Lords Sitting of 1 July 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Court of Chancery (Funds)* (161)
Committee—Report—Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment* (126).
Report—Trusts of Benefices and Churches (151); Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment* (175); Debtors (Ireland)* (175).
Third Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (134); Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment (No. 2)* (172), and passed.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

  CORRESPONDENCE.
  Argument or Summary showing the points and referring to the evidence relied upon by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty in answer to the claims of the United States presented to Tribunal of Arbitration constituted under Article I. of the Treaty concluded at Washington on the 8th May 1871 between Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America—North America, No. 11. (1872): And
  Correspondence respecting the proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva.—North America, No. 10. (1872):
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

TRUSTS OF BENEFICES AND CHURCHES BILL.—(No. 151.)
(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)

REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendment, read.
Moved, That the Report of the Amendment be now received.—(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
LORD PORTMANsaid, he regarded the Bill as one which invaded the principles of lay patronage in ecclesiastical livings. Under the provisions of the Bill a corporation sole—that is in plain English a bishop or a rector in perpetual succession, and not as limited now to the individual named in the deed—might become the trustee of trusts already existing, as well as of those which might hereafter be created. If corporations

415
sole were allowed to become trustees of benefices, they would—or, at any rate, might—absorb the whole control of them, because they would be the electors of the successors to all the lay vacancies in the trust, and might fill them all with corporations sole; while, at the same time, corporations were peculiarly disqualified for the office of trustees, seeing that they were neither liable nor responsible for the discharge of their duties. The Bill was uncalled for under the existing system of trusteeship; there was no mischief done, nor was there any real grievance to redress. The operation of the Bill ought, at any rate, to be simply prospective, and should not be permitted to apply to trusts already in existence. He begged to move that the Report be received that day three months.
An Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Portman.)
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Portman) had misapprehended the meaning and working of the Bill as much as it was possible for them to be misapprehended. In the first place, the Bill had been introduced in order to remove doubts which had been raised by counsel as to the validity of certain trusts for the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage. The noble Lord said there was no grievance to remedy; but he could assure their Lordships that in his own diocese there was a practical grievance which stood in the way of the formation of a "Peel district." In his diocese certain wealthy inhabitants had subscribed money for the formation of such a district. They wished the incumbent to be a member of the trusts by virtue of his office, and also that his successors should in the same way be members of it. This was the wish of the persons who had subscribed the money, and not the Bishop's wish. Under the Act of 1843 it was provided that those who subscribed for such a trust might have a corporation sole as trustee; they might have the Bishop himself, or the incumbent; or they might have a number of individuals to act as trustees; but the moment subscribers said—"We shall have both a corporation sole and a number of individuals for trustees," the lawyers stepped in and said—"You may not do
416
it." That might be good law, but it did not appear to him to be good common sense. To remove such an anomaly was the object of the Bill now before their Lordships. It had been drafted in the office of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it had received the approval of the Earl of Chichester, who was so well known in connection with that Commission. If the Bill did not pass, serious consequences would ensue, because a number of trusts which now existed, and which had been framed in ignorance of the law as it was now said to be, would be declared unsound, and both the Bishops and the patrons would be placed in a very embarrassing position. He hoped their Lordships would not interrupt the progress of the Bill.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONconcurred with the right rev. Prelate, in thinking that the noble Lord misunderstood the scope of the Bill.
LORD CAIRNSsuggested that if the opinion of the House was to be taken by a division, it would be better to take it on the third reading, and after Notice. He had a good deal of objection to the Bill, because it would it would vest the trust in a corporation sole. If the trust were vested in an individual Bishop or an archdeacon, in whom the subscribers had confidence, it did not at all follow that they would have the same confidence in his successor. It might, perhaps, be better to have a fresh election of such a trustee by a majority of the survivors. He did not know whether the explanation of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Carlisle) might not remove the objections to the Bill, and in order that this might be ascertained he suggested the postponement of the division.
LORD REDESDALEprotested against their Lordships dividing against the Bill without Notice.
LORD PORTMANsaid, the Earl of Harrow by had given the right rev. Prelate Notice that he would oppose the measure.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEreplied, that he had not by any means understood that the rejection of the Bill was to be moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he had no doubt as to the occasion of the Bill, but whether the present measure was open to objection or not was a fair question for discussion. The

417
Bill was no doubt introduced to remedy what had occurred in the past, and to provide for the future. He did not then intend to discuss the merits of the Bill, but if it was to be discussed it ought to be done after full and careful deliberation. He thought it would not be right to reject the Bill at a stage as to which no Notice of objection had been given; and, therefore, he would support the reception of the Report, leaving himself open to adopt what course he thought best on the third reading.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn: Then the original Motion agreed to; Report received accordingly; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
LORD POSTMANgave Notice that he would then move that the Bill be read a third time on that day six months.

COURT OF CHANCERY (FUNDS) BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)

(No. 43.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill, which had undergone much discussion in the House of Commons, had been introduced mainly in consequence of the suggestions contained in the Report of a Royal Commission which sat in 1864 to investigate the subject. That Commission was composed of persons who were connected or familiar with the various Departments of the Court of Chancery. It comprised the noble Duke now at the head of the India Office (the Duke of Argyll), the late Lord Kingsdown, himself (the Lord Chancellor), two eminent solicitors—Mr. Field, who had since died, and Mr. Cookson—Mr. Rogers, the very active intelligent Registrar of the Court of Chancery, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Crawford, the then Governor of the Bank of England. From time to time there had been great accumulations of funds, until they amounted to £3,000,000 invested in stock and from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 in cash or other securities, arising from the administration of various estates by the Court of Chancery, and which sums stand in the name of the Accountant General. The difference between the invested and non-invested sums arose
418
from the circumstance that when the parties did not like to run the risk of the investments rising or falling, the cash remained to the credit of the Accountant General, and no interest was paid to the suitors; where, however, the parties having the right to do so asked to have their money then in the hands of the Accountant General invested, the money was invested at the risk of the parties, the interest accruing was paid to them, and if when the money was sold out there was any loss the loss fell upon them. The result was that a sum of not less than £2,000,000 remained in the hands of the Accountant General uninvested. Again, the Court of Chancery was authorized by various Acts of Parliament to invest in the name of the Accountant General all monies belonging to the suitors, and thus large sums of money had from time to time accumulated from which the Court obtained a considerable profit. The interest upon those accumulations stood as security against any sudden fall in the funds. The Commissioners of 1864 recommended steps to be taken to secure to the suitors some interest for the monies they thus left in the hands of the Court. Accordingly under this Bill, it was proposed that upon all such money remaining as cash in the hands of the Accountant General the parties ultimately entitled to it should receive 2 per cent. They would be paid this interest and the principal sum would not be liable to any deduction by reason of a fall in stock. There were other advantages to the suitor. One of these was that checks under £25 would be cashed at the office in Chancery Lane; whereas at present suitors had to take them to the Bank of England. This facility would apply to more than half the checks that were drawn. There had hitherto been no mistakes except to an insignificant amount—a fact highly creditable to those who had selected the Accountant General; but suitors had no adequate security, while the Bill would give them the security of the Consolidated Fund. The measure likewise proposed to take the whole of the existing staff of the Accountant General's Office to the Paymaster General's Office. All this could be done without changing the existing state of things. It also provided for an improved system of audit. The movement made by the Treasury last year was, in his (the Lord Chan-

419
cellor's) opinion, in the right direction, inasmuch as it was most desirable that the whole affairs of the Court, in regard to the suitors' funds, should be placed under one uniform system.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CAIRNSsaid, that no just exception could be taken to the principle of the Bill. As regarded suitors, it proposed nothing that was injurious and much that was beneficial. They would receive 2 per cent interest; whereas they now received nothing unless they undertook the risk of investing their money in the Funds, with the liability of having to sell out at a discount. They would also have the security of the Consolidated Fund. He thought also that the existing machinery of the Accountant General's Office, although well suited for times past, had become very old-fashioned, and required replacing by that which would work more easily and rapidly. He thought that were the funds to be invested in the manner proposed, not only the suitors, but the public also would be benefited by the change. Under these circumstances, he had no hesitation in supporting the second reading of the Bill.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken (Lord Cairns) entirely concurred in the general principle of this measure, which was the result of the somewhat laborious inquiry on this subject, in which he had had the honour of being associated with the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack some eight years ago. It had not been without some astonishment that he, an unlearned layman, had ascertained what had been the practice of the Court of Chancery with regard to the Suitors' Fund. During the whole time the money remained the subject of litigation the suitors did not receive a single farthing in the shape of interest—unless they preferred a special request that it should be invested, when they were compelled to take the risk of any depreciation in the price of stock. That practice had appeared to the Commissioners very unjust, and therefore they had unanimously recommended that some system should be adopted under which suitors might receive interest for their money during the time it formed the subject of litigation. So strong had been the objection
420
at one time to interfere with the Suitors' Fund in any way, that it had been scarcely hoped that Parliament would ever attempt to deal with the matter. By successive steps, however, the recommendations of the Commission had now obtained the universal assent of both sides of the House. The proposed change would confer a great benefit upon both the public and the suitors.
LORD OVERSTONEobjected very strongly to that portion of the Bill which would exempt a particular class of holders of public stock from paying income tax.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that there would be a charge for managing the fund, and the suitors would receive only 2 per cent, whilst the State would receive about 3 per cent, from which, however, income tax would be deducted; so that the gain of the State after all would not be very great. There were a vast number of small payments of £10 and less, and, considering the trouble that there would be in deducting income tax from these small sums, it had been considered better to pay them free of the tax.
LORD REDESDALEobserved, that this money was to be invested in Terminable Annuities; but he could not understand how when the Terminable Annuities ceased the suitors were to get their money.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

FENIANISM.—QUESTION.

  EXPLANATION.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEasked the Secretary for the Colonies, How he reconciles the discrepancy between his statement made in this House on Monday, the 24th June, as reported in The Times of the 25th—
  "At no period since the Fenian raid had Fenianism been more quiescent, and at its headquarters across the Atlantic it had never been at a lower ebb,"
  and the statement contained in Enclosure No. 8, at end of page 9 (being a letter from the Privy Council of Canada to Lord Lisgar, dated 28th July, 1871), that the Committee must add "the fact that Fenian organization is still in full vigour," and whether the noble Earl

  421
  has since that date had any fresh information touching the Fenian organization; and, if so, whether he will lay it on the Table of the House? The noble Lord said he asked this Question because it appeared to him that Fenianism was in full vigour instead of being at a low ebb; and from what the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) in "another place" said the other night, it seemed that the Government was of the same opinion. This was also apparent from the fact that they had for several years not called out the Militia in Ireland, neither had they sanctioned Volunteer corps there; but, strange to say, under the new Army organization system they were forming an Irish Army, the only reasonable object of which must be an anticipation of the disintegration of the Empire.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not propose to follow up the noble Lord's Question as to the Irish Militia or the condition of Ireland by any reply, further than to say that he did not make his statement on that subject the other night specially as Colonial Secretary, but simply as speaking with reference to an Irish question. With regard to the Question now put to him by the noble Lord, he would begin with the first branch of it. He should have thought the question supplied an answer to itself, because it appeared that the statement of the Privy Council was made on the 28th of July, 1871; whereas his statement was made on the 24th of June, 1872. Therefore, he did not think he was bound to reconcile the two statements. At the same time, when he said that Fenianism was quiescent, he did not mean that the Fenian organization had entirely ceased to exist. He knew that it still continued to exist in the United States. The noble Lord asked him whether he had received any further information touching the Fenian organization, and, if so, whether he would lay it on the Table? Now, he believed it was matter of general notoriety, and might be ascertained from the ordinary sources of information, that the Fenian organization still existing in the United States was quiescent at the present time, and probably never was more quiescent than it was now. He had no further information on the subject to lay on the Table.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

(No. 172.) THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Bill read 3a accordingly.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he desired to move an Amendment which would render the Bill effectual for its object. He showed that under his proposal the Government would advance the whole of the purchase money to tenants not holding above the value of £20 a-year, but would in no case advance a larger sum than would cover 20 years' purchase, and that would be effected without involving a larger advance of public money than could be made by the present principle of the Bill, as in the few cases where advances had been made two-thirds of 30 years' purchase had been advanced. That would enable tenants in Ireland to arrive at what they most desired—fixity of tenure without any further loss to the Government and with a very little additional burden to the Exchequer and with honesty to landlords.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he doubted whether such an Amendmen could be made in their Lordships' House; but if it were otherwise, he could not accept it on the part of the Government. As he understood its purport, it was that in the case of very small holdings where the tenant purchased under the Land Act of 1870 the State should supply him with the whole of the purchase-money, and not with a portion of it only, whenever the purchase-money did not exceed 20 years' purchase. Such an alteration would be entirely inconsistent with the intention of the Land Act of 1870, which went on the principle that if the tenant by his own thrift was able to contribute towards the purchase of his holding, the State would aid him with a definite proportion of the whole amount. The noble Lord's Amendment would be a departure from that principle, and would have a very mischievous effect. Another effect of the Amendment would be to give to small holders a statutory right to 20 years' purchase;

423
and as he doubted whether, in addition to those objections, the Amendment would have the effect contemplated by the noble Lord he trusted it would not be pressed.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Bill passed.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.