Lords Sitting of 21 July 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2)* (227); Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (No. 3)* (228); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (229); Sewage Utilization Supplemental * (230); Exchequer Bonds (£1,300,000)*; Annuity Tax Abolition (Edinburgh and Montrose, &c.) Act (1860) Amendment* (231); Vestries (Isle of Alan* (232); Shipping Dues Exemption Act (1867) Amendment * (233).
Second Reading — Settled Estates (191); Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland)* (192); Ecclesiastical Courts (26); Juries* (213); Sugar Duties (Isle of Man)* (209); Stamp Duty on Leases* (148).
Select Committee—University Tests (182), nominated.
Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (188); Gas and Water Facilities (111–222); Judicial Committee (212–224).
Committee—Report—British Columbia* (123); New Zealand (Guarantee of Loan)* (207); Curragh of Kildare * (183).
Report— Evidence Further Amendment Act (1869) Amendment* (75); Married Women's Property (216–223); Medical Officers Superannuation* (169–225); Tramways* (204–226).
Third Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* (217); Liverpool Admiralty District Registrar* (218), and passed.

SETTLED ESTATES BILL—(No. 191.)
(The Earl of Airlie.)
SETTLED ESTATES BILL—(No. 191.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the measure had passed the other House with little opposition, and was there supported by Sir Roundell Palmer—a circumstance which indicated that it proposed no sweeping change in the law. Its object was to enable limited owners to charge their estates, under certain limitations, with the cost of erecting mansion houses thereupon, such charge not exceeding three years' net rental. The principle was already recognized in Scotland in an Act called the Montgomery Act, which had been in operation about a century, and had been found to work well. The Montgomery Act allowed a charge not exceeding two years' rental for the erection or enlargement of a mansion; and a subsequent Act authorized the sale of so much, of an estate as was required to carry out improvements. Dr. Hancock, in his official Report on the landlord and tenant question in Ireland, referring to the Montgomery Act, said—
  "This is founded on the principle that for a proprietor to reside with his family on his estate and discharge the duties of his position is one of the greatest improvements that he can effect upon it. The Montgomery Act accordingly provides that proprietors building mansion houses and suitable offices may charge, within certain limits, a proportion of the expenses to their heirs of entail. The non-residence of Irish proprietors has been a frequent subject of observation, and it is but reasonable that the provision which was adopted in Scotland to prevent the strictness of entails interfering with the building of mansion houses should be applied to prevent the strictness of settlements producing the same result in Ireland."
  Several noble Lords and hon. Members connected with Ireland had expressed a like opinion; and he had also received numerous representations from English landowners, who, from the absence of a mansion and their inability to charge their estates with the cost of erection, were reluctant absentees. Under these circumstances, the Bill had come up from the other House, where it had received very general support. The Bill incorporated the provisions of the "Improvement of Land Act, 1864;" and required that the mansion proposed to be erected or completed or enlarged should be suitable to the estate; the charge which the landowner was enabled to put on his estate in respect of these buildings was limited to three years' net rental. The increased value resulting

  609
  from the outlay of any sums expended beyond the charge was to be taken into account; and in cases where it seemed doubtful whether the buildings proposed to be erected, though suitable to the estate, would add to the yearly value of the lands, the Commissioners had discretion as to certifying the improvements. Without their certificate the charge could not be imposed. The charge, unlike other improvements, would not take priority over other charges. The Bill extended to England and Ireland, but not to Scotland.
  Moved. "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, as the measure proposed a serious alteration of the law with respect to settled estates, he thought it was important that their Lordships should have an expression of opinion on the subject from Her Majesty's Government. He did not quite concur with the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie) in thinking that the Montgomery Act of Scotland was on all-fours with the present Bill. He confessed, however, that he had not had as yet an opportunity of seeing the Bill. His noble Friend had not stated how many years it was proposed to allow for the repayment of the amount expended upon these buildings or improvements.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Law Officers of the Crown approved the principle of the Bill, which had been amply discussed in the other House, and had met with general assent. It seemed to him of the highest importance to hold out inducements to landowners—especially to Irish landowners—to reside on their estates. Admitting that three years' rental was somewhat excessive, and that the statutory declaration of the owner as to the cost would be an insufficient barrier against fraud, he thought the defects of the Bill could be remedied in Committee. He could not see why a principle that had worked well in Scotland should not work beneficially in England and Ireland.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the value of the estate on which the mansion was built should be alone taken into account, and not, as the Bill proposed, that of the owner's other estates in addition; for in the latter case a gentleman who had a large estate in England and a small one in Scotland might erect on
  610
  the latter a mansion which to his successor would be useless.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he could not admit that a law which worked well in Scotland would necessarily work well in England. In Scotland entails were perpetual; whereas in England and Ireland they were broken after short intervals, and in any future settlements such charges as were thought proper could be placed upon the estate. He objected to the principle on which the Bill was founded. Under its provisions there was nothing to prevent the Commissioners from sanctioning a charge for buildings which might afterwards be an incumbrance and injury to the successors. There was nothing in the Bill which gave the persons in remainder any veto in the matter, no matter how extravagant the proposed charge on the estate. He thought it would be much better to leave any question of this kind to be settled by contract between the parties interested. He thought that the Act of 1864 gave all powers that could be usefully required.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that the interval spoken of by the noble and learned Lord might be as long as 20 or 30 years. The Commissioners would naturally refuse to certify the erection of a large mansion on a small estate. It was provided that this Act should be read with the Act of 1864, which provided for the protection of reversions by the power of appeal to the Court of Chancery.
  LORD CAIRNSthought the Court could only intervene when one of the dissenting parties was an infant.
  LORD O'HAGANpointed out that the 18th section of the Improvement of Land Act provided for the intervention of the Court of Chancery in all cases, and the present Bill afforded greater protection to encumbrancers even than that Act. If the principle of the Act was good, why should it not be applied to Ireland? The Act was valued by all economists, and had been productive of great good by giving limited owners the power of carrying out permanent improvements. The Montgomery Act had proved very beneficial in Scotland by inducing the landlords to reside on their estates; and, in the same way, if extended to Ireland, would be a great discouragement to absenteeism. In no country was it so important that the different classes of

  611
  society should be knit together, and nothing deterred residence more than the absence of mansions. He knew multitudes of instances of very large estates—principalities indeed, producing £30,000 per annum—the owners of which were frequently absent for 50 years, and who, when they did visit, were obliged to go to a miserable country inn, or to the agent's house. Such entertainment did not encourage men to come from luxurious palaces elsewhere. In that point of view the Bill recommended itself to every man who had the prosperity of Ireland at heart.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, it would be presumptuous in him to say what effect the Bill would have on Ireland; but he was convinced the Bill was totally uncalled for so far as England was concerned. It would simply encourage that dangerous passion for bricks and mortar which had involved many persons in difficulty or ruin. The Montgomery Act contemplated an improved rental of the estate; but the building of country houses impoverished a landowner, and there were sufficient opportunities in England of opening the entail and charging the property with improvements.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was glad to hear from the Liberal side of the House the principle enunciated that it was desirable that Irish landlords should reside on their estates. It was not often they heard such sentiments uttered on that side of the House—they might slip out now and then by accident—but when they did they ought to make a note of it with joy. He hoped the Liberal party would adhere to the principle that Irish landlords should reside on their estates; but what had been done to induce them to do so? In the first place, the management of their property had been taken from them—they had been heavily fined in regard to their rents, and Parliament had destroyed the Church to which many of them were attached. These were the inducements held out by the Government to the Irish landlords to reside upon their estates. And did they seriously think they were offering any compensation, or in any way retracing their steps, by encouraging them to build country houses at the expense of their heirs? He agreed with his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) that the passion for bricks
  612
  and mortar did not require encouragement. But the question was of much more importance, and he exhorted Gentlemen of the Liberal party, now that the game question and the county jurisdiction question were so much the fashion—and now that other measures were being taken, the direct effect of which was to drive away landlords from their estates and induce them to spend their lives in foreign capitals—to make up their minds on the question of policy whether it was desirable or not that landlords should reside on their estates.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the lecture just delivered by the noble Marquess to the Liberal party was not called for either by their recent policy or by this particular Bill. He would not follow the noble Marquess by re-opening the Irish Church or the Irish land question; but he would remind the noble Marquess that Ireland, under the existing law, had not been generally esteemed a peculiarly happy country for landlords to reside in. A great part of it had been disgraced by outrages, and not only the Government, but many persons in the Conservative party — indeed, the noble Marquess himself—had admitted that there was much in the Irish land laws which was unjust to the tenant, and that this was one of the causes which led to those outrages. It was to restore contentment among the agricultural population, and to restrain and prevent outrage in future, that Her Majesty's Government had adopted their present policy. They believed it would succeed, and if it did, it would encourage the residence of the landed proprietary. The Liberal party was a very large one, and included many with whose opinions he did not agree; but he had never heard that it was characteristic of that party to hold that it was unwise to encourage landlords to live on their estates. For himself, he agreed with the noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan), that it was an immense political and social advantage that landed proprietors should be resident. The Montgomery Act had promoted this in Scotland, and he believed its extension to England, and especially to Ireland, would be very beneficial.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he did not think the Bill was required. It was not difficult for a limited owner to obtain the power of building a man-

  613
  sion on his estate if it were required. A short private Act was all that was required, and he thought that the comparatively small expense of this should not be grudged if it was important to expend in this way a large sum—especially as this procedure gave ample securities to the persons in remainder. The Bill was unnecessary, and would enable persons to indulge extravagant fancies in such enlargement of mansions as might be altogether unsuitable.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he doubted the propriety of passing this Bill. The object in view could be met by a slight addition to the Landed Estates Act, enabling the Court of Chancery to authorize the erection of mansions as well as other improvements. He had known many instances of applications by the tenant in remainder to pull down a house built by the tenant for life. The Bill would be likely to lead to litigation.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, that whilst he would admit that there were some objections to the Bill—and, in particular, he thought the power of raising money to enlarge existing mansions inexpedient—still, he believed that there were cases in which the application of the principle of it would be advantageous. It was by no means a revolutionary measure; it was not aimed at the destruction of landed property; its actual object was to enable landlords to reside upon their estates in certain cases. The principle had worked well in Scotland, and no doubt would in this country, and especially in Ireland. As to the objections raised, they could be dealt with in Committee.
  LORD LURGANsaid, that the expense of obtaining a Private Bill would be a serious bar to a resort to that process by Irish landlords. He thought this Bill would be very beneficial, and should support it.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, he knew many Irish landlords who were so apprehensive of the results of the Land Bill that for the present, at least, they would be absentees. The Bill ought to authorize the expenditure of money in fortifying houses; for this would be much better than adding to them in any other way.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL—(No. 26.)
(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL—(No. 26.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it was to all intents and purposes the measure which he introduced last Session, and which was referred, together with a counter Bill proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to a Select Committee. The most rev. Prelate was appointed Chairman; and after some time the Committee reported the Bill to the House; but the lateness of the Session and the press of business prevented his then proceeding with it. Only two or three alterations of any importance were made in the Bill upstairs. In the 32nd clause he had proposed that the Bishop, of his own motion, or, in default of the Bishop, three resident parishioners, members of the Church, might promote the Judge's office—that was to say, institute a suit in the case of any offence against ecclesiastical law. The provisions applied to all offences, whether they related to matters of ceremonial or of doctrine. That clause in the Bill had, however, been amended by the Committee, who limited it, by providing that in cases of doctrine the Bishop alone should have the power of taking the initiative in the institution of a suit, the power of appeal to the Archbishop being given in the event of his refusal. The clauses from 60 to 66 were also struck out by the Committee. They related to the appointment of juries for the purpose of trying issues of fact—in his opinion a very excellent provision, and one which he believed many of the Bishops would be glad to see restored. The 77th clause, in accordance with his proposal, provided that the orders and rules for the conduct of the Courts should be drawn up by a Committee of the Privy Council, including two Archbishops; but it had been altered by the Committee, and now the Archbishops of Canterbury and York were empowered to prepare rules and orders for the regulating the mode of procedure, their officers, records, visitation fees, salaries and other matters. These rules and regulations were to be submitted to the approbation of the Queen in Council. Those were the chief alterations

  615
  which the Committee upstairs had introduced into the Bill; but it was not his intention, at the present period of the Session, to ask their Lordships to go into Committee on the measure as it now stood. The Bill had been a very considerable time before the House, and he had moved on the 27th of March for certain Returns which he thought would throw light on the whole subject. Of those Returns, some were not presented till a very late period, some had not been presented at all, while others, he believed, had not even begun to be prepared. In consequence of those repeated delays he had been obliged to postpone the question from time to time, and he would now only ask the House to affirm the principle, "Aye" or "No," that in its opinion the state of the Ecclesiastical Courts was such that it required to be remedied. It was in that sense that he now rose to propose the second reading of the Bill. He last year ventured to point out that there were great abuses in those Courts—heavy expenditure, long delays, and a consequent denial of justice. He mentioned that there was a great insufficiency of Judges in legal character and acquirements. That state of things he proposed to remedy by the Bill which he had introduced; but in carrying out that object he had not been by any means so successful as he could wish. He was met at the outset by the objection that the propositions which he made were wholly inadequate in a financial point of view; but, if that were so, so was the whole financial system on which the Ecclesiastical Courts were based at present. He stated that, for the purpose of carrying out his plan, a sum under £30,000 a year would be all that would be required. He had applied to the Registrar General of Births and Marriages, and he found, as he had before mentioned, that on the average of the last 10 years a sum of above £40,000 a year was paid into the hands of the registrars in fees for marriage licences. Other ecclesiastical fees—for ordinations, curates' licences, institutions to livings, and other things, amounted to £20,000 in round numbers, and £60,000 a year, at the very least, therefore, was the money which was paid by the public into the hands of the registrars, for which sum no account whatever was rendered to the public directly or indirectly. These were the figures which resulted from
  616
  some of the Returns that had been made; but he believed it would be found that the sum actually paid into the hands of the registrars considerably exceeded £60,000. When Lord Cranworth was Lord Chancellor he introduced a scheme for the reformation of the Ecclesiastical Courts which was much more costly than that he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) proposed, and yet he had declared that the sums which were received by the registrars were ample for his purpose, and would even give a large margin. Let their Lordships for a moment consider what a waste of strength and time and money there was in those Courts. On referring the other day to the 58th volume of Judicial Statistics he found that in the year 1868, 15 Judges of the Superior Courts of Common Law had given judgment in 30,451 causes, excluding criminal cases; whereas in the Ecclesiastical Courts, in the same year, 27 Judges had given judgment in only 182 causes, 169 of which were of a most trivial kind. The reform of those Courts had baffled everybody from the time of Lord Bacon to the present day. Lord Cranworth, in introducing his Bill in 1856, used very strong language. He declared that 19 in 20 of the Ecclesiastical Judges were incompetent to perform their duties. He added—
  "A Commission appointed in 1830, reported in 1832, and pointed out, as being in an extremely unsatisfactory state, the jurisdiction of the Courts in a great number of matters, and, amongst others, what they called the purely ecclesiastical jurisdiction. They referred to the exercise of jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters, as distinguished from temporal matters, as very unsatisfactory."—[3 Hansard, cxli. 1254.]
  And he denounced the procedure in those Courts as cumbrous, dilatory, and expensive. The Bill of Lord Cranworth went further than his (the Earl of Shaftesbury's), because it would have deprived the Bishops of some part of their patronage, while his did nothing of the kind. Lord Cranworth's Bill was thrown out by a majority of 8 in their Lordships' House, and in the majority there were 16 Bishops, all of whom were English; while the Irish Bishops went the other way, stating that they "felt they ought not to allow a regard for their personal or family interests to stand in the way of a reform demanded by the voice of the country." In 1862, Mr. Seymour, M.P. for Poole, writing to The Times, said—

  617
  "I recently urged the Government to prepare measures for the next Session of Parliament to remedy the acknowledged abuses I have endeavoured to point out. I have received no written answer, but a verbal intimation that the English Bishops are the obstacle in the way of Church reform; and that, until the majority of them agree upon some practicable measure, the Government will not again run the risk of being defeated by them."
  He might, perhaps, be asked why he had taken up the matter? He was not insensible of the great responsibility of the task; but all he could say was, that he had taken it up in the belief that he might be able to effect some good, and to wipe away from the face of the Church a stain which led to the imputation being cast upon her that she was a Church which admitted of no reform, and that she was without order and discipline. He was now satisfied that the present Bill could not be passed; but a very sweeping change must be effected by any measure that was hereafter proposed. For his own part, he was utterly indifferent to the fate of the Bill, though he was by no means indifferent to the principle that a sweeping reform was necessary to remove the great evils to which he had adverted, and to effect this he had made a sacrifice of his own convictions, and almost of his own principles. A noble Friend of his had used the expression "that the Church never stood so well in the affections of the people." He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) felt that he could not concur in that observation. He was quite sure, and every day was strengthened in the conviction, that the Church must put her house in order, for their Lordships might depend upon it that she had not an hour to lose, or an affection to throw away.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he rose to remove a singular misapprehension on the part of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who appeared to think that the opposition of the Bishops was the great difficulty in the way of the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts. On the contrary, he was prepared to thank the noble Earl for his persevering endeavours to cure the evils as to the existence of which all were agreed, and a large portion of the noble Earl's present Bill had been assented to by the Bench of Bishops. It was perfectly true that
  618
  Lord Cranworth's Bill was objected to by the English Bishops and approved by the Irish Bishops, because it provided a final Court of Appeal, which English Churchmen thought very undesirable, but which Irish Churchmen were willing to accept, because they possessed no Court of Appeal at all. He was sure there was not a member of the Bench of Bishops who would not say that at the present time ecclesiastical discipline and the Ecclesiastical Courts required reform, although they might not, perhaps, be prepared to use such strong language on the subject as the noble Earl. Some of the present defects in Church discipline arose from the provisions of the Church Discipline Act. In the first place, the preliminary inquiry was unsatisfactory, often resulting in a recommendation to the Bishop which carried with it a condemnation which was not deserved. He might here remark, however, that 10 of the Judges in the Consistory Courts were eminent civilians, that five of the offices in those Courts were held by the Queen's Advocate, others by barristers, and only nine by ecclesiastics. No doubt the Ecclesiastical Courts were hampered by many legal difficulties and placed at a great disadvantage, for the reason that, as ecclesiastical cases had during the last 200 years been limited in number, there were very few precedents to guide their decisions; consequently the proceedings were protracted and uncertain, resulting usually in an appeal. He admitted that such a state of things required amendment. Another great defect in the existing system was that it made no provision whatever for the payment of costs. It had twice been his painful duty to prosecute clergymen. In the first instance the witnesses were not believed; and as, of course, the accused person could not be condemned to pay the costs, they had to be defrayed by the Bishop. In the other case the clergyman was condemned and appealed, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed his appeal without hearing the Bishop's counsel; but, as the clergyman was a bankrupt, there were no effects out of which to pay the costs. Therefore, whether he won or lost, the same penalty was imposed on the Bishop. All these defects were to a considerable extent removed by the present Bill, which made the proceedings more summary and less technical, and professed to pro-

  619
  vide funds for paying the salaries of officers and the costs. The noble Earl had stated that he should only require about £30,000 a year to carry out the Bill; but he (the Bishop of London) was inclined to doubt whether this would be sufficient. In the first place, it was proposed to give compensation to all existing officers, who, he presumed, would receive sums almost equal to their present salaries. Then it was intended to appoint Judges with large salaries; whereas the salaries of the present Judges were small. There was also to be a fund raised for defraying costs, and the surplus was to be used for Church purposes. These expenses would swallow up not only all the moneys on which the noble Earl relied, but a very large sum besides. The noble Earl provided, however, that if more money was required, in the first instance application might be made to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Now, it was obvious that the granting of a large sum by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would completely derange all their calculations for some years to come in regard to carrying out the work for which they were appointed by Parliament—namely, the augmentation of small benefices. There were several other points in the Bill which he would not refer to now, but which would require very careful consideration in Committee. One or two were provisions which had been altered for the worse by the Select Committee. One of these related to the mode in which the Bishops were to be put in action. It was provided that three inhabitant householders of a diocese might compel the Bishop to institute proceedings in all cases except those relating to doctrine. In cases of ritual, therefore, he would be obliged to proceed on the requisition of three inhabitants. Cases of doctrine were excepted, he supposed, because there was great uncertainty about them. He regretted that the Select Committee had struck out the clause respecting a jury, which the Bishops had agreed should be composed partly of clergy and partly of laymen. The presence of laymen would not only do away with any ground of suspicion, but would prevent a tendency to severity among the clergy when dealing with one who had disgraced their order.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) seemed to think that the English people
  620
  took a very anxious interest in this matter; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not think this was really the case. The proof of this was to be found in experience. During the last two years the excitement which had prevailed on the question of ritual excesses had very much diminished. Probably the policy of "masterly inaction" might prove the best; but if the edge of the law were sharpened against them, the new party in the Church would be favoured with a sort of martyrdom, which would excite them to fresh extravagances. He would not, however, dream of opposing the second reading of the Bill, for he held that the amount of expense to which the Bishop was now put in cases of prosecution was a disgrace to the English law. He must, however, join with the rev. Prelate in urging a reconsideration of the provision which enabled three inhabitants of a diocese to set the Bill in motion, to stop something that they might consider a practice contrary to the orders of the English Church. Innovations in the manner of conducting service in a parish church, no doubt, formed a grievance for which there should be a remedy; but no one was aggrieved if a congregation chose to set up a Church to their own liking, however extravagant their ritual, except that the clergyman would be amenable to his Bishop if he departed from the ordinary ritual. To give such extraordinary power to any three members of the Church of England in a diocese would tend to produce religious scandal.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that ample opportunity should be given for discussion upon a question so important as that before their Lordships. If this Bill were passed it would cause an enormous demand on the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission. He deprecated appropriating the fees arising from the sale of marriage licences to pay for the costs, even if they were sufficient for the purpose, which he doubted; and he did not believe Parliament would consent to appropriate funds placed in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the relief of spiritual destitution to put this Bill in working order. He also wished to point out that, although the Bill provided ample means for checking impropriety on the part of the inferior clergy, no provision was made for enforcing the law against Bishops.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYprotested against the assumption of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that the country was growing indifferent on the subject of Ritualism; and he also objected to his speaking of Ritualists as "a now party" in the Church. Twenty years ago he would not have been understood; they were a growth of late years, avowedly imitating the practices of another Church, and he could not admit the description "a new party in the Church." He hoped that some measure of this kind would pass.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the Bill, in accordance with its professed object, would materially shorten the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and would confer great benefit not merely upon the Bishops, but upon the members of the Church generally. When the time arrived to consider the details of the measure, the machinery it proposed would require to be somewhat narrowly examined—especially in regard to the financial part, which he believed to be quite unsound. While he admitted that the noble Earl had rendered excellent service in applying a practical remedy for the evil complained of, he must decline to accept all the financial arrangements suggested by his noble Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved, that it was only due to the noble Earl to state that Her Majesty's Government were anxious that some measure should pass founded on the same principle as that of the noble Earl's, and that therefore they would support the second reading of this Bill; but, at the same time, they wished to guard themselves against being supposed to accept every part of it as it now stood. For instance, 27 Judges would be an inordinate number, and he trusted that the right rev. Bench would be able to propose some plan to render such a superfluity of strength unnecessary. He also thought that the financial part of the measure required material amendment.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he should support the Bill; but he intended to propose certain Amendments in Committee upon the Bill.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he had omitted to state that the Archbishop of Canterbury had authorized him to declare that the measure met with his approval. As to criminous
  622
  Bishops, he had omitted them from the Bill in his anxiety to consult the feelings of the right rev. Bench.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly.

GAS AND WATER FACILITIES BILL.
(The Earl of Kimberley)
GAS AND WATER FACILITIES BILL.

  (NO. 111.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that when this Bill was introduced he expressed an opinion that its provisions ought to be extended so as to enable the various local authorities to provide for the purchase and erection of gas and waterworks. In many cases the local authorities were anxious to buy up or erect gas and waterworks; and it was desirable that this measure should contain provisions for the purposes of facilitating their action in that direction. He was, however, sorry to find that it was impossible to introduce such provisions into the present measure; but he hoped that the matter would not escape the attention of the noble Earl opposite when the proper opportunity arrived for dealing with the matter.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYfully concurred in the observations of the noble Lord, and regretted that such Amendments as he referred to could not be introduced into the measure.
  House in Committee: Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 222.)

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
(The Lord Cairns.)
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.

  (NO. 216.) REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the Bill entirely excluded from its operation the savings of single women acquired before the passing of the Act. He therefore begged to propose the following Amendment:—In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after the word "earnings," leave out "married," and in line 8 leave out "after the passing of this Act." This Amendment would apply to the earnings of a poor woman, no matter at what time she had acquired them. But in order to prevent

  623
  the objection that the introduction of these words would give the Bill a retrospective action, he further proposed to insert the following Proviso:—
  "Provided always, That this Act shall not apply to any wages earned before the passing of this Act by any woman married before the passing of this Act."
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that the object of the noble Lord was to protect the earnings of unmarried women; but the Amendment went directly contrary to the spirit in which the Bill was framed. For the first time the Amendment would create a new kind of property, dependent upon the fact that it was earned; and, if it were adopted, it would be necessary to trace to its origin every sum of money or portion of property possessed by a woman before her marriage. A woman's earnings were her own, and she could do with them as she pleased on the occasion of her marriage. If they proceeded to draw any distinction on this point, they must either say in comprehensive terms that all the property of an unmarried woman should be her own after marriage, or they must give the amplest powers to a married woman, even without asking the consent of her husband, to do with her property as she pleased. With the view of meeting an objection urged by his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) on a former occasion, he proposed to introduce in the 11th clause an Amendment which would enable a man and woman, on their marriage, to agree as to what chattels should be considered the separate property of the woman. This might be done by a few lines on the back of the marriage lines, or on any other piece of paper.
  Clause 7 (Personal property coming to a married woman to be her own).
  LORD ROMILLYproposed, after the word "intestate," to insert the words "or to any sum of money not exceeding £200, under any deed or will."
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that having regard to the provisions of other clauses, as well as those of Clause 7, he thought the words proposed by his noble and learned Friend were unnecessary.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 29; Not-Contents 17: Majority, 12.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 223.)

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL—(No. 212.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL—(No. 212.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he regretted to be obliged to make a few observations on the measure, which he thought was spoilt from mere parsimony. It was the special duty of the State to provide proper Judges for the trial of causes, and they could never secure proper respect for the Judicial Committee of Privy Council unless they had persons sitting on it who earned that respect from the public, and they could not obtain the services of such persons unless they chose to pay them. He felt very strongly on that subject, because it was one of the reproaches of this country that it made a profit out of litigation — that it made a considerable profit out of the misfortunes of persons who were compelled to go to law—which was just as monstrous in principle as if they were to tax, for the support of the police, every man who had his pocket picked or his house broken into. If any of their Lordships would take the opportunity of reading a little tract by Jeremy Bentham, entitled, A Protest against Law Taxes, he should be very much surprised if it did not convince them of the iniquity of a tax upon persons who went to law. He firmly believed that the noble Duke who presided with great ability and zeal over the Indian Department (the Duke of Argyll) was fully determined and very anxious to make the best provision he possibly could for the due administration of the law in India; but this was not the way to accomplish it. On a recent occasion when that subject was before their Lordships, he (Lord Romilly) had ventured to point out that there were two things which ought to be done for this purpose: the one was to improve the legal tribunals in India, and the other was to improve the Court of Appeal at home. The number of appeals from the local tribunals of India to Calcutta reached every year, he believed, about 7,000. It was impossible that the Judges there could hear all those cases, and a greater staff of Judges was absolutely necessary to dispose of them. It was one of the consequences, and also a gratifying consequence, of the good government of India that we

  625
  had an enormous amount of litigation among its people, because they would not go to law as they did unless they expected to get justice. The increase of legal proceedings in India showed the necessity of providing good Judges there. Now, in order to meet that necessity the position of the Judges must be raised. Then, again, great care should be taken not only that their ultimate tribunal should be able to dispose of the cases which came before it, but that the men they obtained to serve on that tribunal should be such as would inspire confidence among the public and the profession both at home and abroad. To suppose, however, that they could get such men for £500 a year, even in addition to a retiring pension, was, in his opinion, perfectly ridiculous; and, again, the idea that they could secure them for, £2,500 was, in his view, equally absurd. They must always bear in mind the great increase in the price of all commodities which had occurred of late years, together with the great increase which had occurred in the remuneration obtained by lawyers. That fact ought not to be lost sight of when they were attempting to fix the salary to be given to a Judge. If, therefore, the proposal contained in that Bill were not altered, he ventured to predict that their Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would not rise in the public estimation, and would not satisfy the people either at home or abroad.
  LORD DENMANobjected to the amounts which it was proposed to pay to those who were to be appointed to clear off the arrears of business before the Judicial Committee; for it was not for their Lordships to determine that matter, and in 1831 the Bankruptcy Bill left the House of Lords without any retiring pension being proposed for the Lord Chancellor; but in the House of Commons £6,000 a year was proposed, and the clause was withdrawn, as well as all retiring pensions for the new Commissioners in Bankruptcy, and he believed they might trust to the generosity of hon. Members in "another place" for requiting even those who for years had diminished the arrears in the Privy Council; and if the retiring pensions of those colonial Chief Justices were insufficient, on their declaring that fact, he would act as in the case of retired Ministers, and he had no doubt that
  626
  the other House would allow full remuneration from the Consolidated Fund for those who had zealously served their country.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, there was not much use in discussing clauses relating to sums which must be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, as they would have to be struck out before they left that House; but he thought all objections of that kind would be met if the Bill were made a temporary Bill, intended to meet a temporary crisis, which he hoped would not occur again. He would, therefore, suggest the adoption of a clause limiting the operation of the Bill to two years, during which time the arrears of business could be cleared off. He hoped their Lordships would reject the proposition that colonial Chief Justices should be eligible to be members of the Judicial Committee. He thought that no retired Judge should be eligible except the Chief Justice of Bengal. As to the proposition for appointing barristers of 15 years' standing, he would ask his noble and learned Friend if he thought it likely he could obtain the services of such men as were required for this office? It was hopeless to expect that the services of barristers of experience and ability could be secured for £2,500 per annum; or, if they could, the judicial salaries paid in this country ought at once to be reduced by one-half. He was also of opinion that the proposed addition to certain salaries would destroy the present system of voluntary service.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he agreed with what the noble and learned Lord (Lord Romilly) had said as to the impropriety of paying the expenses of a tribunal by levying fees upon the suitors; but that had no relation to this Bill, for there were no fees provided for in it. As regarded the question whether or not the tribunal could be respected unless its members were highly paid, he begged to remind his noble and learned Friend, that the present tribunal, consisting of several unpaid members, had existed for 35 years, and none was more respected. Of course, at times, and especially when it had had to deal with controverted topics of religion, its decisions had been assailed; but, in regard to legal matters, it always had been, and was unassailable. He would also remind the House that the Judge who did most to raise the tribunal to its great emi-

  627
  nence was the late Lord Kingsdown, whose services were wholly voluntary. As to the observations of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), there was no objection to making this a temporary measure if it were secured that those who were appointed under it should not be turned adrift at the end of three years, for if that were likely no one would be willing to accept the appointments. As to the proposed payments not being sufficient to insure the services of men who were qualified to take part in the hearing of cases which came before the Judicial Committee, that must be a matter of opinion; and although he had not made any proposition to persons likely to act—for to do so would be indecent and improper — yet statements had incidentally been made to him which rendered him confident that an effective tribunal could be secured by means of this Bill.
  House in Committee.
  An Amendment made, in page 2, line 1 and line 14, leave out ("Judge,") and insert ("Chief Justice").
  Then it was moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following clause:—
  "Any Privy Councillor having held the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall be a member of the Judicial Committee."
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Report thereof to be received Tomorrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 224.)

UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL—(No. 182.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL—(No. 182.)

  SELECT COMMITTEE NOMINATED.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved that the Lords following should be named of the Committee on the University Tests Bill, namely—Abp. York, Ld. President, D. Somerset, D. Marlborough, M. Salisbury, E. Cowper, E. Stanhope, E. Carnarvon, E. Powis, E. Harrowby, E. Morley, E. Beauchamp, Bp. Gloucester and Bristol, L. Colchester, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. Lyveden, L. Houghton.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I must draw attention to the awkward position in which the House is placed in regard to this very important question. The other day, after the debate on the Order for the Second Reading, the Bill was not rejected, but a Select Committee was ap-
  628
  pointed, at the instigation of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), to consider its provisions. The debate itself was of a rather extraordinary character. My noble Friend the Lord President of the Council moved the second reading on the part of the Government in a speech of great ability. That was answered by the speech of the noble Marquess, which also displayed great ability; but which was not so much directed to the value of a Committee of Inquiry as against the Bill, and, indeed, against any measure of the sort. After that the debate was carried on almost, if not quite, exclusively by the Episcopal Bench. Different opinions were expressed by occupants of that Bench; but the Archbishop of York and another right rev. Prelate made two remarkable speeches in favour of the Bill; but not one of the majority answered those two speeches. After a brief reply from my noble Friend, the House went to a Division. A week has now elapsed, and I shall be obliged to the noble Marquess if he will inform the House what course he intends to pursue with regard to his Committee. The Bill is still on your Lordships' Minutes, waiting for a second reading. I think it is a most undesirable way of destroying a measure to refer it to a Select Committee, while it is not intended practically to deal with it. If this House desires to destroy a Bill which is regarded with favour by the country generally, it ought thoroughly to discuss it and to adduce reasons and arguments which have not yet been received into the minds of the public. Late in the Session as it is, I do not know whether the noble Marquess means to work the Committee in such a manner that there may be a chance of taking up the Bill again this year, and it certainly is very important that your Lordships should know what is intended to be done. I am told this evening that there were Peers who voted for the Committee not so much from a desire to upset the Bill, as because they thought there was no reasonable objection to inquire into the practicability of introducing modifications into it. I wish, therefore, to learn from the noble Marquess what his intentions are with regard to this Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The first point referred to by the noble Earl (Earl Granville) is the character of the

  629
  debate on the Order for Second Reading. His complaint is that the debate was not sufficiently general, and that more noble Lords on this side of the House did not speak. The answer to that is a very prosaic and a very simple one—it is that the dinner-hour was approaching; and when the time arrives the Members of both Houses of Parliament give way to the not unnatural desire to partake some refreshment, and as they leave the House for that purpose, it is sometimes difficult to keep up the debate. With respect to the forms of the House I understand that a Motion such as I moved on the second reading of the Bill is, according to precedents, a mode of deciding that the House will not proceed with the Bill for the present, but will adopt another course. Last year, for instance, Lord Grey brought in a Bill on the subject of the Scotch Peerage, and it was met in the same way. We on this side of the House were not prepared to say that the principle of the measure was absolutely objectionable, but we were not prepared to adopt its principle without inquiry, and the consequence was that a Committee was appointed as an Amendment to the Motion for the second reading, and the Bill disposed of for that year.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: The Committee never met in that case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am nearly sure that it sat. At all events, I remember a still stronger case in the House of Commons, where the Motion for the second reading of the Conspiracy Bill was met by a Resolution, and not by a direct Motion that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) wishes to know what course it is proposed that the Committee should adopt. What I should prefer, if the forms of Parliament would permit, is that the inquiry should take place, and that the Bill should not die, but that, as soon as they have obtained all the information they require, the Bill should be taken up at the point at which it was dropped. The rules of Parliament, however, require that all Bills which are not completed at the time of Prorogation shall die at that period, and as that is near I do not think it probable that the University Tests Bill will be proceeded with this year. However desirous your Lordships may be to suggest another course,
  630
  it is in my opinion impossible to do anything decisive in the matter until we have on record the information which we deem it necessary to have. I am extremely sorry that I failed to convince the noble Earl by the arguments I used in reference to this question. I can only say that, as far as my poor powers went, I did my best to do so. As far as I am able to remember, my arguments were directed, or they were intended to be directed not against the principle of the Bill, but to the necessity for moving cautiously. What I attempted to show was that the very constitution of the Colleges was such that, unless you provide a guarantee for the orthodoxy of those who are taught, it is difficult to go on trusting for the selection of the teachers to precisely the same conditions as are in force now; and I maintained it was necessary to examine into the conditions under which the Tutors and Professors in the University were selected, if we intended to make so vital a change as this. On these grounds I proposed an inquiry into the whole subject, with a view of ascertaining whether, upon the evidence before them, the Committee would be justified in recommending legislation in this direction; and, if so, there can be no doubt that your Lordships would be enabled to legislate more satisfactorily than you could do at present. Such a course, I submit, is a much wiser one than if we were to act in the precipitate manner proposed by the noble Earl. I propose, therefore, to prosecute the inquiry with as much speed as possible, and when the evidence has been gathered and the Committee is able to report, I have no doubt we shall be able to make recommendations which will carry out the object in view in a manner far more satisfactory than that provided in the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLE: As I understand the noble Marquess, it was the intention of his Motion to destroy this Bill for the present year; and the real object of the Committee is to see whether tests cannot be applied to teaching members of the Universities, although both Universities are at present entirety free from any such restriction.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had no intention of the kind. I never said anything about applying tests to teachers. I spoke of the mode in which their religious character might be in-

  631
  sured. There are several points in College arrangements dependent upon this system of tests, and when you remove the system of tests altogether, it will be necessary to inquire whether their place should be supplied, and if so, how?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked whether the noble Marquess had his witnesses ready?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had five, and a noble Friend of his had others. He had received many letters on the subject, showing that great anxiety existed in the country touching the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked, whether in case the Committee had not finished its labours at the close of this Session, it was the intention of the noble Marquess to move its re-appointment next year? He remembered the case of a Scotch Bill which had been referred to a Select Committee, which came to an untimely end through the absence of the Chairman, who went off to Scotland, leaving his Committee in doubt when he would return, or whether he would return at all; and he feared this Bill would be wrecked by a similar catastrophe.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he differed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) as to the facts of the case referred to, the Bill in question having been lost from other circumstances than those stated by him. In reference to the University Tests Bill, what his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) said was to this effect—So far from desiring to put an end to the measure, his noble Friend expressed a wish that the forms of the House would allow both the Bill and the inquiry of the Committee to be proceeded with. And in the event of the Committee reporting in favour of such legislation, that the Bill should be taken up next Session exactly at the same stage at which it was left in this. The object of his noble Friend was simply to acquire information to justify the necessity for legislation on this important and difficult subject. The statement of his noble Friend, that he wished the Bill to be amended in a manner which he pointed out, should be a sufficient indication that he did not wish to destroy the Bill altogether. He (the Duke of Richmond) certainly did not vote with the noble Marquess with that intent, though he was bound to admit that their success postponed the Bill for
  632
  this Session; his object was to insure that deliberate action which common prudence demanded.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, as a Member of the Scotch Committee referred to, stated that in that case the Committee met, went into certain matters which had nothing to do with the Bill, and on the next day of meeting the Members assembled on a fool's errand, to find the Duke of Buccleuch, who had moved for the Committee, had gone to Scotland, and there was no reason to believe he intended to return.
  Motion agreed to; Committee nominated accordingly.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.