Lords Sitting of 7 March 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL. — 1a Inclosure: Marriages Validity.
SYRIA.—THE FRENCH OCCUPATION.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHwished to ask the noble Lord, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, a Question, respecting a matter in which nobody who had availed himself of the usual sources of information could have failed to take a deep interest. It was natural great uneasiness should be felt at the growing understanding between Russia and France with respect to Turkish affairs. The prolongation of the occupation of Syria by France would probably be made use of by the Government of Russia as a reason for interfering with the affairs of Bosnia and Bulgaria. This was a matter which affected the interests of the Ottoman Empire, for the maintenance of which in her integrity this country had expended so much
  1526
  blood and treasure. The French Government naturally was anxious to continue its occupation of Syria, and would find the presence of a large body of Christians resident there, who were anxious for the protection of the French Empire, powerful auxiliaries in making permanent their retention of that country. He understood the French Government had been pressed by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary to declare that the occupation should be put an end to as speedily as possible; and he was sure it was unnecessary to show that a long occupation would be prejudicial to English interests. He begged to ask his noble Friend, Whether the attention of the Government had been called to a despatch written by Prince Gortschakoff to Count Kisseleff, at Paris, instructing him not only to support the French occupation, but also to support a proposition for an increase of troops to the number of 6,000 mentioned in the Convention of last autumn? He wished to know whether any such proposition had been made in the Conference at Paris, and in such case what course Her Majesty's Government would pursue with regard to it?
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that the despatch referred to by the noble Marquess was perfectly authentic; and, as a copy of it had been received by Her Majesty's Government, he need hardly say that their attention had been called to it. As to the course which they might take in the negotiations which were now pending, the noble Marquess must excuse him for saying that it was obviously impossible for him to give any information as to the course which would he pursued in negotiations which were actually going on.

BRITISH GUIANA AND CAYENNE.

  EXTRADITION.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that he had a few days ago received a letter from the colony of British Guiana stating that the Attorney General of that colony had, by the direction of the Secretary of State, introduced into the Legislative Council of that colony a Bill sanctioning the extradition of prisoners escaping from the French colony of Cayenne. From all previous extradition treaties or bills political offenders had been excluded. The peculiar character of the French settlement of Cayenne made it necessary that there should be no doubt as to whether, in this instance, the precedents were to be followed; and he,

  1527
  therefore, wished to ask the noble Duke, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether such a Bill as he had mentioned had been introduced by the direction of Her Majesty's Government, and if so, whether there was any objection to the production of copies of or extracts from any despatches which had passed upon the subject?
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that if the slightest apprehension, either here or in the colony, existed in the public mind that political offenders were included in the Bill, he felt obliged to his noble Friend for giving him an opportunity of answering his questions. He had not received any official information that such a Bill had been introduced, but if the noble Earl had been so informed he had no doubt that such was the case, as instructions were sent out in September last to the Governor of Guiana to introduce such a Bill, the draft having been previously framed in this country by the Queen's Advocate as a draft ordinance. He would distinctly state that political offenders were excluded from the measure, which in fact was confined to three offences, namely, those of murder, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy. As regarded the third Question, he would observe that some important despatches passed during his absence in Canada and America which he had not had time to peruse. He should, therefore, like to look over them before promising to produce them.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the day for the Committee read.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsuggested that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He had himself examined it in parts, and found no errors in it; but he objected to persons not Members of that House being allowed to legislate for their Lordships. The Lord Chancellor had refused to pledge himself to the Bill, as he had not gone over it, unless by relying on the correctness of the gentlemen who had drawn it up. A Committee of the Whole House could not be expected to examine such a measure; a Select Committee of those Members whom the House would delegate was more suitable for its revision than extraneous parties. He was ready to take his place on the Committee, and was sure that he could go through the Acts re-
  1528
  ferred to in the schedule of the Bill in two-days, and decide what were obsolete and what actually repealed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORbelieved that if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee no benefit whatever would be produced, and that which his noble and learned Friend said he could do in two days had taken many months to perform. He thought their Lordships might rely safely upon the accuracy of the learned gentlemen who had prepared the Bill. The Bill had been circulated amongst the legal bodies in the country, and not a single objection had been taken to it. He could assure their Lordships that the whole of the clauses could not be gone through without an amount of labour being bestowed which he could not ask them to undergo. If they were to refuse to pass such a Bill until a Select Committee had examined it he believed that a reform of the statute law would be impossible.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that a similar instance to the present had occurred when he had the honour of holding the office of Lord Chancellor. A Member of the House of Commons proposed a Bill to repeal certain obsolete statutes. On its passing the other House, and being sent up here, he referred it to certain members of the Statute Law Commission for examination, and on the faith of their report considered himself justified in recommending their Lordships to pass the Bill. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) had much underrated the labour of examining the Bill in Select Committee.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSthought it would be well to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee, each Member of which might take a portion of the Bill for examination; for, although he had the greatest confidence in the learned persons who had devoted their time and talents to the performance of the duty which they had undertaken, he thought their Lordships as a House of Legislature ought not to pass measures on trust.
  House in Committee; Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

COURT OF CHANCERY—THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE.

  COPY OF COMMISSION MOYED FOR.
  LORD St. LEONARDSrose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of the Commission

  1529
  recently issued to certain Commissioners to inquire into the Constitution of the Accountant General's Department of the Court of Chancery and the Provision for the Custody and Management of the Funds of the Court, and to ask Her Majesty's Government upon what grounds the Commission has been issued. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that a week ago he brought under their consideration the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the desirability of bringing all the law courts together on one site. The Commissioners had come to the conclusion that it was desirable to build the law courts in a particular spot, and although the Commission contained not one word about taking the money from the Suitors' Fund, yet the Commissioners proposed to take £1,400,000 from that fund for the purpose; and he understood the noble Lord on the woolsack, who was at the bead of the Court of Chancery, to approve of what he must call such a misappropriation of the money. They were told that the Government were prepared with a Bill to carry out the object in view. He had heard of no Bill, but he found by the Gazette that a new Commission was to be issued to inquire into the office of the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery and into the management of the funds of that office. The Accountant General was entrusted with the management of funds amounting to £49,000,000 belonging to the suitors in the Court of Chancery. In his opinion it was a most unprecedented proceeding. No charge had been made against the office, either in that or the other House of Parliament, yet the Accountant General and his officers were to he dragged before this Commission. Either there must have been some misconduct, or Her Majesty's Government wanted to know a little more of the funds they were nibbling at and desired to lay hold of. There was not a single equity judge or equity lawyer on the new Commission, and, apart from personal qualifications, he objected to Mr. Rogers and Mr. Field being members of it, because Mr. Rogers was a willing witness before the first Commission for the application of the fund to the building scheme, and Mr. Field, who was also examined before it, expressed his opinion that the Accountant General's office was utterly useless and ought to be abolished, and the clerks transferred to the Bank of England. It was not right that a gentleman who had
  1530
  so committed himself should be put upon a Commission of Inquiry. Such a mode of proceeding was disrespectful to the court of which his noble and learned Friend was the chief, and alarming to the suitors, who had hitherto been under the impression that their funds were under the protection of the law. The Suitors' Fund by various enactments was expressly devoted to purposes connected with the benefit of the suitors. The fees in the Court of Chancery amounted now to £100,000, but with a little care they might be reduced to £50,000. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the Address.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his noble and learned Friend was most unnecessarily alarmed. Surely, his noble and learned Friend might have been satisfied with the composition of the Commission when he saw that the name of Lord Kings-down was upon it. That name alone ought to have satisfied his noble and learned Friend that the interests of the suitors would he protected. The object of the Commission was not intended to inquire into the conduct of the officers of the court, but to make an inquiry into the system that now existed. The Commission had been issued with a view to the benefit of the suitors, and not to their detriment.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that there were some noble Lords who had been Chancellors of the Exchequer, and who had not become mere dolts because they had become Members of that House, and it behoved them to pause before they sanctioned any scheme which would do away with Westminster Hall.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, that he had consented to be nominated a Member of the Commission, for when the Government thought there was a necessity for inquiry, he felt that it would be inconsistent with his duty to refuse to serve. As far as he knew, it was not possible that the most profligate and rapaciously inclined Commission should meddle with the funds of the Court of Chancery. The whole object of the inquiry was to ascertain whether any saving could be made or improvement effected in the custody of the funds; and, whatever might be the suggestion of the Commissioners, nothing could be done except under the control of Parliament. Moreover, he believed that there was nothing in the terms of the Commission which would authorize them to express any opinion as to whether any portion of

  1531
  the funds should be appropriated in the construction of new courts. His noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) had done more perhaps than any other person during his term of office to insure the safe custody of the money; but he was mistaken if he supposed that there was any secret plot for the purpose of obtaining indirectly an expenditure which perhaps could not otherwise be authorized. Personally, he should not at all be unwilling to see this Commission annulled, knowing by experience that those who served on such an inquiry were sure to incur the hostility of individuals whose interests were interfered with, while, on the other hand, the public, whose interests they were to promote, often joined in the outcry against them.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.