Lords Sitting of 31 May 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—First Report—Contagious Diseases (Animals); Office of Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. (No. 125.)
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) * (119); Intestates Widows and Children (120).
Second Reading—Offices and Oaths (100); Transubstantiation, &c. Declaration Abolition (101); Army Enlistment (112); County Courts Acts Amendment (108).
Committee—Policies of Insurance* (82); Statute Law Revision* (106).
Report—Contagious Diseases (Animals)* (122); Policies of Insurance* (82 & 126); Statute Law Revision* (106).
Third Reading—Criminal Law*(81).
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [30 Vict. c. 23]; Fortifications (Porvision for Expenses) [30 Vict. c. 24]; National Debt [30 Vict. c. 26]; Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act Continuance (No. 2) [30 Vict. c. 25]; Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act (1851) Amendment [30 Vict. c. 19]; Inclosure [30 Vict. c. 20]; Local Government Supplemental [30 Vict. c. 21]; Land Drainage Supplemental [30 Vict. 22.]

INTESTATES WIDOWS AND CHILDREN BILL.

  PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR presented a Bill for the purpose of enabling the widows and children of poor deceased persons who may die possessed of shares in co-operative companies and societies, or leaving small debts due, or other property, to obtain possession of such properties without going to the expense of taking out letters of administration. He proposed that those desiring to obtain what was due to their deceased relative, provided the value did not exceed £100, should make an affidavit before the Registrar of the County Court of the fact of the death of the husband or father, and upon that to obtain a certificate from the Registrar, which he proposed should serve all the purposes of letters of administration. He proposed also that the affidavit should not be made until a month after the death of the person originally possessed of the money sought for; and that if the Registrar should have reason to believe that the proceedings before him under the Bill had reference to property of a greater value than £100, then he would suspend the affidavit until he had ascertained the facts of the case.
  A Bill for the Relief of the Widows and Children of Intestates where the Personal Estate is of small Value—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 120.)

CASE OF THE "TORNADO."

  QUESTION.
  The Marquess of CLANRICARDEIn answer to The Marquess of CLANRICARDE,
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that he should in a very short time be able to lay before the House some papers relating to the case of the Tornado. At the present time it would not be proper to enter at length into the subject introduced by the noble Marquess; but he might say that the Spanish Government had, in the first instance, in answer to our inquiries whether a new trial would be granted, said that they could say nothing then, but would await the result of the appeal to the superior Court and abide by it, whatever it might be. We answered that it would rest entirely with the Spanish Government to say before what tribunal the case should be heard, but that we absolutely insisted upon the nullity of the former proceedings, and upon having a new trial at which the parties concerned might be heard. I am happy to say that we received from the Spanish Government an intimation that their superior Court had, upon consideration of the case, adjudged the proceedings null and void, upon the ground that the case should not have been treated judicially, but administratively; consequently, if a new trial were to take place, it must be before a different tribunal. In the meanwhile the Spanish Government had not refused a new trial. He believed it was the owners of the Tornado that had protested against a new trial, desiring that the case should be decided in their favour on technical grounds, and not according to its merits. On that point Her Majesty's Government did not think that they ought to support their claim. A new trial would, however, take place, and it was to be hoped that it would result in a satisfactory solution of the question.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.

  REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Select Committee, made, and to be printed (No. 121): Bill reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on

  1369
  Tuesday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 122.)
  LORD WALSINGHAMasked the noble Duke the President of the Council, Whether the statement made yesterday in the Common Council of London with respect to a fresh outbreak of the cattle plague in the metropolis was correct; and if that were so, whether the question was under the consideration of the Government of the slaughtering of foreign cattle at the ports of debarkation without exception. He believed the inconvenience of such a course would not equal the inconvenience arising from a general outbreak of the cattle disease?
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, it was quite correct that there had been some fresh cases of cattle plague in the metropolis. The number of cases which were reported for the week ending the 25th of May, was eighty-two. They were, however, confined to comparatively narrow localities in the neighbourhood of Islington. The promptest measures had been taken in conjunction with the Metropolitan Board of Works to counteract the spread of the disease. He might state that he immediately requested Sir John Thwaites, the Chairman of the Board of Works, to wait upon him, and in the course of a conversation with that gentleman, he impressed upon him the necessity of the Board taking immediate and active steps to enforce the powers conferred by law upon local authorities to stamp out the disease. He had since received a very satisfactory communication from Sir John Thwaites, stating that every power which the law conferred upon the Board would be put in force. Those powers had accordingly been put in force, and not only had every diseased animal been slaughtered, but others that had been in contact with them, though not themselves actually infected, were also killed to prevent the spread of the disease. He was glad to say that, owing to these decisive measures, not above two cases had been reported in the present week, as compared with eighty-two cases in the week previous—a result which, he believed, might be attributed solely to the excellent arrangements and vigorous action of the Metropolitan Board. With regard to the other matter to which his noble Friend had alluded, the slaughtering of all the cattle at the ports of their arrival, the question was already under consideration. It was one, however, which
  1370
  involved grave interests, and which could not be decided without due consideration. He trusted, however, that the measures already adopted might prove successful in arresting the disease, and that it would not be necessary to resort to such an extreme remedy. Should, however, the necessity be found to exist, the question was one which the Government would deal with without shrinking.
  EARL GREYwas understood to urge the importance of promptitude in all these measures, and strongly advocated the policy of slaughtering all foreign cattle at the ports of arrival, instead of allowing those intended for London consumption to pass through the metropolis, spreading the disease during the journey. It was well known that the disease had originated and had been frequently re-introduced by the importation of foreign cattle.
  LORD PORTMANremarked that the question was not merely one of slaughtering cattle at certain fixed and appointed places. In the hot weather it was oftentimes a question whether the meat under such circumstances could be preserved, and whether a good deal of it would not, on reaching Loudon, be condemned as being unfit for food. The matter was one, therefore, which ought not to be dealt with hastily. The disease could not be brought into London unless the police regulations were neglected or evaded.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, he could fully corroborate the opinion expressed by the noble Earl (Earl Grey), and that a general feeling now existed that vigorous measures—such as that of slaughtering foreign cattle at their ports of arrival, should be adopted to prevent the recurrence of these serious visitations.
  LORD REDESDALEbelieved it would be of great advantage if the Inspectors, in making their weekly Returns, stated not only the number of beasts infected and the result, but also the supposed cause of the disease. It would be easy enough to do this; and then the inhabitants of the neighbouring country or district would be able to take measures to prevent the same causes producing results so calamitous—a thing which they could not do under the present arrangements.

OFFICES AND OATHS BILL.
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
OFFICES AND OATHS BILL.

  (NO. 100.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that he had had no reason for believing that the Bill would be opposed until that morning, when he received a letter from a noble Friend of his, stating that it was his intention to move its rejection. His noble Friend (the Earl of Courtown) would excuse him for saying that it would have been more convenient if he had given notice of his intention in the ordinary manner by putting his Notice on the Votes of the House. It would in consequence be necessary that he should explain the provisions of the measure to their Lordships. The Bill had received very general support in the other House, where the second reading was carried by a majority of 195 against 92, and obtained the express sanction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Bill was entirely in accordance with the principles which governed the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, the object of which was to extend to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects the right of filling civil offices under the Crown, unless there was some special or strong reason for withholding that right in certain cases. Now the object of the present Bill was to remove the disability under which Roman Catholics laboured in regard to the Office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland. There were no special reasons for continuing this exclusion; and it could scarcely be maintained that Roman Catholics ought not to be eligible for this office on the ground that they were unfitted for judicial appointments, for all their Lordships must be aware that many Roman Catholics held high judicial offices in Ireland, and that one Roman Catholic filled a high judicial office in England. It happened at the present time that there were in Ireland no less than two out of the three Chief Justices and no less than seven out of nine of the puisne Judges who professed the Catholic faith; and no one could say that those learned persons discharged their duties in a manner inferior in impartiality, learning, or in any of those qualities which constituted a good Judge, to their distinguished Protestant brethren. There could be no sound objection to a Roman
  1372
  Catholic filling the high office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, so far as the judicial powers were concerned. The feeling against this exclusion was not a mere sentimental one, because it was undoubtedly a hardship to many eminent Roman Catholic barristers in Ireland that they should be debarred by law from aspiring to the highest prize in their profession. But it might be said that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had to discharge other duties than those of a judicial character. Those other duties were either political or quasi-political, or have some special connection with matters of an ecclesiastical character. In Ireland the Lord Chancellor, like the Lord Chancellor in this country, appointed the magistrates of comities, but they were appointed almost invariably upon the recommendation of Lords Lieutenant of counties, and many Lords Lieutenant of counties were themselves Roman Catholics, and they might be so in every instance. Well, then, it might be said that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was a political officer, and to some extent he advised the Lord Lieutenant; but he was not aware that there were more intimate relations between the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor than there were between the former and the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General, who might be Roman Catholics. Some persons might suppose that there was considerable Church patronage vested in the Irish Lord Chancellor; and he had heard it said that the late Sir Robert Peel, in drawing the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, included the Lord Chancellor within the list of prohibitions, because he thought that that functionary had considerable Church patronage. But, as a matter of fact, the Irish Lord Chancellor had no Church patronage, except the appointment to a vicarage in Dublin, which he exercised jointly with the Archbishop of Dublin, the Master of the Rolls, and the three Chief Justices; and, as these gentlemen generally disagreed, the patronage reverted to the Archbishop of Dublin. It must be admitted that one duty of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was of an ecclesiastical character, because in Ireland there was an appeal from the Ecclesiastical Courts to him, and it was his duty in such cases to issue a commission of delegates, and if that was not satisfactory, he might issue a commission of review; but, in point of fact, that function was rarely exercised. Lord Chancellor Brady, who held the

  1373
  office for many years, said that he had only issued three commissions of delegates, two on very unimportant matters, and no commission of review had been issued in the last forty years. This exceptional circumstance would, however, be met by a clause in the Bill, which provided, that whenever the Lord Chancellor should be a Roman Catholic, this particular jurisdiction should be exercised by one of the Chief Justices or by one of the Judges in Chancery. He regretted that the Bill had been so far altered in the House of Commons that it no longer included the admission of Roman Catholics to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but the clause which referred to this matter had been objected to by the Government, and was struck out in Committee, but only by a majority of 3. He himself saw nothing whatever in the office of the Lord Lieutenant that rendered it unfit that it should be held by a Roman Catholic, and it was most singular that the objection should be raised, seeing that excepting the English Lord Chancellor every Member of the Government, including the very Secretary of State under whose authority the Lord Lieutenant was, might be a Roman Catholic, and as to the pageantry of the office it was difficult to find any valid reason why a Roman Catholic was not equally fit to hold levées and give balls at the Castle as a Protestant. More than three fourths of the population of Ireland were Roman Catholics, and why should not he who was placed at the head of them be a Roman Catholic also? As to the Church patronage of the Lord Lieutenant, the first Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Home Secretary, in reference to Scotland, exercised considerable Church patronage, and yet all three might be Roman Catholics. It was said that the Lord Lieutenant in an especial manner represented the Crown; but certainly he did not do so more than the Governor General of India and the Governor General of Canada, both of whom might be Roman Catholics. As, however, he did not wish to do anything to endanger the Bill he should not propose to re-insert the clause referring to the Lord Lieutenant, but if any other noble Lord should move the re-insertion in Committee he should support him. The next provision in the Bill was a very simple one. It removed a prohibition in the Emancipation Act against
  1374
  Roman Catholic Judges and mayors from attending any place of worship other than those of the Established Church in their robes of office. Such a prohibition afforded no security to the Protestant Church, and he thought that its repeal would have the very best effect in Ireland, where it was very desirable that Roman Catholics should see men of their own faith serving the Queen and appearing with their insignia of office. Such a prohibition as that which existed, in his opinion, diminished the security of the Established Church by producing a feeling of degradation in the minds of the Roman Catholics. The prohibition was also absurd, because the general officer commanding the whole military force in Ireland if he was a Catholic might go to Church in his uniform; and the constabulary, who were to the Irish people the embodiment of authority, might be seen every Sunday going to Roman Catholic places of worship in their uniform. The last clause of the Bill repealed, in reference to Roman Catholics holding office in Ireland, the oath which was last year repealed in reference to Roman Catholic Members of Parliament. He believed that the Report of the Royal Commission, which would shortly be published, would recommend the abolition of oaths of this nature, and he therefore thought that he was entitled to ask their Lordships to read the Bill a second time, so far as this oath was concerned. The clause passed with the general concurrence of the other House; it would place all persons upon a similar footing, audit would interpose no obstacle to dealing hereafter with the general question of oaths if Parliament should think fit. He was willing to postpone going into Committee until after Whitsuntide if it was thought desirable that their Lordships should have time to consider the Report of the Royal Commission. There might be some who thought the passing of this Bill would diminish the securities of the Established Church. He could assure them that none of their Lordships were more anxious than he was to uphold the principles of the Reformation and the Church which embodied them, and any measure wisely taken with that object should have his support; but he thought that danger to the Church came more from within—from those who remained professed members of the Establishment but no longer held the principles of the Reformed faith—and that

  1375
  these petty restrictions gave no security whatever. He therefore asked their Lordships with confidence to abolish these shreds and remnants of civil disability which only served as a record of distrust of their Roman Catholic fellow subjects, a distrust which was perhaps natural at the time of the passing of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, but which their conduct during the last forty years showed to be entirely unmerited and unfounded.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNrose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. To his mind it was at all times advisable, when they were considering any Bill proposed to their Lordships, that they should consider, not only the provisions which were immediately before them, but also how far they extended in the way of general policy, and what the ultimate tendency of the measure would be. In the present instance this matter was not doubtful, for the Preamble set forth that "to promote religious equality" it was expedient to remove these disabilities. Religious equality might be very desirable, but it was necessary to consider its meaning in relation to the State, and if this Bill should pass this particular expression of "religious equality" would be quoted as a precedent. This very phrase showed, he believed, that the Bill had been suggested in the National Association of Ireland. He did not regret that these words "religious equality" had been inserted in the Bill, for it enabled him to show that this was part of a scheme for promoting religious equality generally. The noble Earl read a passage from The Tablet to show how wide was the meaning attached to religious equality by the writer in that paper, and calling on the Legislature to pass measures to establish equality between the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches. He would ask their Lordships to bear in mind that this question of religious equality was a very serious one, and involved the principle, not only of equality of individuals as regards their religious belief, to which he is favourable, but also equality of religions as regards the State. No doubt if there were a separation of Church and State, all religions should be put upon the same footing as regarded the State; but this was a matter which was
  1376
  dealt with differently in this country to what it was in any other, so far as he was aware. In America, for instance, no Church was recognised by the State, there being there complete religious liberty and equality, and in France there was complete religious equality but not religious liberty, it being illegal to publish a Papal bull without the authority of the State for doing so. In this country we have complete religious liberty, but as we have not social equality, so we have not religious equality, which is inconsistent with the existence of an Established Church. To him it appeared that the present Bill was defective. It provided for the exercise of the Lord Chancellor's functions in reference to ecclesiastical appeals, by saying that when that high officer should happen to be a Roman Catholic one of the Chief Justices who was a member of the English Church should hear the appeals. At present two out of the three Chief Justices were Roman Catholics; and what was to be done if all three, as well as the Chancellor, were Roman Catholics? The ecclesiastical jurisdiction would then have to take its chance; and probably, when the difficulty occurred, a Bill would have to to be passed to appoint some one else to exercise this particular jurisdiction. With respect to the clauses referring to persons in office attending places of worship in their official robes, he saw no reason why those clauses might not be inserted in the Transubstantiation, &c., Declaration Bill, the second reading of which the noble Earl intended to move that night.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months.")—(The Earl of Courtown.)
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he must confess he had no apprehension that any injury would result to the Protestant Church from the passing of the Bill; but, at the same time, he felt himself to be personally under an obligation to state that he could not vote for it. He was a Member of that House and also a Member of the Government when the Bill called the Catholic Emancipation Bill was passed, and he recollected all the circumstances under which it was passed. He thought then, and he now thought, that without the security now referred to, and without the other securities contained in it, that Bill would not have obtained the sanction of their Lordships' House.

  1377
  Such being his impression, he could not now vote for the removal of any one of the securities which that Bill contained; for he considered that Bill to have constituted a species of compact between the Parliament and the people. No doubt, after a period of years, it was perfectly open to Parliament to re-consider what was then done, and to alter the decision then come to; but it was not open to him so to act. He was bound to adhere to the compact to which he was a party, and he must vote against the present Bill.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he did not expect that any opposition would have been made to the present Bill, and the objection urged against it by the noble Earl was the same which had been taken over and over again against any alteration of the Catholic Emancipation Bill, and which applied equally to the alteration sanctioned in last Session and to the present proposal. As regards the enactment of a new oath, he thought that it might be advisable to omit that provision from the Bill, as the Commission on Oaths were about very shortly to present their Report, and it would be expedient to take some legislative steps founded on their recommendations. Of all oaths the oath of allegiance appeared to him to be the most useless, because all persons were liable to be punished for disloyalty, whether they had taken the oath of allegiance or not; and that oath had not that he knew of ever had a deterrent effect on any one inclined to commit treason. With regard to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the provision which originally stood in the Bill was only omitted by a majority of 3 in the House of Commons. For himself he certainly thought that the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland might altogether be abolished. It was only the other day that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland informed a deputation that the capital sentence passed in the case of a Fenian prisoner should be carried into effect; and, nevertheless, an order to a different effect was afterwards sent from this country to Dublin. A Roman Catholic was excluded from holding that office, not by the voice or wish of the people of Ireland, but by the prejudices of the people of Scotland and England; but if the office of Lord Lieutenant was to be retained, it ought to be, perhaps, more than any other open to Roman Catholics; and if he met with any support from the
  1378
  House, he would in Committee move to re-instate in the Bill the words which it originally contained in reference to the office of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The prohibition against Roman Catholic functionaries going to their places of worship in their robes of office he regarded as perfectly ridiculous, and he trusted that their Lordships would not offer any objection to its abolition.
  THE EARL OF DERBYtrusted that the noble Earl who had moved the rejection of the Bill (the Earl of Courtown) would not persist in his Amendment. He must be permitted to say he thought that the present discussion would have been more satisfactorily conducted if every speaker had confined himself to what was in the Bill and had not extended his remarks to what was not in the Bill. The introduction of the question as to the removal of the disability to hold the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was entirely gratuitous, and was more likely to create opposition to the Bill than if the discussion were confined to the measure actually before the House; and then the noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Lyveden) had gone a step further and said they ought to consider whether the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland might not be abolished altogether. The noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill referred to an expression in the Preamble relating to the promotion of religious equality among the subjects of Her Majesty, and said that religious equality would be placing the Roman Catholic Church on the same footing as the Protestant Church. That was a subject not comprehended within the provisions of the Bill; the words "promotion of religious equality" could only refer to what was in the Bill, and could not apply to what was not in the Bill. It was quite true that the Bill applied to England as well as to Ireland, inasmuch as, while it provided in the case of the latter that a Roman Catholic might hold the office of Lord Chancellor, it would have the effect of removing in both countries the necessity of taking certain oaths which were deemed to be no longer necessary, and placing in that respect all the subjects of Her Majesty upon precisely the same footing. He was, under these circumstances, greatly disinclined to discuss the Bill upon the merits of the single provision which related to the Lord Chancellorship of Ireland. So far as he was concerned, he could not say that he

  1379
  regarded that provision as objectionable. There could, of course, be no doubt that if a Roman Catholic were to fill that office he would have very considerable political influence placed in his hands; but he (the Earl of Derby) was not aware that the spirit of our recent legislation went in the direction of denying to members of that persuasion their just influence and rights; though, of course, it was not desirable that they should exercise influence in religious matters involving the interests of the Protestant Establishment. The Bill, he might add, had came up from the House of Commons with very general approval. The provision which threw open the appointment of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had been rejected by a very large majority; and he should be sorry to see any attempt to re-introduce it in their Lordships' House, for it would be much better, he thought, that the measure should be taken as it stood. He was also of opinion that it would have been more convenient if the second reading had been postponed until after the receipt of the Report of the Oaths Commission; especially as he had every reason to believe that that Report would be laid before Parliament within a short time, and that it would be found to be very much in the spirit of the general provisions of the proposal of the noble Earl opposite. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) would accept the suggestion he had made, or if he would be content to take the second reading on the understanding that those noble Lords who voted for it would not be bound to all the provisions of the Bill, and would postpone going into Committee upon it till after Whitsuntide, perhaps the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Courtown) would not persist in his opposition to the second reading of the Bill now. For his own part, under all the circumstances, he should be disposed to support the second reading.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexpressed his readiness to take the second reading subject to those conditions.
  THE EARL OF BANDONobjected to the Bill, because it involved a direct departure from the compact which had been entered into in 1829. That Act would never have been allowed to pass had it not been for the assurance given by the Government that it would not in any way interfere with the revenues of the Irish Church. Roman Catholics were specially excluded from the office of Lord Chancellor,
  1380
  because that officer was the keeper of the conscience of the Sovereign; but the Sovereign being Protestant, of course Roman Catholics could not conscientiously fulfil the duties of the office. He looked upon this concession as the thin end of the wedge, and was afraid that it would only lead to a further demand to open up the office of Lord Lieutenant to Roman Catholics. From 1829 up to 1859 no proposal of the same character as that under discussion had been submitted to Parliament, nor a single petition presented in its favour. The question, he added, had not been mooted since the latter period until the present Session, and the people of Ireland took very little interest in it indeed. Such was not, as might be expected, the case with the Roman Catholic clergy, who would never be satisfied with anything less than exclusive supremacy and the destruction of the Protestant religion.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that he had not the slightest objection to strike out the words in the Preamble of the Bill which had so much alarmed the noble Earl (the Earl of Courtown). He did not attach the slightest importance to them. The true meaning to be attached to them had been explained by the noble Earl at the head of the Government.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, he would accept the suggestion of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and withdraw his Amendment, stating that he would, on going into Committee, move the rejection of the words to which he objected.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn: Then the Original Motion was agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARATION ABOLITION BILL—(No. 101.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARATION ABOLITION BILL—(No. 101.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill was brought in in the other House last Session, and had come up to their Lordships' House at so late a period that it was not then proceeded with. It proposed to abolish the declaration against transubstantiation, which he thought their

  1381
  Lordships would be of opinion was one which it was not now reasonable or desh—able to retain. He would not then trouble their Lordships by reading the declaration in question, although to do so would perhaps be better than the strongest argument which he could use in favour of the second reading of this Bill; but the declaration asserted that particular doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome were superstitious and idolatrous. He had himself been called upon to make that declaration before the Irish Privy Council in the presence of a large number of persons of the Roman Catholic faith, and he must say he had never in his life made a declaration with more pain than when he was required, before men holding high office, and for whom he had the greatest respect, to declare the tenets of their religion to be superstitious and idolatrous. Being a sincere Protestant himself he, of course, had no personal difficulty in expressing his agreement with what was intended as one of the Articles of the Reformed Church; but he thought that such a declaration, under the circumstances which he had stated, was both offensive and unnecessary, and ought to be done away with. The Bill therefore proposed that that declaration should be dispensed with in future; but its provisions expressly guarded against the supposition that it was meant to remove the exclusion of persons from certain offices because they were Roman Catholics. He had a strong confidence that this proposal to repeal a declaration which was offensive to a portion of Her Majesty's loyal subjects, would not meet with any opposition from their Lordships; and he begged, in conclusion, to move that the Bill be now read the second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHprotested against the Bill being now read the second time. There was precisely the same reason for not proceeding with this Bill as existed with reference to the preceding—namely, that they ought to wait for the Report of the Oaths Commissioners. He maintained that the declaration which it was proposed to abolish was the basis of the Protestant faith in this country, and also one of the greatest securities of the Throne of Her Majesty; and he earnestly implored their Lordships not to have any hand in the crime of attempting to tamper
  1382
  with that declaration on the ground of expediency.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he believed that the declaration in question had not only been referred to the Oaths Commission, but that their Report would contain, a paragraph relating to it; and he suggested that with regard to this Bill the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) would adopt the same course as he had done with respect to the previous one—namely, that the second reading should be taken sub silentio, and that it should be open to any noble Lord who thought fit to oppose it to do so on going into Committee, by which time they would probably have seen the Report of the Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was willing to accept this suggestion.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

ARMY ENLISTMENT BILL.—(No. 112.)
(The Earl of Longford.)
ARMY ENLISTMENT BILL.—(No. 112.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Pay for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it proposed to repeal two former Acts relating to enlistment for the army, and also to substitute a uniform term of enlistment for soldiers in all branches of the army for the three different terms now applicable to the cavalry, the infantry, and the artillery respectively. After the passing of the Army Service Act of 1847, it was arranged—upon what principle he was not quite certain—that soldiers for the cavalry should be enlisted for twenty-four years, in two periods of twelve years each; soldiers for the artillery for twenty-one years, in periods of twelve and nine years respectively; and soldiers for the infantry for twenty-one years, in two periods of ten and eleven years. There seemed to be no reason for maintaining those distinctions; and when the Recruiting Commission examined the subject they came to the conclusion that it would be advisable to adopt the term now in force for the artillery—namely, a term of twenty-one years divided into two periods of twelve and nine years—as the uniform scale to be applied to all branches of the service; and that was the term adopted in this measure. The second clause of the Bill gave facilities, which were not enjoyed before, to soldiers who before the completion of

  1383
  their first term were disposed to renew their engagement. The last clause conferred a new power upon the military authorities to enlist for general service recruits who had declared no preference for any particular regiment at the time when they came forward to enlist:—within twelve months the Commander-in-Chief would post such a recruit to some regiment, to which he would remain attached in the same manner as if he had originally enlisted for that regiment. There were two other Bills before the House of Commons referring to military subjects, which would be pressed forward whenever the state of public business would permit.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Longford.)
  EARL GREYsaid, he thought the proposed alteration totally unnecessary, and that the change it made was in the wrong direction. They must not look at the Bill as an isolated proposal, but must view it in connection with the whole question of general policy with reference to the army. In another measure now before the other House—the Army Reserve Bill—the Government had introduced a clause enacting that a militiaman who had deserted might be sentenced by a court martial to serve in the regular army for twelve years. The mere fact of such a clause having been proposed showed how utterly inconsiderate and inconsistent the whole policy of the Government had been with reference to the discipline of the army. Such a provision was contrary to every sound principle which should regulate such matters. The Bill was a retrograde step from a sound policy in vogue twenty years ago.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, he thought the clause referred to by the noble Earl would be fatal to the prosperity of any regiment. It was necessary, in his opinion, to have one uniform system of enlistment throughout the army, and not different periods of enlistment for different sections; but the great evil oppressing the army was the faulty system of reliefs.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, in reference to the unfortunate clause spoken of, that it had been taken from the old Militia Act, which had been in force, although not acted upon, during all the time that the noble Earl who now objected to it had been in office. He believed it was unfortunately true that under the present
  1384
  establishment of our regiments, it was impossible in all cases to provide for the regular relief of troops in foreign service.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

COUNTY COURTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 108)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
COUNTY COURTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 108)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the jurisdiction of the County Courts, said, that the first object of the Bill was to enable actions to be brought in the Court of the districts where the causes of action wholly, or in part, arose. At present the action must be brought in the Court of the district where the cause of action wholly arose. Thus, if goods were delivered to a railway company to be sent to York and were damaged in transit, the party at York would have to sue the company in London, because the company were supposed to reside wherever their chief office was; but by this Bill the action could be entered in the Court at York, where the cause of action in part arose. At present in the Superior Courts, where an action was allowed to go by default, the plaintiff could sign judgment in eight days and issue execution eight days afterwards. In the County Courts no such facilities existed. By the 2nd clause of this Bill, if the defendant did not within six days of the return day of the summons give notice in writing to the registrar of his intention to defend the action, the plaintiff would be entitled to enter up judgment. By the 3rd clause, actions commenced in any metropolitan County Court might be continued in any other of the metropolitan Courts, if the defendant resided or carried on business within the district of any such Court. By Clause 4 it was provided that no action should be brought to recover debts for any ale, porter, beer, cider, or perry consumed on the premises. The 5th clause provided that when, in any action of contract brought or commenced in any of the Superior Courts, where the amount of the claim did not exceed £50, the defendant might within eight days after service of the writ take out a summons before a Judge at Chambers, calling on the plaintiff to

  1385
  show cause why the action should not be tried in a County Court, and the Judge might, unless cause was shown, order the cause to be so tried. At present the Superior Courts had concurrent jurisdiction with the County Courts when the plaintiff resided more than twenty miles away from the defendant, or from the place where the cause of action arose. It had been determined that this applied to cases where one of several plaintiffs lived twenty miles off, although the firm might live next door to the defendant. It had also been held that a railway dwelt where the principal office was. A learned Judge had informed him that a Leeds case was recently tried before him, in which the claim was £19, and because the parties lived twenty miles apart the action was brought in the Superior Courts, and seven witnesses were brought tip all the way from Leeds to Westminster Hall. The cause of the evil was that the attorneys always went to the Superior Courts whenever it was possible, of course to the great increase of expense. The object of the clause was to provide a remedy and to enforce the use of the County Courts in such cases. He proposed to give jurisdiction to the County Courts in cases of ejectment, where the annual value of the property did not exceed £20, and also cases when title came in question, where neither the value nor rent of the property exceed £20 a year. But in these cases an appeal was to be allowed. The 17th clause was intended to extend the operation of the 10 & 11 of the Queen, c. 96, "The Trustees' Relief Act." It enabled trustees, where the value of the trust estate did not exceed £500, to deposit the money with the registrar of the County Court where they, or some of them, reside. The 21st section extinguished a number of petty Courts which at present had jurisdiction in matters of debt. It enacted that henceforth no action that could be brought in a County Court should be brought in the Court of any hundred manor, wapentake, or other inferior Court; and it placed the recovery of loans by loan societies in the County Court instead of before justices.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD CRANWORTH, in expressing his approval of the measure, referred to some observations made the other evening by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, which the learned Judges on
  1386
  the Northern Circuit had interpreted as reflecting upon their ability and industry in the administration of justice. It was perfectly true that out of seventy-tight causes put down for trial on that circuit, only fifty-seven had been tried; but practically the whole of them were disposed of, because, as their Lordships well knew, many causes were in the course of an assize withdrawn, or otherwise disposed of, without coming before the Judge at all. He had promised to refer to this matter on the first opportunity, and he had accordingly mentioned it in order to enable his noble and learned Friend to remove an impression which he felt certain had never been intended.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would be sorry to have it imagined that he intended to cast the slightest reflection on the ability or industry of the learned Judges who had presided over the Northern Circuit. Indeed, he had expressly taken care to guard against such an interpretation by stating most explicitly that the amount of business had rendered it absolutely impossible that the learned Judges could dispose of the whole of the causes without assistance. He must, however, mention, in self-defence, that one of the Queen's Counsel on the circuit, in a letter to a friend, referred to the constant demands which were made for his assistance in disposing of the civil business. Though, of course, those gentlemen were always willing to give this assistance in times of emergency, a constant practice of this kind could not but be regarded as entailing an unreasonable tax upon the time of advocates, who had their own professional duties to attend to.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.