, Lord de Vesci, who returned answer that he had carefully examined them, and that he entirely differed from most of the allegations of Mr. Dixon; that he held an investigation in conjunction with the magistrates, and, after a long and searching inquiry, they were fully convinced that such an outrage had taken place, and that a shot had been fired at Brophy with intent to take away his life; and his Lordship added that nothing had since taken place to alter his opinion upon the point; and his Lordship repudiated, in the strongest manner, Mr. Dixon's charge that the magistrates had desired the police force to be sent from personal feelings against him. On the 13th of July, in the same year, after the trial he (the Earl of St. Germans) received a deputation consisting of Mr. Dixon and other parties in favour of withdrawing the additional police force in the district; and his answer to them was that it would not be consistent with his duty in preserving the public peace to comply with their request, and that it was a satisfaction to him to find that he was confirmed in that view by the opinions of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and all the county magistrates, including those resident in the district, as well as by those of the law officers of the Crown, and the Judge who tried the case. On the 24th of August following, Mr. Franks, the resident magistrate, wrote saying the necessity for an extra police force still continued; and on the 24th of December, 1856, nearly three years after this proceeding, he sent another letter to the same effect, and up to the present day it had not been thought expedient by the Government to remove the force. These facts would at least show that he (Earl St. Germans) did not act capriciously, nor in an arbitrary manner, but obtained the best information he could on the subject, and acted upon that information to the best of his judgment. He might mention, also, that although the production of these papers was ordered on the 20th of July, 1854, by the House of Commons, on the Motion of Mr. O'Brien, and were laid on the table on the 13th of August in the same year, up to the present moment, neither that hon. Member nor any other hon. Member had moved that they should be printed. As to the Motion of the noble Earl he would neither oppose nor support
  114
  it, being perfectly content to leave the matter to be dealt with by their Lordships as they should think fit.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he thought the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Albemarle) ought to have informed himself more accurately as to the facts before he cast wholesale on so respectable and honourable a body of men as the magistrates of the Queen's County, imputations of this serious nature—imputations which he defied him to prove. As to Mr. Franks, he believed that gentleman to be entirely incapable of the conduct which had been laid to his charge; but what he wished to ask the noble Earl who had spoken last was, whether the Government had paid the damages and costs in the action for false imprisonment, in which Mr. Dixon had recovered £500, because, if they had done so, they adopted the conduct of Mr. Franks and completely exonerated him.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, that, speaking to the best of his recollection, he believed that the costs and damages were paid by the Government, who believed that Mr. Franks had acted honestly according to the best of his judgment. As regarded the child, he was placed in the charge of the wife of the governor of the prison, in order that he might be separated from his parents.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONwished to know out of what fund the damages were paid? There was a fund in Ireland called "the secret service money" at the disposal of the Lord Lieutenant, and that probably was the fund called upon for the purpose.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSbelieved the money was paid by the Government out of that fund, but not having had notice of the question he was unable to answer it exactly.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsuggested that if the practice was to be that the Government should pay the damages and costs when a magistrate exceeded his duty and a verdict went against him, it ought to be generally known, and the same rule should be applicable to England as well as to Ireland. He hoped the papers would be laid on the table, that they might be able to form a more correct opinion upon the merits of the case.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there was no objection to the production of all the papers relating to the subject.
  Motion agreed to.

THIRD REPORT OF THE STATUTE LAW COMMISSION—BILLS PRESENTED.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had to call the attention of their Lordships to a subject very different from that with which they had just been occupied, but one of very great importance—namely, the Third Report of the Statute Law Commission; and he should conclude the observations he had to make by asking their Lordships to give a first reading to eight Bills, the object of each of which was the consolidation into a single statute of the whole of the law relating to an important portion of the Criminal law, and which were now dispersed over a great number of statutes. These Bills had been prepared by the Members of the Commission appointed in 1854 for the purpose of considering the expediency and possibility of consolidating the statute law of this country. This was a subject that had at all times occupied the attention of lawyers, and one which had been considered of the utmost importance from the earliest times of our legal history. It had been pointed out by Bacon, Coke, and Hale as one that the Legislature ought in some way or other to undertake. But all their recommendations ended in nothing. Finally, about forty years ago—in 1816—a Resolution was passed by their Lordships' House in favour of this work being undertaken, and carried into execution by our most distinguished lawyers. That Resolution was communicated to the other House in it; that House expressed its entire concurrence. There however, he regretted—or rather he was ashamed—to say, the matter ended, for no steps were taken to remedy the evil. If, however, that was an evil forty years ago, he need not say that in our day the evil had become infinitely more pressing; for there were every year added to the statute book from 100 to 150 Acts, so that no lawyer, even the most profound, ever pretended that he was able to make himself master of all the statutes of the realm. In order to remedy this state of things, in the year 1854 the Crown issued a Commission directed to a number of distinguished lawyers for the purpose of investigating the whole question. The first point which the Commission took into consideration was the different modes by which the object they had in view might be attained; and finally they came to the conclusion that it was better far to attempt to do something than to speculate on what might be the best man-
116
ner of curing the evil. The difficulties which they had to encounter were undoubtedly enormous. It was suggested that they should at once proceed to systematize and consolidate some portion of the law. That appeared plausible, and no doubt was the correct mode of framing a code of laws; but then the duty laid on the Commission was not to frame a code of laws, but to consolidate the law as it now existed. After various dicussions, and having attempted in the first instance to take up what were called groups of statutes, and made some progress in that work, they found that it would not do, and that the only way to make any impression on the statute book was to take different subjects and consolidate all the laws relating to each of those subjects. This was not only attended with great difficulty, but with great danger. If they knew that any specified statutes contained all the provisions relating to a given subject, the task would have been easy; but there was not a single subject to which their attention was likely to be directed which was not probably treated of in many enactments; and it was impossible to be sure that every statute, or part of a statute, relating to a subject could be found and consolidated, and that some would not remain undiscovered, and, therefore, unconsolidated. In. order, therefore, to proceed with certainty the Commission employed some gentlemen of great information and research to commence a register of the statutes, beginning with the statutes of the previous year, taking statute by statute and clause by clause of every statute, from chapter 1 of last Session to the end. These Gentlemen went to work, marking every enactment and every section, and every previous enactment to which any section referred, either in the way of repeal or modification. This implied great labour; but he was satisfied, in common with most eminent lawyers, that if the Statute Law Commission had done nothing else but complete this work they would have done something that was extremely valuable, for without such a process it would be impossible to make any progress in the consolidation of the law. It would now, however, be possible to publish an edition of the statutes containing all the enactments actually in force. But beyond that it would scarcely be believed how much that process had reduced the statute book in bulk. With the assistance of a very learned Member of the Bar the Com-

117
missioners then proceeded to divide the statutes into classes. He might remind their Lordships that there was a class of statutes which the public in general had very little to do with except in the year in which they were passed—those relating to the army and navy, passed every year, and some relating to the revenue and financial subjects. They next proceeded to divide statutes into classes ranged according to the extent of their operation, those relating to the United Kingdom being placed in one class, those applying to England alone in another, and so on, making in all thirteen classes. In that operation they had not proceeded beyond Her Majesty's reign; but of the Acts passed during the last twenty years it was found that one-third did not form what might properly be called the law of the country, such as the Appropriation Act, and all acts the force of which expired after a limited period. Taking out those statutes, the Commissioners proceeded to ascertain how many of the remainder applied to the United Kingdom. They found that only one-third so applied; and therefore three-fourths of the statutes which had been passed during the twenty years of Her Majesty's reign could form no portion of the statute law book if that book were to consist merely of laws which regulated the conduct of Her Majesty's lieges. The Commission had not gone further back than Her Majesty's reign; but when the operation was extended it would be found that the numbers of statutes to be excluded would be continually increasing, and the labour of consolidation be as continually diminishing; but still they could not be sure of embodying all the statutes upon each subject until they had gone through all the statutes from Victoria to Magna Charta. It might, then, be said that the examination not having been concluded no consolidation could be made. The commissioners had considered that point, and had come to the conclusion that upon some subjects of a popular nature, of which consolidation would be eminently useful, it would be undesirable to postpone action, merely because some prior enactments might possibly be overlooked. They had therefore selected a number of subjects, as to which it appeared probable that the consolidation would be perfect. Amongst these, acting upon the recommendation of a Committee of their Lordships' House in 1854, that the formation of a criminal code should be post-
118
poned, but that a consolidation should be effected, they had taken the criminal law. Besides the criminal law, they selected several other subjects in which they considered consolidation could be made tolerably perfect, depending as they did upon recent statutes, such as the laws relating to bills of exchange, to patents, to ecclesiastical leases, savings banks, &c. In all they had consolidated sixty-five statutes, besides nine others, which were now in the hands of the gentlemen who assisted the Commission. It must be understood that although the Commission employed the most skilled draughtsmen they could find, yet they had not asked Parliament to sanction any Bills which had not been gone through with the utmost care by those members of the Commission best qualified to judge of their merits. The Bills relating to the criminal law had been gone through by the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice, by the late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, by a gentleman who was of the utmost assistance to the Commission, Mr. Greaves, and by Sir FitzRoy Kelly. These Bills he laid upon the table at the close of the last Session; but in the interval before reintroducing them this Session, it occurred to him that improvements might be made in them. They had been framed to include all indictable offences, but some offences became indictable after one or two previous summary convictions, and he thought it would be better to alter the shape of the Bills, and make them relate to offences whether indictable or punishable by some other mode. He (the Lord Chancellor) had gone through the Bills with Mr. Greaves, and he now asked their Lordships to read them a first time. They did not include all the subjects embraced in the Bills of last year, some of which he thought could be deferred without much inconvenience, especially criminal procedure, which ought not to be dealt with pending the inquiries now being made by the Government in consequence of an Address presented last Session to Her Majesty by the House of Commons upon the subject of the department of criminal justice. They had also postponed dealing with the subject of treason and offences; against the State, which were not of a pressing nature. The eight Bills which he now asked the House to read a first time related to—1. Offences against the Person; 2. Larceny; 3. Malicious Injuries to Pro-

119
perty; 4. Libel; 5. Forgery; 6. Coinage Offences; 7. Accessories and Abettors; 8. The Game Laws; which, although relating to a species of larceny, it had been thought best to deal with in a separate Bill. If he were asked whether those Bills were mere consolidations, he must reply that they were not; for the Commissioners had not felt themselves justified in overlooking the decision of the House in 1854, that in any Bills which might be prepared it was desirable that the Amendments that had been suggested by the Criminal Law Commissioners, and which had met with universal approval, should be embodied. Those alterations, he thought, would lead to no difference of opinion. Such, then, were the Bills which he proposed to lay on the table. There were several others quite ready to be laid before Parliament, but he thought it would be more convenient that they should be introduced in the other House. He thought he ought to tell their Lordships further that in proceeding with their work the Commissioners had come to several conclusions different from those to which they had arrived when they first considered the subject. It was felt that there were many ancient statutes, for example, which could not and ought not to be consolidated. It would be ridiculous pedantry to consolidate Magna Charta, the Act Quia Emptores, and other old statutes of the same class, which formed the basis rather than the superstructure of the statute law. The Commissioners had therefore come to the conclusion that with regard to all statutes of that sort they could do nothing in the way of consolidation. There were also a number of statutes expressed in such curious language and framed in so different a style from that of modern times, that if the Commissioners were simply to consolidate them, retaining as much as possible the old language, they would produce a piece of patchwork which it would not be creditable to lay before Parliament. One of the subjects to which that observation applied was the law relating to landlord and tenant, upon which a Bill had been prepared with singular care and skill by Mr. Bissett, a gentleman of some standing at the bar. There had been enactments upon the relations between landlord and tenant from the time of the Plantagenets down to the reign of Queen Victoria, and the Commissioners found that to consolidate all these into one statute would involve their being entirely re-
120
written, if it were desired to have the language harmonious throughout. Moreover, the language of the greater part of them had received a judicial construction, and there was great danger that in modernizing it the Commissioners might not be able to adhere to that construction. There were a great number of other statutes which, though comparatively modern, had yet been amended by one or two subsequent Acts, but in which the alterations were so few or unimportant that it would be a waste of time to consolidate them, either alone or in connection with the amending statutes. For example, in 1838 was passed an Act regulating the mode of framing, and in some respects of construing wills; but in consequence of some difficulties which arose in carrying it into operation a few years afterwards an amending Bill was introduced and carried through Parliament. He was not sure whether, in consolidating the law relating to real property, the Commissioners had consolidated these two statutes, or not; but they certainly came to the conclusion that it would be absurd pedantry to consolidate such modern statutes of that sort as had but few additions made to them, thinking it better that the original statute and the subsequent Act amending it should be taken together. So with respect to the statute abolishing fines and recoveries. Again, there were a number of statutes which could not be repealed, and yet which it would be equally absurd to consolidate. The Wills Act, which he had already mentioned, afforded a good illustration of his meaning. Before the passing of that Act in 1838 there was a law of Charles II. which regulated, up to that time, the formalities necessary with respect to wills. That law must still remain in force with regard to all wills made before 1838, but it would be hardly worth while to consolidate it. So with respect to the Tithe Commutation Act, which was fast working itself out, and which it would, therefore, be a waste of time to consolidate. There were other statutes in the same position; but after all deductions there still remained a very great number of subjects which the Commissioners had no difficulty in dealing with, and with which they were determined to proceed until their labours were concluded. He did not think that he could usefully occupy the time of their Lordships by stating more in detail the course which the Commissioners had been pursuing. It had

121
been said that the Statute Law Commission had done nothing at all. If it was meant that they had introduced no Bills which had become law the statement was perfectly true. They could not possibly have done so. The difficulties had been great, but he trusted that they had now found their way to do good service; and if their Lordships would render their assistance in laying before the public that which would at all events be a useful specimen of the labours of the Commissioners, he was in hopes that in the course of a few years they might be able to reduce the forty or fifty volumes of statutes now in existence to ten, two, or three. The noble and learned Lord concluded by presenting the following eight Bills:—
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to Offences against the Person [Offences against the Person Bill].
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to Larceny and other similar Offences [Larceny, &c. Bill].
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to malicious Injuries to Property [Malicious Injuries to Property Bill].
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Libel [Libel Bill].
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to indictable Offences by Forgery [Forgery Bill].
A Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws against Offences relating to the Coin [Coinage Offences Bill].
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Accessories to and Abettors of Indictable Offences [Accessories and Abettors Bill].
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to Deer, Game, and Rabbits [Deer, Game, and Rabbits Bill].
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he entirely approved the course which had been taken by his noble and learned Friend. Great misrepresentations had been made with respect to the Statute Law Commission, and he was glad that his noble and learned Friend had described exactly what the Commissioners had done and how far their labours of consolidation had proceeded. He was not prepared at that moment to go into the several subjects which had been broached by his noble and learned Friend, but he could not help remarking that the consolidation of the statute law apart from the consolidation of the common law was open to serious objection. There were many important parts of the law under its different heads which were not contained in the statutes, and to tell the people that they had to obey the latter only was merely to mislead and deceive
122
them. The statement of the noble and learned Lord as to the value of the services of the Commissioners was by no means exaggerated, and if he were asked to mention one or two of the Commissioners who were more especially entitled to the thanks of the country, he would mention the names of Mr. Bellenden Ker, Mr. Coulson, and Sir FitzRoy Kelly.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had no hesitation in concurring with his noble and learned Friend in approbation of the course adopted by the noble Lord on the woolsack, and he was sure their Lordships would willingly give these Bills a first reading. But he hoped the noble and learned Lord would be contented with that during the present Session, because it was desirable to see the work of consolidation as a whole, and to detect inaccuracies which, even with the utmost care, might still be discovered. He had never doubted that the whole statute law might be consolidated, but such statutes as that of the reign of Edward III. with regard to treason ought to be given in ipsissimis verbis in which they were originally enacted—it would evidently be most unwise to attempt to consolidate them.
The said Bills were then severally read 1a.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES.

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  LORD ABINGERsaid, that in moving for the Return of which he had given notice, he must in the first place disclaim any disrespect towards the members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, who had been educated in the faith of their forefathers. He must, however, be permitted to say that he thought the Bill which stood on the paper for Second Reading to-morrow (the Roman Catholic Charities Bill) was likely to raise questions similar to those which had recently caused so much agitation in Belgium. There would, he thought, be little difficulty in, furnishing the returns for which he was about to move, while he believed that their production would be of the utmost importance in order to enable the Government to legislate upon the subject of Roman Catholic charities with advantage. He was strongly the advocate of inquiry previous to legislation being entered upon, and he felt assured that the Government would act wisely in postponing the Bill he had referred to until such inquiry had taken place, and until they should be in a position

  123
  to introduce a measure of a general nature, regulating the acquisition of property held in trust for the use of Roman Catholic and Protestant charities alike. It was most desirable, in his opinion, that the acquisition of such property should be fenced round with those precautions and safeguards which would prevent it from being turned to the advantage of insidious and designing persons, and he must contend that if the Bill to which he had adverted were passed the title to the description of property in question would be confirmed, no matter how contrary the form of its tenure to the provisions of the Statutes of Mortmain. It was a mistake to suppose that the interests of Roman Catholics generally were involved in the matter. The fact was that it was the Roman Catholic priests and the immediate agents of the Pope whom the Bill would benefit, and in support of that view of the case he might state that the evidence which had been given by the most intelligent and respectable witnesses who had been examined before the late Mortmain Committee went to show that what was most desirable for the benefit of the Roman Catholic laity was the application of the principles of the law of mortmain to personal property. It became, therefore, expedient to consider whether the uses to which any particular property was devoted were in themselves lawful, and how far it was in accordance with a sound policy to sanction its application to the use of monasteries, for instance, which were illegal institutions. To establish the principle that Roman Catholics might accumulate property for charitable purposes to any extent would be to take the best means of promoting the spread of the Roman Catholic religion in this country, and would be to walk in the path which had been trodden by Austria, by Italy, and by Spain, with what results he need not recall to the attention of the House. Their Lordships might depend upon it that if they were to bring about anything like equality between the power of the Roman Catholics, founded upon the possession of property, and that of the Established Church, they would be preparing the way for the outbreak of civil dissension; and it was therefore that he felt called upon to urge upon the House the necessity of proceeding in the matter with the utmost caution. The noble Lord concluded by moving that there be laid before this House—
  "Return of Property in Lands, Mortgages,
  124
  Houses, and Government Securities held in Trust or otherwise affected to the Use of Roman Catholic Charities in Great Britain, describing the Locality and Extent of such Landed Property and the Amount and Nature of the Securities, the Names of the Trustees, and the particular Uses to which such Property is applicable."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble Lord was premature in making the present Motion. At present the Charity Commissioners had no jurisdiction over Roman Catholic charities, and therefore it would be impossible to procure the return moved for by the noble Lord. The Roman Catholic Charities Bill would be brought under the consideration of their Lordships to-morrow, and if that Bill passed into law, the returns moved for by the noble Lord might be procured in future; but at present it was impossible to procure them.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

MINISTERS' MONEY (IRELAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on the Ministers' Money (Ireland) Bill read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: Before the House decides upon putting the Bill into Committee, I beg to submit for the consideration of your Lordships, what appears to me to be a very sufficient reason for your not proceeding further with it. It is, I believe, an understood rule, that the result of any discussion upon the second reading of a Bill decides the question as to the adoption or rejection of the principle of the measure, and upon that question, after full debate, issue was joined upon the second reading of the Bill before the House. Now, my Lords, by the paper I hold in my hand, which is the record of the proceedings of the House giving the division list upon the occasion, I find it recorded that there was a majority of five in favour of the Bill; but the same record also shows, that the majority of the Peers present by whom the principle and provisions of the Bill had been discussed, who had fulfilled the duty of deliberating in this House upon the matters upon which they were to give advice to the Crown, decided by a majority of seventy-one to sixty-five, that the Bill should be rejected. These numbers, however, do not represent the total of those who were present at the debate, and who paired off either for or

  125
  against the measure before the House divided; I was, myself, one of ninety-four Peers who so left the House, before the debate had ended. So that the majority of six, that was first recorded against the Bill, in fact represented the decision of a House numbering 230 Peers present. How was this decision annulled, and a majority of six against the Bill changed into a majority of five in its favour? Why, by the proxies of those who did not attend, and who very probably knew nothing about the measure, in favour of winch their votes are recorded. The number of proxies were thirty-six for, twenty-five against the Bill; so that, in fact, the decision of 230 Peers present and deliberating was overborne and reversed by the vote that was called for of sixty-one absent non-deliberating Peers, probably unacquainted with the subject-matter of the debate. My Lords, such an anomaly can never have been contemplated in the exercise of the privilege of voting by proxy, and calls for consideration and correction in the Standing Orders of the House; but its bearing upon the question of the committal of the Bill must, I think, in reason and consistency be conclusive against your proceeding further with it. The preamble of the Bill, as of every Act of Parliament, winds up by the recital of these words, "be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled." Now, my Lords, these words would set forth what is plainly contrary to the fact. It cannot, with truth, be said of this Bill, that its enactment would be by and with the advice and consent of the Lords in Parliament assembled, as their decision was directly the reverse. To be consistent, you must say of this Bill, if it should become law, that it was enacted, contrary to the advice and consent of the assembled Peers, and without their authority, which, of course, you could not do, while the House of Lords is an essential part of the Legislature. Let it not be supposed, my Lords, that I undervalue the privilege of vote by proxy; I consider it a most valuable privilege and calculated to be of great public advantage if rightly used. What I deprecate is its abuse. As a general rule, I hold it to be the duty of a Peer to attend in his place in Parliament to advise upon the measures that may be submitted to the House; but there are occasions when, business or sick-
  126
  ness may prevent attendance, and some of the sagest and most venerated Members of the House are often compelled, by physical infirmity, to absent themselves. It is, I conceive, important to the conservative character of this House, that where the assembled Peers have adopted any measure of very questionable principle, the absent Peers should be enabled to record their opinions for or against the measure, so that if considered by the majority to be objectionable it may be rejected; and if adopted, it may have the general consent of the Peers absent or present; but it is quite a different thing where the assembled Peers have rejected the principle of a Bill, for absent Peers by their proxies to tender advice for its adoption; where such is the case, the usefulness of your Lordships' deliberations is at an end, and the Crown is deprived of the benefit of the advice and consent of this branch of the Legislature which is supposed to be tendered by those only who are in Parliament assembled. The Bill before the House, which has received a second reading, contrary to the advice and consent of the assembled Lords, involves principles most detrimental to the future good government of Ireland, and as a measure distinctly abolishing, without any compensation, an important branch of the property of the Established Church. I apprehend that the Crown cannot consent thereto consistently with the obligations solemnly accepted at the coronation. Surely, the House should pause before it sends forward such a Bill, and not allow Her Majesty to be advised to assent to it by absent Peers, who are probably ignorant of its provisions and contrary to the advice of that large assembly, whose deliberative voice was given against it. Had those who voted by proxy been in their places, I have no doubt they would have increased, instead of reversing the majority against the Bill; for, though they would have heard the arguments, such as they were, that the noble President of the Council urged in favour of the Bill, they would also have heard the unanswered and unanswerable speech of the noble Earl, by whom it was opposed (the Earl of Derby). Far be it from me to speak disparagingly of the abilities of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) in recommending the measures of Government to the House. The noble Earl's addresses to the House are generally characterized by great ability and listened to with pleasure; but I never

  127
  heard him so weak and so painfully at a loss for argument, with which to carry out the duty that devolved upon him of recommending this Bill to the House. What he said, he appeared to address to those behind, who were in the same boat with himself, or to the bar of the House, where, of course, there was no one to hear him; but he rarely addressed this side of the House, and never once looked towards the Lord Chancellor, the keeper of the Queen's conscience. How different was the speech of the noble Earl on this side; how freely his address was directed to the whole assembly of the House; every argument he used, every sentiment he expressed, every word he uttered, appeared to find an echo with every one that heard him; and, I am sure, had the Peers, whose proxies were called for on the division, been present, many, if not all of them, would have joined with the majority of the House in repudiating the measure. I will not detain your Lordships further, by going into the merits of the Bill, but viewing as I do the statement in the preamble as not borne out by the facts of the case, I think right to move, that the Committee on the Bill be deferred to this day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and insert "this day six months."
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, there is no person who feels more strongly than I do the demerits of this Bill, or who more objects to the principle, or rather to the want of principle, by which it is characterized; but I think my noble Friend on consideration will see that the present state of the House would render his Motion, to say the least, injudicious. I must also confess that I cannot altogether coincide in the arguments which have been used by my noble Friend, because they would go to say either that the system of voting by proxy should be abandoned, or—what my noble Friend seemed rather to point at—that proxies might be given on one side but not on the other. Had that been so, we should the other night have had a most satisfactory majority, and might have had no scruples of conscience at availing ourselves of that addition. However, we have the comfort of knowing—what to me is very satisfactory—that of the Peers present and who heard the debate there was a majority against the Bill. At the same time, I cannot flatter myself that listening to the arguments would have had any influence upon the minds of those who voted by proxy in its favour. That is
  128
  a general principle; and, while my noble Friend has been speaking, I have been confirmed in my fears that such would not have been the case by looking over the list of Peers whose proxies were given. Looking through them generally, a set of Peers less likely to be convinced by argument I never saw. To speak seriously on this matter, however, I cannot help feeling that the difficulty of enforcing the existing law would be materially increased by the fact of a Bill for its repeal having received the sanction, not only of the other House of Parliament, but also of a small majority of this House; and, so far as I am myself concerned, although I continue to regard it as dangerous both in precedent and principle, it is not my wish to take any part in opposing the further progress of this Bill. I adhere to all the objections which I expressed the other evening, and I cannot help pressing on the reconsideration of Her Majesty's Government the very dangerous precedent which is involved in this Bill. For what does it do? By this Bill a tax on the one hand and a right to receipt on the other, which have subsisted for 200 years, and which were confirmed by a Parliamentary sanction only three years ago, are to be abolished, simply for the reason that the parties upon whom three years ago Parliament imposed the duty of collecting the tax tell the Government to its face that they intend to violate the law. I cannot conceive any proceeding on the part of the Government more dangerous to all rights of property, more calculated to shake all confidence in Parliamentary titles, or more likely to remove the idea that Parliament will adhere to what it has done and sanctioned. For some time past there have been many and anxious discussions upon the grant to Maynooth; and upon what ground has that been mainly defended? That, whatever may be the merits of the case, there is an implied contract on the part of Parliament; that there has been a Parliamentary grant which ought not lightly to be tampered with. That grant goes back for a period of only twelve years since it was placed on the Consolidated Fund, for only fifty years from the time when it was first made; and I should like to know how it is to be supported in the face of this Bill which abolishes ministers' money, although it has endured for 200 years. In this case, too, you propose not only to do away with taxation, but also to exempt all persons from the payment of arrears due within the last

  129
  three years. I know that the Members of the Government will here meet me with the argument of expediency. They will say that these arrears form but a trifling sum, for the collection of which it is not worth while to keep up all the excitement and irritation, and to expose the Government to all the difficulties which now exist. I admit that. But see what you do. You say not only that in consequence of some persons having expressed their intention to violate the law they shall be freed from their obligations, but that persons who have violated the law shall have the benefit of their past violation, while those who have obeyed the law shall be placed in a worse position than those who have disobeyed it. Considering all these circumstances, I will ask Her Majesty's Government on which side the principle of expediency lies? I feel all the objections to this measure which I endeavoured to state—unsuccessfully I admit—the other evening. I think that the grievance of the tax has been altogether done away with by the Act of 1854, move especially by the provisions in that Act which enable the owners of property to redeem this tax at not more than fourteen years' purchase. I must say that I deeply lament, not so much from pecuniary considerations as upon the ground of principle, the course which Her Majesty's Government have—I believe reluctantly and unwillingly, and in the teeth of their former declarations with regard to this tax—pursued. At the same time, I admit that they have carried the second reading of this Bill. If they think fit to persevere with it, as I suppose they will, upon them must rest the responsibility. Liberavi animam meam. The division the other evening will serve as a solemn protest, on the ground of principle, of the majority of those present, and of a considerable minority of the Peers of England.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, that after what had fallen from the noble Earl, he would withdraw his Motion against the Committee; but if the Government persisted with the Bill, he should, on the Motion for the third reading, move that it be deferred until that day six months.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) has dealt so satisfactorily with the arguments of the noble Earl who first addressed your Lordships on this Bill that I shall not add a word in reference to the points on which he touched. Neither am I going to make
  130
  another speech on the principle of the Bill; but I must say that the course which the noble Earl opposite proposes to take in reference to this Bill is both judicious and consistent. It is judicious, because, as he very justly pointed out, the difficulties which stand in the way of the enforcement of the law would be very greatly increased by the majority which sanctioned the second reading of the Bill the other evening; and it is quite consistent that the noble Earl should still retain all his objections to the Bill, although he does not intend to offer any opposition to its further progress. With regard to the analogy which the noble Earl drew between the abolition of ministers' money and the withdrawal of the Maynooth grant I draw a great distinction between the two cases, for in this case we have provided for the maintenance of the ministers who have hitherto been in receipt of this fund—[Lord REDESDALE: Yes, out of their own pockets.]—whereas the disendowment of Maynooth would leave the professors without their salaries. The principle on which we have acted, and which I believe to be a sound principle, is that it will be greatly to the interests of the Church in Ireland to give up, for the sake of peace and goodwill, a small portion of its revenues, which we see now can readily be made up by a little economy. We thought it would be for the interest of the Church in Ireland to remove the only open sore which is now left; and it is upon this principle, and this principle alone, that I have ventured to advocate this Bill.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that after the course taken by Her Majesty's Government in this House in reference to this part of the subject, he should only bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice pro formâ but he wished, in justice to the petitioners, to point out how the position in which they were now placed differed from that in which they were placed when their petition was drawn up. When this Bill was before the late House of Commons at the commencement of the present year, the Commissioners saw in The Times newspaper that the right hon. Gentleman the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Horsman) had made a statement in that House, in regard to their revenues and the surplus then in their hands, which they conceived to be totally at variance with the truth. They imme-

  131
  diately waited on the Lord Lieutenant, with the Archbishop of Dublin at their head, and laid before him a true and exact statement of their revenue, showing that that which had been put down by the Irish Secretary as revenue was not revenue at all. To their astonishment, however, the statement was repeated by the same right hon. Gentleman in the present Parliament, and with an additional exaggeration. Their only resource, then, was to apply to their Lordships to be allowed to contradict this incorrect statement and to lay before them the true state of the case. No doubt the large majority by which this Bill had been affirmed in the other House had been greatly influenced by these very false statements; and he himself, opposed as he was to the principle of the Bill, if it could have been made clear that the Commissioners had such a surplus in their hands would not have voted against the Bill. But Her Majesty's Ministers in this House had taken a very different course, for they had acknowledged fairly and openly that there was no surplus. The Church Temporalties Act had always been considered in Ireland as a final settlement of the affairs of the Irish Church. It was well known that the funds applicable to the various purposes pointed out in that Act were not at that time in the hands of the Commissioners; it was a work of time to realize them:—and, now that the Commissioners were just placed in a position to carry out the intentions of the Church Temporalities Act, Parliament stepped in, snatched these funds out of their hands, and determined to apply them for the benefit of a certain number of the £10 householders in a few of the towns in Ireland. So that the great settlement of the Irish Church question was about to be upset for the clamour of a few £10 householders in Cork and other towns—for he believed that if the £10 householders of Dublin were canvassed upon the question, they would be found to be generally in favour of the continuance of the charge. This measure also, it should be remembered, did not originate with the Government, although Ministers had since adopted it. Looking at all these circumstances, and at the quarter from which the Bill proceeded, he was very much surprized that the Government had taken charge of it. Equally surprized was he at the manner in which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had abandoned his opposition to the Bill. The Archbishop of Dublin—generally a supporter
  132
  of the Government—was strenuously opposed to the Bill. His Grace expressed it as his opinion that the Bill would commit a cruel injustice by robbing the Church for the benefit of a few householders, and he trusted that at any rate the House of Lords would not refuse the Commissioners a hearing or insist upon legislating in the dark. These were the views of the Archbishop of Dublin, and he had felt it to be his duty to lay them before their Lordships. This was simply a landlord's question; for the owners of property, and not the occupiers of houses would be benefited by the Bill, and if the Government chose to apply to this tax the principle of the vestry cess, and gave the Lord Lieutenant power to collect the money, they would overcome all the difficulties that at present existed to the collection of the tax. He would now move pro formâ, That the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland be heard by counsel against the said Bill upon their Petition (presented to the House on Monday last).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, though the Government might feel safe as to the further progress of this Bill, he was not satisfied with mere success, but wished to see it admitted that there was nothing unjust in the principle of the measure. In the discussion the other night, the question raised by almost every noble Lord who spoke, with the exception of the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Donoughmore) was, whether there was or was not a surplus in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and it was said that a discrepancy on this point existed between the statements of the Government in that and the other House of Parliament. Now, if their Lordships looked at the statutory interpretation of the word "surplus," he thought the difficulty which had been raised on this point would be greatly removed. By the 77th clause of the Church Temporalities Act, the surplus was declared to be that which remained after certain purposes and liabilities laid down in the Act had been provided for. The clause stated that "when and as soon as in any one year the Commissioners shall have any surplus after due provision has been made for the several purposes hereinbefore mentioned," &c. The argument the other evening was, that the augmentation of small livings was one of the purposes for which provision was to be made by the Commissioners, and it was said this Bill would interfere with that duty. But the

  133
  augmentation of small livings was not mentioned in the Act till the 93rd clause, and therefore was not one of the things that came under the meaning of the phrase "hereinbefore mentioned" in the 77th clause. It could not be doubted, that if the towns affected by this tax were polled, the result would be a complete condemnation of the impost. It had been objected that no substitute was provided; but it should be remembered, that the only substitute proposed for vestry cess when it was abolished, was a tax upon the incomes of the clergy. The course adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was to meet at a certain period, when, after estimating the probable amount of the income for the ensuing year, and the amount of their fixed charges, they struck a balance which was to be appropriated to the repair of churches and other purposes. The only effect of this, if passed, would be to place £12,000 a year upon the fixed charges, and leave the Commissioners £12,000 less to dispose of in other ways. The tax was one which was felt to be oppressive by the Catholics of Ireland, and it was in the real interest of the Protestant Church that the Government had proposed its abolition.
  THE BISHOP OF KILMOREsaid, that an attempt had been made to justify the abolition of ministers' money by what had been done in the case of vestry cess. But the two cases were widely different. But when the Church Temporalities Act abolished vestry cess, it only deprived the Church of the right of taxation, the exercise of which was optional, and did not take away any actual property: the vestry cess could have been practically abolished without any Act of Parliament, had the vestries refused to make any assessment. But by this Bill the Irish Church was deprived of actual property, for ministers' money was property conferred on the Church by Act of Parliament, and sanctioned by an existence of nearly two centuries. At the same time he approved of the intention of the noble Earl opposite to abandon any further opposition to this measure; and he must say that, from the friendly expressions towards that Church which had fallen from various Members of that House during the debate, and particularly from the Government, he hoped that the case of that institution would, on another occasion, receive favourable attention and consideration, and that any attempts which its friends might make to develop its resources would be met in no
  134
  adverse spirit. It would, indeed, be necessary that something should be done to increase its revenues if this Bill were passed; for, after it became law, while the income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was £99,000, the expenditure would be £97,000, leaving only £2,000 applicable to the augmentation of small livings, of which there were 302 under £100 a year, and for the building fund. He believed that the income of the Church might be increased by a more economical management of the parochial church funds amongst the parishioners; but only a very small increase of revenue could be expected from this source. Much more might be anticipated from giving the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the power which they did not now possess, of dealing with the property vested in them in the most advantageous manner, and of raising the fines payable on renewals in the same way which a Bishop, or other private person, might do. He certainly did hope that, if after the passing of this Act, any proposition was made for enabling the Commissioners so to manage the property of the Church, as to derive from it a greater revenue than at present, it would receive the favourable consideration of the Government.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdenied that there was any analogy between ministers' money and vestry cess. There was no force in the argument which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) had derived for the language of the 77th section of the Church Temporalities Act, and from the fact that the augmentation of small livings was not mentioned till the 93rd section of the same Act; for by an Act passed in the reign of Her present Majesty the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland were expressly directed to apply these funds to this purpose. While fully coinciding in the course pursued by his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) in not further opposing this measure, he must warn the House that it sprung from a settled desire on the part of the Roman Catholics in Ireland to agitate against the very existence of the Established Church, and not to rest satisfied with anything short of its abolition, nor, he feared, would the present Bill in anywise induce them to give up that determination. It was folly to talk of this Bill as a message of peace—as a measure for securing tranquillity—as a means of putting a stop to agitation, and of securing the undisturbed existence

  135
  of the Protestant Church. The Act of 1833 was based on broad, intelligible, and true principles; it took nothing from the Church. But this measure rested on no principle, for it was a simple transference of the property of the Church to the householders of certain towns, and those not the largest in Ireland. It was perfectly ridiculous to yield to so small an agitation as that which had been got up against ministers' money, and he could only take this Bill as an evidence of want of determination on the part of Ministers to make that stand which must be made somewhere if the existence of the Irish Church was to be upheld against the agitation which the Catholics were carrying on, and would continue to carry on, against it. He still felt the same objections to the measure that he had expressed on the second reading; but as the Government had carried the second reading, he would leave to the majority the responsibility of passing the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he believed that so long as there was a Protestant Institution in Ireland the Roman Catholic clergy would never let the Protestant religion exist in quiet. Let not the Government "lay the flattering unction to their souls" that this concession would give religious peace in Ireland. He did not think that the Roman Catholic laity had those feelings of hostility towards the Protestant Church. If they were let alone this kind of religious dissension would not continue. The Roman Catholic clergy would talk against the Church as long as they were permitted, and until they were able to strike it effectually, which they would not fail to do.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he could not agree in the principle of withdrawing any further opposition to this measure. He thought it was a bad measure, and that it ought to be opposed to the last. It appeared to him to be an extraordinary way of displaying a friendly feeling towards the Church to take away one of its supports in Ireland. It was admitted on all hands that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had not sufficient funds to supply the deficiency that would be occasioned by the abolition of ministers' money. He thought of all dangerous precedents ever established this was one. He thought that this was the most glaring of all acts of injustice. Of all the outrageous acts of spoliation committed against the Established Church in his opinion this was the
  136
  most flagrant. He regretted exceedingly that the noble Earl with whom it was his pride generally to act had withdrawn all further opposition to the measure. He confessed he was at a loss to understand the reason why he had adopted that course. He viewed this Bill as the first step in the downward movement, which would be followed by the most disastrous consequences to the Established Church in Ireland. The Government were establishing a precedent which he thought was fraught with mischief and glaring injustice.
  On Question, Resolved in the Negative.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had placed an Amendment before Her Majesty's Ministers. He was not disposed to detain their Lordships by urging arguments in support of it. He would leave it in the hands of the Government to do what they liked with it.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Bill did not deal with the re-organization of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and, therefore, he did not think that that was a proper time to discuss the Amendment of the noble Earl. The Government would, however, be willing to take the Amendments generally into consideration, with a view of shaping some measure to effect the object they had in view.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWthought, under those circumstances, it would be much better to postpone the further progress of the measure until the Amendments were considered.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was of opinion that no advantage could result from the postponement of the Bill. The Government were prepared to give due consideration to the Amendments which had been suggested, and he felt assured that in adopting that course they would have the full co-operation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves.
  THE BISHOP OF KILMOREsaid, that he should be sorry that the passing of the Bill should lead to an agitation upon the clergy of the Established Church against the Maynooth grant, by way of reprisal for the abolition of ministers' money. The adoption of such a course would, in his opinion, be unworthy of their sacred calling.
  Original Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.