Sitting of 17 June 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. O'FERRALL, the Names of Commissioners appointed by his Excellency, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, pursuant to the provisions of 2nd and 3rd William 4th,

903
cap. 119: also the Number of Tithe Compositions entered into within three Months, from the 16th August, 1832, under the same Act: of the Number of Appeals against Compositions by Agreement, and of such Agreements made as would entitle the Proprietor making the Agreement to a reduction of fifteen per cent, according to the Provisions of the same Act.—On the Motion of Sir ROBERT INGLIS, a Copy of any Despatch addressed by the Court of Directors of the East-India Company to their Supercargoes at Canton, in reference to the Voyage recently undertaken by the Ship Amherst to the North East Coast of China, with a Copy of any Report or Journal of such Voyage.
Bills. Read a second time:—Woollen Trade Acts Repeal; Exchequer Bills.—Committed:—Sheriffs' Expenses.
Petitions presented. By Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, from the Birmingham School of Medicine, against any Alteration in the Apothecaries Act.—By Mr. JOHN HEATHCOTE, from the Licensed Publicans of Tiverton, for Relief with respect to their Licenses.—By Mr. WILKS, from the Owners of a Burial Ground, called Necropolis, &c., near Liverpool, that their Burial Register may be made Legal Evidence in Courts of Law: from a Dissenting Congregation at Reading and Lichfield, for Relief with respect to Registration and Rates: from a Number of Individuals interested in Seamen and Ships, for a Maritime Code of Laws applicable to the Merchant Service: and by Mr. STRICKLAND, from the Sunday School at Melbourn (Derby),—against Slavery.—By Mr. M. CHAPMAN, from Youghall and Lisburn, for Mitigating the Severity of the Criminal Code.—By Mr. STRICKLAND, from several Parishes of York, for Enforcing the Legal Residence of an Officiating Minister in each.—By Mr. GUEST, from Caerphilly, against the Glamorgan Assizes Bill; and from Merthyr Tydvil, in favour of the Lord's Day Observance Bill.—By Mr. EWART, from Liverpool, against the Highways and Rating of Tenements Bill.—By Mr. HUTT, from Kingston-upon-Hull, against the General Register Bill; and from the same Place, for an Inquiry into the Affairs of the Trinity House.—By Mr. CLAY, from the several Trades connected with Sugar Refining in the City of London, for enabling the Refiners of this Country to compete with others in Foreign Markets.—By Mr. POTTER, from the Unitarians of Manchester, for a Charter to the London University.—By Mr. HUTT, from the Medical Practitioners of Kingston-upon-Hull, for the Amendment of the Apothecaries Act.

TRIENNIAL PARLIAMENTS.
Mr. Tennysonpresented a Petition from an individual, praying for Vote by Ballot, Triennial Parliaments, and the exclusion of placemen from the House. He (Mr. Tennyson) was astonished that a notice on this subject, which had been given long ago by an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wilks), had been postponed from time to time for so long a period. It was a most important subject, and became more so at this moment, when a dissolution of Parliament was talked of as extremely probable. He, however, was determined to take the opinion of the House upon it on the 2nd of July, when he intended to move a call of the House, that no Member might afterwards say he had not had an opportunity of giving his vote on the occasion.
Major Beauclerksaid, he came into that House with the greatest hopes on the subject of Triennial Parliaments; he knew that the great body of the people were deeply impressed with its necessity; they
904
had a very strong feeling upon the subject, which he had no doubt had been very much increased by the conduct pursued by that House. The people were most anxious to have the measure; and he begged to return his most sincere thanks to the hon. member for Lambeth for the notice he had given.
Mr. Wilkssaid, he did not agree with the hon. member for Surrey, that the public had a right to complain of the conduct of that House. It had paid as much attention to public business, and had gone on with as much expedition with measures of the very utmost importance, as any enlightened constituency could possibly desire. He did not think that the question of Triennial Parliaments was one of such an urgent nature as would have justified him in forcing it on the attention of the House at that late period of the Session. He thought, in pursuing the course he had done, he had best consulted the interests of the public; for the question could not now receive that serious and attentive discussion which it would do at the beginning of the next Session, and which it required from its vast importance. It was under those circumstances that he had deferred the Motion, following the example of many hon. Members; but when the question was brought on by the hon. Member, he should not only have his (Mr. Wilks's) vote, but all the assistance it was in his power to give him.
Major Beauclerkmeant, that the public had expected most rigid measures of economy from that House, and it was in that they were disappointed.
Mr. Cobbett: The hon. member for Boston had brought forward the question of Triennial Parliaments last Session. The hon. Alderman (Wood) had been directed to give notice of a Motion of that nature on the first day of the Session; but he apologised for not doing so because the hon. member for Boston claimed priority, as it had been in his hands before. So that the question was to be kicked about in that way, and never be brought on at all. He (Mr. Cobbett) was very much obliged to the hon member for Lambeth, and he hoped he would persevere in his call of the House, and show who those were that wished to sit there for seven years, and also those who were not afraid to go back to their constituents at the end of three years.
Mr. Finnsaid, there was no doubt but that Triennial Parliaments would be most desirable; but he really believed, that it was not of much importance at the present moment, for he believed that that Parliament would not sit two years. The hon. member for East Surrey seemed to forget the atrocious conduct of that House with regard to Ireland. That part of its conduct had not much conciliated the favour of the public; then the flippant manner in which they had voted away twenty millions the other night, adding to the burthens of the already overburthened people, would also be borne in mind. It was really most astonishing to see the manner in which that vote had been supported, when it was remembered the pledges of economy that many of the Members had given on the hustings. He had seen but little to approve of in the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers—their new mode of settling the tithe question in Ireland, by taking the burden from the man who owed it, and placing it on the shoulders of another, might give peace for a time, but nothing would do but laying the axe to the root. The Church in Ireland must be put an end to before any but a temporary peace would be established in that country. Then as to the question of pledges, they had been much repudiated in that House. It was said, that no man who was pledged was an independent man, and that, too, by men who themselves made pledges while on the hustings. He denied such doctrine. Were Members sent to that House to represent their own opinions? He would say no, but to represent those of their constituents. The people had a right to exact pledges from all candidates, and if he had a vote, he would not give it to any one who did not fully state his opinions upon all great questions, and that was pledging.
Colonel Evansthought, that so far from its being inexpedient to bring on the question of Triennial Parliaments at the present time, it was most necessary that it should be settled, if, as many said, they were on the eve of dissolution. It was most extraordinary to see how many Members had acted on late occasions, considering the manner in which they had pledged themselves on the hustings.
Mr. Fergus O'Connorsaid, the only difference seemed to be in what gentlemen denominated the public. The hon. member for Boston seemed to apply that term
906
only to the supporters of Government, and not to the great body of the people out of doors. He was most thankful to the hon. member for Lambeth for forcing on the question. He was glad to see the Attorney General present, as he had for some time wished to ask him some questions respecting the prosecutions of the Press, especially that of The True Sun. He had looked at the file of the Paper, and he found that, when the great question of Reform was under consideration, there were then much move violent articles inserted than the one now under prosecution. He wished to know why the Attorney General had not taken care of the Constitution at that time, or why it was, that he had only now awoke to the necessity of such proceedings? Were would be the security of the Press if the newspapers were to be made afraid of inserting, as original matter, opinions, and not more strong ones than what were expressed in that House?
An Hon. Membersaid, he would repeat in the House what he had stated on the hustings—that if pledges were required of him, he would rather a hundred to one not be elected. He was at all times willing to state his opinions to his constituents, but he would never pledge himself. Indeed he did not believe, that it was the general sense of the House that Members had pledged themselves so much as was sometimes said.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the affair of pledges lay within a very narrow compass. The question really was, whether the representatives were the servants or masters of their constituents. A Member merely pledged himself to his own opinions, which he was at liberty to change when he pleased; but when he did do so he should do so manfully, and give his constituents an opportunity of approving or disapproving of them.
Sir Edward Codringtonexpressed his perfect readiness to pledge himself to certain principles, but he had never given a pledge to any specific measure. He would have no objection to bind himself to certain principles, but not to the extent to which he might find it necessary to carry them.
Mr. Baldwinsaid, he was one of those Members who gave pledges to their constituents at the hustings. He should, therefore, trespass for a few moments on the indulgence of the House in vindication

907
of his conduct. He was not disposed to regret that conduct—nay, he was proud of it, because he had religiously adhered to those pledges, and was resolved they should never be violated. The hon. and gallant Admiral had said, that he had pledged himself to principles, but not to measures or to men; and he had laid down his own conduct as a rule for the direction of other candidates. The hon. and gallant Admiral conceived he had discovered the precise limits to which pledges should be confined, and the utmost latitude to which they should be extended. A slight tincture of the schools adhered still to his mind, and he conceived that generalities too often served to envelope and conceal error. The gallant Admiral, under cover of his pledges as to principles, might vote for the worst measures and the worst Ministers, and against the best measures and the best Ministers. He might, for instance, pledge himself to vote for short Parliaments and freedom of election, and afterwards say, that he considered Septennial Parliaments short enough—perhaps too short—and elections most free when electors were at liberty to dispose of their votes according to their interests or their inclinations, however influenced, however warped. The Bill against bribery at elections might appear not only superfluous, but quite unconstitutional, and tyrannical, under that aspect of the question. In truth, he would not more completely betray bad logic by drawing general conclusions from particular premises, than he betrayed fallacious political doctrines by leaving himself free scope and latitude as to particular questions, and men, under the shield of his pledges, as to general constitutional principles. The hon. and gallant Admiral would, he trusted, do him (Mr. Baldwin) the justice to believe he did not suppose him capable of intending to make any such use of his theory on this subject. He was convinced his high-minded and candid spirit would, as his whole public conduct and character had proved, spurn anything evasive, or disingenuous, or ignoble; but the doctrine which he advocated would lead to such consequences, and serve to shelter men whose dispositions were entirely different. He should now advert to the sound and philosophical view of the subject. Burke had said, it would be ridiculous that one body of men should hear all the arguments on a question, and
908
that other men who had not heard them should determine how they ought to vote after the discussion. He did not deny there was much force in that, as in all the other positions of that great orator; but Burke was as great a master of sophistry as of eloquence. The splendour of his imagery was not more calculated to dazzle than his ingenuity was to mislead. The truth was, that on all those great subjects on which the public mind had been long engaged, those subjects which had been discussed, and sifted, and balanced in the scales of reason by a thousand investigations of truth—subjects on which all the information was accessible to all ardent inquirers, and on which the Press—the popular orators, and the studious and retired, the dispassionate and deliberate philosopher,—had poured forth their opinions; the people at large were likely to form more correct, more unprejudiced judgments than the members of that House—judgments much less subject to sinister influence, or sudden impulse. On these subjects, therefore, a candidate at the hustings might, if his opinions coincided with those of the elector's, honestly pledge himself to comply with their instructions. But on other subjects—on questions which might be affected by unforeseen events, or on which the information necessary to an accurate judgment was not open to the great body of the people—the candidate ought to reserve his right of deciding independently, unrestricted by previous promises, as uninfluenced by private, or personal considerations. On those latter questions—such, for instance, as the question of peace or war—he had reserved his right of free unshackled judgment, and should exercise that right; but on the former questions he gave pledges which he should honestly redeem. The argument, which rested upon the point of whether the Representative be the servant or the master of his constituents, appeared to him not conclusive on either side. The Member was the servant of his constituents when he was honestly doing their business. He was in some degree their master when he made the laws by which they were to be governed, and to which they must submit; but he was then only a genuine Representative and virtuous legislator, when he sedulously studied the national interests, and spoke and voted solely with a view of promoting those interests in the most effectual manner. The

909
question of Triennial Parliaments, which gave rise to that discussion, was one of those questions on which he gave a pledge. He did, without hesitation, pledge himself to vote for Triennial Parliaments. He concurred with his constituents in thinking that the Parliament, in the reign of George 1st, which, having been elected by the people for three years, elected itself for seven, was guilty of a most unconstitutional and unwarrantable act—and that, if it passed the Septennial Bill, under the conception of some temporary expediency, it ought to have taken the earliest opportunity of repealing that Bill. While it remained the law of the land, he did not conceive the electors could have a proper control over their representatives; and the Acts of the present Parliament—particularly that Act, which obliterated every vestige of civil or political liberty in Ireland—was a demonstrative, incontrovertible proof of the correctness of his opinion. He, therefore, should vole most cheerfully with the hon. Member on that question.
Mr. Shawdid not believe the House was reduced to the dilemma assumed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, as being either the masters or servants of the people. They were bound to state their opinions, and to act according to their own judgment; they were bound to state their opinions to their constituents, and leave their election in their hands, but he would not for a hundred constituencies vote against his opinion.
Mr. Hawesstated, that with regard to the Repeal of the Septennial Act, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tennyson) brought it forward, he would give it his support.
Petition to lie on the Table.

SUGAR REFINING.
Mr. Ewartpresented a petition from the merchants and shipowners of Liverpool, praying for the removal of all restrictions upon the importation of sugar for the purposes of refining. The petitioners stated, that they carried on an extensive commerce with Brazil, St. Domingo, Cuba, India, Batavia, and the Indian Archipelago, which countries were mainly supplied with British manufactures, but that owing to the high and prohibitory duties levied on the chief productions of those countries (sugar and coffee) imported into this
910
country, they suffered great inconvenience and loss in carrying on their trade with those countries. The difficulty of obtaining return freights for their ships and remittances for their merchandise was very great; and the consequence of this state of the law was, to encourage foreign commerce, to the great injury and depression of that of this kingdom. The petitioners said they were prompted humbly to represent the difficulties under which their commerce and shipping laboured at this late period of the Session, that their interest might be fully considered in the settlement of the important colonial measures now before Parliament; and that the exclusive monopoly of the home market hitherto enjoyed by the colonies, and the large bounty granted on the re-exportation of their sugars and molasses in a manufactured state, might be especially considered. They also stated, that the colonies did not contribute anything to the revenue of this kingdom, but that their Government and protection was a heavy charge upon it, whilst there was annually paid out of the Treasury on the exportation of refined sugar and bastards nearly 500,000 l.; that the high price of sugar and coffee, owing to this bounty and monopoly, operated as a direct tax upon the consumers of this kingdom of nearly 2,000,000 l.; and that it tended so materially to restrain the consumption of these important articles as further to injure the revenue to the probable extent of 1,500,000 l. That the exports of British manufactures and produce to the aforenamed countries exceeded by fivefold those to our West-India colonies, with a field for unlimited extension; whilst our imports admitted to consumption from those countries did not amount to one-fourth the value of our exports. The petitioners estimated the loss to the revenue and commerce of the country by the present restrictive system, by bounties actually paid out of the Treasury, by indirect taxation, by the restraint upon the consumption, and upon the extension of commerce and manufactures, at fully 5,000,000 l. annually. They expressed a hope, that whilst the House was legislating for the benefit of the slaves in our distant colonies, it would also consider the present condition and future welfare of the labouring population at home, especially the mariners, and those of the manufacturing districts who were mainly dependent for

911
their daily bread on the maintenance and extension of our foreign commerce; and prayed that the House would take their petition into consideration, and, whatever compensation might be granted to the colonists for the manumission of their slaves, or for any other of their rights and privileges which they now possessed, might be a direct, full, and final one.
Colonel Williams, in supporting the prayer of the petition, observed that the petitioners had stood forward to complain of a great national grievance; they had too long truckled to the colonies, and he thought it high time that such a system should be put an end to, and a new one begun. He had voted, it was true, for the grant of twenty millions, but not for the purpose of compensation, thinking the parties entitled to none, but in order, if possible, to settle the question amicably.
Mr. Stricklandwas of opinion, that all monopolies ought to be removed, as destructive to the progress of commerce. Though it might be good policy to grant the twenty millions, he thought it would be much more than would be wanted.
Mr. Buckinghamwas convinced that one of the causes of the depression of the shipping and commercial interests of this country arose from the excessive imposts on every species of raw produce brought from every part of the world.
Mr. Claywished to ask the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question relative to the declaration he had made on a former occasion with regard to the admission of foreign sugars for the purpose of being refined and exported. He was anxious to know whether Government was prepared to carry that beneficial operation, of which notice had been given, into immediate execution, or whether the sugar-refining trade of this country was to be ruined by further delay? From important facts which had come to his knowledge, he could state that orders had been received in town for the machinery constructed upon new principles, for ten refining manufactories upon the continent; and if the refining trade were transferred to the continent, the sugar refiners here would have an additional difficulty to contend with, and he much feared it would be impossible to retrieve the evils which might result.
Lord Althorp, in answering the question, could only state what in effect he had said on a former occasion. It cer-
912
tainly was his opinion that the restriction for preventing foreign sugar being refined for exportation was a great evil, while it offered no advantage to the West-Indian interest. At the same time, while the question of the Abolition of Slavery was under the consideration of the House, it would not be desirable to open the matter. He was quite aware of the disadvantages of delay, and he considered that the refining trade—he would say not only in its present depressed, but oppressed state—could not much longer remain, at all events not beyond the conclusion of the present Session without relief. He thought that in the early part of next Session, the whole subject ought to be brought before the House.
Petition laid upon the Table.

APOTHECARIES.
Mr. Huttpresented a Petition from medical practitioners of Hull, for the repeal of the Apothecaries' Act.
Mr. Hillsaid, he hoped that, as the lawyers had given up the pedantry of writing Latin, the physicians would condescend to give their prescriptions in plain English, which would, perhaps, be the means of preventing some accidents. He rose, however, for the purpose of respectfully suggesting to the hon. Secretary who brought in the Bill the propriety of taking care, that the interests of the provincial schools of medicine and surgery in England were duly attended to in his Bill. Many of them were of high repute, and well they deserved it. He hoped their certificates would be allowed to have their due weight in the new Act. It was of great importance that young men should obtain a good education at home, and not be sent too young to the metropolis; a source of great expense to their parents, and of danger to themselves.
Mr. Ruthvenhoped some steps would be taken, in bringing forward the new Apothecaries' Act, to secure the public against danger from the incompetency of medical apprentices to read prescriptions.
Mr. Briscoetrusted that the Apothecaries' Bill would be referred to a Committee; that certainly no step would be taken to repeal the present law respecting apothecaries, except on the fullest information as to its utility and necessity. It was of the highest importance that the poor and others should be protected

913
against ignorant pretenders to skill in medicine.
Mr. Baldwincomplained that the proposed Bill for amending the Apothecaries' Act did not contemplate giving to the Members of the English and Irish colleges the same privileges it was intended to confer on the graduates of two or three of the Scotch Universities.
Mr. Hughesadded his testimony to that of his hon. friend as to the necessity of referring the subject to a Select Committee, to which he hoped the hon. Secretary would have no objection.
Mr. Haweswas of opinion, from the communication he had had with many respectable practitioners, that the subject ought to be referred to a Committee. It was necessary that the poor should be guarded from the practices of ignorant practitioners, as it was the poor who suffered by that ignorance, and not the rich, who could afford to get the best and most talented advice.
Mr. Lambadmitted the importance of the question, and the necessity of not proceeding without the amplest information, but declared, that he considered the privileges at present enjoyed by the Company of Apothecaries were of an injurious and too extensive a character. Although he introduced the Bill, he was not pledged to all the details, and indeed he had deferred it, partly that time might be given to render it as effectual as possible. He thought that, under the present system there was a very injurious monopoly, and that some regulations should be made as to the mode and period of apprenticeship. Under ignorant practitioners the apprentices only learned bad Latin. He should have no objection to the appointment of a Committee to consider the details of the Bill; but he could not consent to refer so large a subject as the whole study of medicine and quackery to the same tribunal. It was his intention to proceed with the Bill this Session.
Petition to lie on the Table.

POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. Hurstpresented a Petition from Horsham, complaining of the misrepresentations of the Poor Laws Commissioners in their description of the effect of the rates there in consequence of the riotous proceedings of 1830, &c. They prayed that such description be expunged as of injurious tendency to the character of the neigh-
914
bourhood. He had deemed it to be his duty to present this petition, and under all the circumstances, he trusted, that the Commissioners, who could only desire to do what was fair and right, would condescend to review this part of their report. The evidence was collected at a period of considerable excitement, in November last, when the general election was influencing the country. The evidence on which the Commissioners' representations were made was disputed; and such being the fact, and feeling assured that the Commissioners could only desire to do what was right, he should not at present submit any motion on the subject.
Mr. Fergus O'Connortrusted the Report would not now be looked upon as a good authority, and cited against the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland.
Major Beauclerksupported the petition. The Commissioners had refused to make any reparation, though asked in the most gentlemanly way to do so.
Mr. Lambcould not say anything as to the truth or falsehood of the allegations in the petition, but vindicated generally the conduct of the Commissioners. In so many inquiries mistakes were to be expected; certainly they could hardly be avoided.
Petition to lie on the Table.

FACTORIES BILL.
Lord Ashley moved the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Factories Bill.
Lord Althorpwould not oppose the second reading of the Bill, as he considered it necessary to put some restrictions on the labour of children. The Report of the Commissioners, however, was not yet ready to be laid upon the Table of the House. It would be ready next week, and might be considered when the House was in Committee on the Bill. It was the opinion of the Commissioners, with respect to the Noble Lord's Bill, that some of its clauses went further than was necessary, and some of them did not go far enough.
Lord Ashleyunderstood, that the principle of the Bill was conceded by the noble Lord; but he would like to know how far the concession extended.
Lord Althorp: As far as it related to children; for what he meant was, to prohibit children under fourteen years of age, by regulations, as to the time of labour. The noble Lord must be aware that he

915
was speaking the opinion of the Commissioners when he talked of extending the principle to children under fourteen years of age; and the Commissioners also advised that the time of labour should be restricted to eight hours instead of ten. He repeated, that he did not object to the second reading of the Bill. When they had gone into Committee on the Bill, there were provisions which he might object to.
Lord Ashleyhoped that the noble Lord would not limit the principle of the Bill to children under fourteen years of age, but in Committee would go further. For his own part, he felt the strongest desire to conciliate all parties opposed to the Bill, as far as that could be done without giving up its principles, and in Committee he should be ready to withdraw those clauses which might be found most obnoxious. He trusted, however, to be able to improve the Bill; and his great object was, to gain the support of each party. He trusted the noble Lord would not only consent to have the evidence of the Commissioners laid on the Table, but to have it printed and circulated as speedily as possible. He begged the noble Lord to permit him to say, that he objected to the way in which evidence had been obtained from witnesses in this matter. He had received several letters—among others, one from Scotland that day—all expresive of dissatisfaction as to the method the Commissioners pursued in obtaining evidence. As little time as possible should be lost in producing the evidence, if the noble Lord wished the Bill to pass that Session.
Bill read a second time.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Althorp moved the reading of the Order of the Day on this Bill.
Colonel Wood presented a Petition against the Bill, from the Archdeacon and Clergy of Brecknock.
The Order of the Day was then read, and the House, on the motion of Lord Althorp, resolved itself into a Committee on the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.
On Clause 24, which provides that if the incumbent should die before sale-day, or be lawfully evicted, translated, or promoted, the tax should be apportioned, being read,
Mr. Goringrose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice against
916
translations, and in doing so, said, he would not have ventured to address the Committee, in the course of the important subject they were discussing, had he not felt constrained by Christian duly to take the first opportunity of suggesting to the assembled Representatives of the United Kingdom, the propriety and necessity of restoring, as far as possible, to its primitive purity, the fount and sources of discipline to the Church: an abuse which had existed for centuries. When once acknowledged, in his opinion, the length of time it had existed, only increased the imperative duty of immediately putting a stop to it. The system of translation of the Bishops, which commenced in the fourth century, at the instance of the most venal courtier, the most corrupt and timeserving churchman that ever existed, was, at its commencement, declared by the canons of several councils contrary to Scripture, and to the interests of the Church. Notwithstanding which, of such consequence was it to the falling Roman empire to make the Church an engine and tool of state (for which no more effectual means could ever be devised than this system of translation) that although thus denounced by the zealous and pious fathers of the time, it gradually became a substantiated prerogative and universal. No one was more anxious than he was to support every just prerogative of the Crown, but the commands of Christian duty and the interests of the Church must surmount every other sentiment. He trusted his Majesty's advisers would consider, that the exercise of this power was entirely unnecessary to preserve the alliance between Church and State, or for any other constitutional purpose, and that the concession of it would be of great advantage both to the Church and the Monarchy. He could not but deprecate a system which rendered the hierarchy the slaves of courtly favour, which made those who, to use the assertions contained in the apology of Tertullian, "are dead to all ideas of worldly honour and dignity, to whom nothing was more foreign than political concerns," the subservient tools of faction, the members of intrigue and cabal. He trusted that the Committee would feel, that it was no longer right that the Bishops should "stand in the gap and trade of more preferments." Must not political and interested motives intervene and dull the sense of religion in those who, professing

917
zeal for the doctrines of grace, ought to exhibit examples of purity in their lives? Two different characters were offered for the emulation of every Bishop—the one of proud ambition and ostentatious dignity—the other of humble meekness and of zealous piety. He wished to see the Bishops deprived of temptations to avarice and ambition.
"Nam quæ reverentia legûm, Quis metus aut pudor, est unquam properantis avari."
To restore and maintain the respectability of the establishment in the eyes of the nation, to advance the interests of that Church of which he was a member, he felt it his duty to bring before the Committee a system in his opinion so hostile to its interests, and contrary to any instructions to be found either in Scripture or the fathers. He did not think any one abuse so injurious to the Church as this, which rendered impure the source from which its discipline and government should be derived. It was not sufficient that the lord of a household appointed his workmen what they should do, if the surveyors and upper workmen see not that they do it. Who could maintain, that the Bishops of our smaller sees, during the short time they were made the stepping-stone to higher honour, had it in their power to make themselves so far acquainted with the clergy of their diocess, as was consistent with the episcopal duty of instructing as well as governing those who were subordinate to them? It was,

But this was not the only injury; the greatest injury produced by the system, in his opinion, was the sense it gave the people, that the Bishops prized their own advancement and glory more than the salvation of their flocks. However pure his motives might be, a translated Bishop must ever be obnoxious to this suspicion. If the Bench of Bishops wished to restore themselves in the eyes of the nation, they must show, that they were not actuated by worldly motives—that they did not make their office a secular calling—that their principles were sincere, and that they did all to the glory of our great master. If servility were perceived in them, if a wretched desire to obtain by courtly flattery, or unseemly means, accumulation of wealth, if they sacrificed political integrity for hopes of advancement, who could re-
918
gard them as the governors and fathers of the Church? "Quem murum integritatis at vallum providebimus, si auri sacra fames in penetralia veneranda proserpat, quid denique cautum esse poterit, aut securum, si sanctitas incorrupta corrumpatur cesset altaribus imminere profanus ardor avaritiæ et à sacris adytis repellatur piaculare flagitium? Itaque castus et humilis nostris temporibus eligatur episcopus, ut quocunque locorum pervenerit omnia vitæ propriæ integritate puriticet, nec pretio sed precibus ordinetur antistes." He felt a restoration, as far as possible, to primitive discipline was, to the Church, absolutely necessary, to that discipline originally designed to beget and nourish religion and virtue, in order to stifle modern follies and fancies, to reclaim an erring and degenerate age. He trusted, that from the support he should that night meet with, henceforth a Bishop when appointed might be tempted to no other feeling than this—"Farewell all hopes of court, my hopes in heaven do dwell." The hon. Member concluded by moving—"That the words 'translated and promoted' be omitted. He would afterwards propose the insertion of a clause to prevent the future translation of Archbishops or Bishops in Ireland to any vacant see, providing that the said clause shall not impede the uniting of sees according to the provisions of the said Act."
Mr. Stanleysaid, he believed that one of the ordinances of the Church was, that no person should preach a sermon unless in sacerdotal costume, which he thought the hon. Gentleman had transgressed. He was surprised too, that the hon. Gentleman should object so much to translation and yet use languge, that compelled the House to adopt it. Much of the hon. Gentleman's speech required translation. He would seriously put it to the hon. Member, whether this was a fitting occasion to introduce the discussion of such an important subject? He was in some respects disposed to agree with the hon. Member as to the injurious effects of translations. Thinking that the practice of translating a Bishop from one diocess to another, thus dissevering him from the acquaintances which he had formed in the one, and compelling him to make new ones in the other, and in that way diminishing to a great extent his means of general utility, was a practice that as far as possible should be discontinued and

919
abolished. But as long as the dioceses remained as they were, different in extent and value, it would be impossible altogether to abolish translation, as it would be obviously inexpedient and unjust to confine a Bishop of great learning, talents, and acquirements to a small diocess where he might have first distinguished himself, instead of transferring him to a more enlarged sphere of action and utility. This, however, was not the proper opportunity, as he had said before, for discussing such an important subject. Besides, the amendment which the hon. Member proposed would not effect the object which he had in view. At the present moment translations and promotions were legal, and all the change which the present clause in the Bill introduced into the law was, that the proposed tax should be apportioned between the individual who was removed from the incumbency either by death, translation, or promotion, and his successor. There could not, surely, be a more unfavourable opportunity for discussing the subject of translations than when it was proposed to impose a tax upon those who were thus removed. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment. He might hereafter bring forward a substantive Motion for the abolition of translations altogether, though he (Mr. Stanley) did not think that Parliament was prepared at the present moment to agree with the hon. Member.
Mr. Shawmeant when they came to the clause for the reduction of the number of Bishops to propose as an Amendment, that the revenues of the different Bishoprics in Ireland should be reduced to the same amount which would render translations unlikely, and do away with the necessity of such a proposition as the present.
Mr. Charles Bullersaid, that as the measure was extremely likely to encounter considerable opposition in another place, they should introduce into it every clause that was calculated to give it a popular character, with a view, if possible, to secure its success. Now, as the system of translations was one with regard to which the public entertained a strong opinion, and as there could be no doubt as to the evils which arose from that practice, he should give his cordial support to the present Amendment.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that the hon.
920
Member who had just spoken had assigned a most extraordinary reason for supporting this Amendment. He stated, that this measure was likely to encounter great opposition in another place, and upon that ground he recommended that they should introduce as many debatable points as possible into it. The hon. Member said, it was necessary to render it popular, in order to secure the support of the people for it. If in its present shape it did not merit that support, it should at once be rejected by the House. The hon. Member recommended them to take a most dangerous course for the country. Even if the present Amendment were adopted, it would not do away with the practice of translations. The only alteration it would effect in the Bill would be, that the proposed tax would not apply to Bishoprics vacant in consequence of translation, and the question of the legality, propriety, and expediency of translations, would not be affected, directly or indirectly, by the adoption of such an Amendment.
Mr. Briscoesaid, that the practice of translations was injurious both to the interests of religion and of the Church, but this was not the proper opportunity to discuss such a subject.
Mr. Jervissaid, that the only object which would be affected by the adoption of the proposition would be the introduction of a technical Amendment into the Bill. If the practice of translations was to be abolished, the abolition should be effected upon a broad principle, equally applicable to the churches in both countries.
Mr. Goringsaid, that if they were to come into a collision with the other House on this measure, as it was reported would be the case, they should make it as good and as popular a measure as possible, in order that the people might see, that their interests were consulted in that House, and were not consulted in the other House of Parliament. In deference, however, to the opinion of the House, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Clauses 25, 26, and 27 were then severally agreed to.
On Clause 28 being put,
Mr. Goring Mr. Goring moved the addition at the termination of the clause, of an Amendment, to the effect to prevent the future translation of Archbishops or Bishops in Ireland to any vacant see.
Dr. Lushingtonhoped the hon. Member

921
who had proposed this addition to the, clause would not proceed to a division. The question whether or not the system of translation in church preferment, which had been practised for so long a period, should or should not be continued, was one of vast importance, and he conceived that nothing could be more inconvenient than at the present stage of this Bill, and on a proposition suggested by way of rider, to one of its clauses, to enter into the discussion of so great and so important a question. It was impossible to dispose of such a question by so simple and undefined a course as had now been submitted to the Committee; indeed, before the Legislature could interfere in this respect, the Churches of England and of Ireland must be put upon the same footing, and at this period of the Session it was impossible that this great and important subject could be disposed of or decided with any adequate prudence or consideration. He would not hesitate to admit, that he thought some provision ought to be made in order to make translations in the Church less frequent, but he must ask the Committee if it was practicable, by a summary proposition of the kind now before it, that this could be well or practicably effected? In many cases he felt it would be advantageous to the Church, that translations should take place; for suppose a man of great learning and piety were Bishop of Llandaff, and a vacancy occurred in a larger see, would it not be right, he would ask, that the sphere of such a man's jurisdiction should be extended to the larger see? The system undoubtedly called for some amelioration, but he hoped the Committee would not be hurried into so important a consideration; on the contrary, he trusted they would agree with him in thinking that such an amelioration could only be properly the result of calm and prudent deliberation. He regretted to hear expressions as to the anticipations of results in another place, and that mention should be made of collisions. He was himself desirous for conciliation rather than collision, and therefore he had every anxiety to render this Bill palatable to others, who might have to decide upon its merits, instead of including amongst its provisions matter that was at variance with its general contents, and which would have the effect of producing that collision which he, in common with every man having an
922
interest in the welfare of his country, must deprecate and ought to endeavour to avoid. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw the Amendment. He must say, in reference to the collision which had been anticipated, that in his humble judgment it was all but unconstitutional to attempt to foretel what might occur in another place as to the result of this or any other measure.
The Chairmansaid, that before he put the Amendment proposed by the hon. member for Shoreham, he must first inquire from the Committee whether the Amendment proposed by the hon. member for Shoreham could, according to the recital of the Bill, be properly entertained.
Mr. Younghoped the Committee would not at present be called upon to express an opinion in this respect, but that the hon. member for Shoreham would withdraw his Amendment in order to propose it at a more fitting opportunity, when it should have his (Mr. Young's) complete support.
Mr. Goringwithdrew the Amendment, and the clause was agreed to.
On Clause 32 being proposed,
Mr. Halcombesaid: I rise to propose that the preamble to this clause be omitted. It recites, that "his Majesty has been pleased to signify, that he has placed at the disposal of Parliament his interest in the temporalities and custody thereof of the several bishoprics, and archbishoprics, mentioned in this act, and the schedule (B) thereto annexed"—and I object to this recital, not only as highly objectionable upon constitutional grounds, but as wholly unnecessary and mischievous, as throwing all the odium of originating this measure of spoliation of the Irish Church upon his Majesty. Sir, I very much regret that, being misled by the arrangements for this evening's proceedings, I was not here in time to move the Resolutions of which I had given notice for this evening, touching his Majesty's message to this House, which is recited in this preamble. In point of form, it is contrary to all precedent of parliamentary usage that this message has been brought down verbally to this House. I find it stated in Mr. Hatsell's precedents, that, except in matters personal to any Member of this House (in which cases a verbal message is adopted), the invariable rule is, that the message from the Crown

923
should be in writing, under the royal sign manual, and communicated to both Houses of Parliament at the same time—and there are many instances of the jealous interference of the other House if this course is not pursued. But I object now to this message in point of substance. His Majesty is here made to surrender his interest in the temporalities of the bishoprics proposed to be suppressed, to the unlimited disposal of Parliament—not even restricted to be applied to ecclesiastical purposes; and again, his Majesty does not surrender for himself and his successors, but only his own personal interests. And what are they in the temporalities of any one of these Bishops, who may happen to survive the Crown? Clearly nothing. But I deny, that the Crown has any beneficial interest in the temporalities of the Established Church—at least with the exception that, on the death of each Bishop the King is entitled, by his prerogative, to the Bishop's palfrey, his bason and ewer, and his kennel of hounds. And these are to be compounded for in the Exchequer. This stands upon the authority of Lord Coke, and other ancient writers, cited in Mr. Chitty's recent treatise of the prerogatives, of the Crown; but, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" and from this statement of the rights which do belong to the prerogative beneficially, we infer the exclusion of all others. The King, indeed, also presents to benefices which may fall vacant before the see is filled up. Of the temporalities, the lands and property of the Bishops, the King is merely the guardian during vacancy, and accounts for the profits to the successor. This is clearly both the law and usage at the present day. There have, indeed, been many instances of the Crown in ancient times taking possession of the Bishops' temporalities, and enjoying or committing waste upon them; but this has been forbidden by many statutes, as 1 Edward 3rd, s. 2, e. 2 14; Edward 3rd, s. 4, c. 3; and 25 Edward 3rd, s. 3, c. 6; and these statutes clearly negative the right of the Crown. I find, also, in Matthew Paris, that King Henry 1st granted a charter at the beginning of his reign, promising neither to sell, nor let to farm, nor take anything from the domains of the Church till the successor was appointed. And it was made one of the articles of the great charter in 9 Henry 3rd, that no waste should be made in the
924
temporalities of bishoprics, neither should the custody of them be sold. And indeed all the authorities which I have consulted established the same proposition, that the interest of the King is merely a barren trusteeship as guardian pro tempore of the temporalities. But if this be so, how can the surrender of this interest be made, as it is by this clause, the foundation of the Legislature interfering to suppress the bishoprics, of which the temporalities are surrendered, and seizing the fee-simple of their estates? It may be called what you will, but it is direct and unjustifiable spoliation, and a most dangerous precedent for the English Church, and every right of private property in the United Kingdom. It should not be forgotten that the Established Church in this country is recognised by our Constitution as a distinct estate of this realm. In Lord Coke's 4th Institute, treating of the High Court of Parliament, he says: "This Court consisteth of the King's Majesty, sitting there as in his royal politic capacity, and of the three estates of the realm, viz:1. The Lords spiritual, being the Archbishops and Bishops, who, when any Parliament is holden, ought, 'ex debito justitiœ,' to have a writ of summons;2. The Lords temporal; and 3. The Commons." And this I cite, merely observing that the vulgar error, which considers the three estates to consist of King, Lords, and Commons, is unfounded. It is further no less clear, that the clergy, by the Constitution of this country, have always been recognised as an independent body under the King, as their supreme head, meeting in convocation for their own government and discipline; and taxing themselves towards the necessities of the State generally, be it observed, in a larger proportion than was paid by the laity. I have here a full record of the proceedings in convocation, so late as the 27th Elizabeth, which I have extracted from Bishop Gibson's "Codex"—and indeed there can be no dispute that the clergy in convocation taxed their own body. I have also found a writ in the register, which every lawyer knows is of the highest authority, and which writ every clergyman whose lands should be distrained upon for any tax, had a right to sue out for his protection. This writ is addressed to the Sheriff, commanding him not to distrain; and reciting that it is by the custom of England that ecclesiastical property is not subject to be

925
taxed, except by the clergy. Such, then, being the respective interests of the Crown and the clergy, I most strongly object to the preamble of this clause upon most constitutional ground, that this surrender by his Majesty, and his supposed ultimate assent to this Bill, are in direct and positive violation of the letter and spirit of the Coronation Oath. I am aware that this subject has before been discussed in both Houses of Parliament on occasion of the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and very recently, since I gave notice of my resolutions, by one of which I proposed to raise this question, it has been re-asserted by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government in another place, that the Coronation Oath binds his Majesty only in his executive, but not in his legislative capacity. This proposition I totally deny. I believe, that in former debates in this House the subject has never been fully considered, and I trust that a struggle—a fair but firm struggle—in argument, will yet be made ere so monstrous a proposition shall receive the deliberate sanction of Parliament. I do not hesitate to say, that the whole liberties of this country hinge upon it—it lies at the very root of our Constitution, and it is evident, that all the rights and liberties of the people may be uprooted and destroyed by the Crown and the Parliament, if this construction of the oath shall prevail. It is placed, I know, upon the words "or shall" being introduced into that part of the Oath where the King swears to "preserve to the Bishops and Churches all such rights as do or shall appertain to them"—and hence it is said, that the King may join with the two Houses of Parliament in destroying all, or the greater portion of such rights as do belong to the clergy; and then if in his executive capacity he preserves to the Church the remnant, or the nothing which is left, he thereby fulfils his obligation, which was but in the alternative, that he should preserve all which then shall belong to them, after the Legislature has deprived them of the rest. But, can this be satisfactory to men of common sense? At least there are two ways of reading this part of the oath; and as it would evidently not be enough for the Monarch to engage to preserve what rights the clergy possessed at the time of imposing the oath, without extending his engagement to such rights also as might be afterwards ac-
926
quired, hence arose, I apprehend, the addition of the words "or shall" appertain to them. This is at least an ambiguity; but in one sense it increases the security proposed; in the other, it renders it no security at all—nay, by the construction attempted to be put upon it, this part of the oath is rendered of no value, for in a former part of it the King swears to maintain all laws enacted by the Parliament. And again, even if these words prove, as is contended, that the King's legislative power was to be controlled, this argument cannot apply to that positive enactment, in the oath, that his Majesty "will, to the utmost of his power, maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law." Here there is no ambiguity—and what power on earth can dispense with this obligation? or is it consistent with it to destroy ten bishoprics in Ireland (nearly half their hierarchy), and apply their possessions to other than ecclesiastical purposes? I say nothing now of its being also a positive contravention of the 5th article of the Union between the two countries, because I am to confine myself merely to the preamble in question. If I err in my opinion of the construction of the Coronation Oath, I have at least the satisfaction of knowing that I err in common with a large number of the most dignified, excellent, and enlightened men both in this country and Ireland; and to show the House their opinions upon this great question, I have read through every petition against this Bill, which has been presented to this House either from Ireland or England, and have selected seven or eight from each country, in order to read to hon. Members what are the opinions here expressed by the prelates, dignitaries, clergy, and lay members of the Established Church, singly with reference to this one point of the obligation imposed by the Coronation Oath. The hon. Member here read extracts from several petitions both from Ireland and England, all expressing in the strongest terms the opinions of the petitioners that the present Bill is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of the Coronation Oath, and protesting against its passing into a law. Let me now. Sir, consider in what sense, in construing this oath, it ought to be understood. In Paley's "Moral Philosophy," liber 3, I find that he slates that "oaths being designed for the security of the imposer, it is manifest that they must be inter-

927
preted and performed in the sense in which the imposer intends them, otherwise they afford no security to him"—and again, in Puffendorf, lib. 4, ch. 2, he says, "an oath must be understood in that sense in which the imposer understood it, and which he intended it to bear." This oath, then, must be interpreted and performed according to the sense in which the Legislature in 1688 intended it and imposed it. And what that sense was is rendered perfectly evident by reference to the debates in this House of that day, and which establish beyond all controversy that it was intended that the King should be bound in his legislative capacity, as well as in his executive. I refer particularly to two Amendments, which were put and negatived—one, to add the words "or shall" be established by law—upon which, Mr. Finch says: "No man can have any colour, but that still a liberty is to consent to any other laws to preserve religion, and those are according to the oath 'established by law.'" And the other when Mr. Pelham proposed to add as a proviso to the Bill, "that no clause therein should be understood so to bind the kings and queens of this realm, as to prevent their giving their assent to any Bill, which should at any time be offered by the Lords and Commons for taking away or altering any form or ceremony in the Established Church, so as the doctrines of the said Church, or the public liturgy, and the episcopal government of it be preserved;" and this was negatived, on the ground that making alterations in the ceremonial of the Church was not contrary to the principles of the oath—and so the exception proves the rule. I will only trouble the House further with one extract which I was delighted to meet with in Mr. Burke's celebrated Treatise on the French Revolution, as he there speaks distinctly of the Church property in this country as private property, and sacred as such. He says of the people of England, after eulogising their attachment to the Church: "From the united considerations of religion and constitutional policy, from their opinion of a duty to make a sure provision for the consolation of the feeble, and the instruction of the ignorant, they have incorporated and identified the estate of the Church with the mass of private property of which the State is not the proprietor, either for use or dominion; but the guardian only, and the regulator. They
928
have ordained that the provision of this establishment might be as stable as the earth on which it stands." In several other parts of his works he expresses the same sentiments; and, in one avers, "that the English nation will never suffer the fixed estate of the Church to be converted into a pension, or to depend upon the treasury, but that they have therefore made their Church, like their king and their nobility, independent." I will not read other extracts, or refer to other authorities now—permit me only to say, that in all the sentiments of this great and good man I entirely and cordially concur. As a lover of my country, and an admirer of its once glorious Constitution, I feel deeply the rapid spread of principles which will overwhelm it, the encouragement which those principles unhappily receive within these walls, and the daily inroads which are made upon its integrity and beautiful structure—but never more fatally than by this most oppressive and unconstitutional Bill—I feel deeply upon the subject, and earnestly entreat the House to reject the preamble to this clause.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that the beneficial interest in Bishops' temporalities was vested in the Crown during the time that the sees might happen to be vacant, and therefore it was necessary that his Majesty should signify his assent to the measure before the House.
Mr. Poultercontended, that if the United Church of England and Ireland meant anything more than a spiritual union it could only be regarded as a reproach to the former. He did not deny, that many individual dignitaries of the Irish Church were adorned by the highest virtues, but the institution itself was founded upon a principle of conquest, and had gone on upon a principle of intolerance, and, therefore, could have nothing in common with a Church whose foundation at least was in the affections of the people, and to which happy distinction he trusted again to see it fully restored by the Reforms which had been commenced by the noble Lord. In Ireland the Protestant Church having been imposed upon the people by violence and force, and maintained by a system founded in those principles, had rather tended to retard the growth of the Reformation than to encourage and foster it; and even if the blessed light of those principles were to beam upon the minds of the people of

929
Ireland, it could only be kindled by the provisions of this and similar measures. Indeed he could well imagine the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill as aspiring to the high honour of becoming a second founder of the Protestant religion in Ireland—the founder of a new Reformation upon the grounds of reason, moderation, and suitableness. He expressed his surprise that the old and exploded argument respecting the Coronation Oath had been revived; that argument had been triumphantly answered upon the Catholic question by the right hon. member for Tamworth. The Coronation Oath being imposed by the people on the Sovereign, it was impossible to say, that they were not to be the judges of the construction to be put upon its terms. It was, therefore, an absurdity to argue that the Sovereign was not at liberty to make any changes in the temporalities of the Church which the people thought beneficial to the general community. He maintained that it was in his executive, and not in his legislative functions, that the King was restrained by the terms of the oath. It had been said, that the Church received nothing from the State; but he believed its whole title to the property it possessed was a statutable and parliamentary title. Under the Statute of Edward 6th, the clergymen were ordered to read the Book of Common Prayer, under pain of the forfeiture of their benefices; and by the 13th of Elizabeth, all clergymen were deprived of their livings who would not subscribe to the doctrines of the Church of England. These examples proved, that the Legislature had on former occasions exercised its right of dealing with Church property as it thought proper. He very much regretted that this measure had been petitioned against by the Clergy and the Universities, especially that of Oxford, to which he had the honour to belong. He believed that, in passing the measure, the House would be advancing the interests of the Protestant Church and the glory of God.
Mr. Lefroysaid, as he felt it his duty to give his most strenuous opposition to the present clause, he was anxious to state, as shortly as he could, to the Committee, his reasons for doing so; and as an hon. Member near him had claimed their indulgence on the ground of having many important English petitions against the Bill, he felt he had a not less strong claim, as he had been intrusted with many
930
even still more entitled to consideration, as coming from Ireland, where this Bill was to be put into operation; and he had no hesitation in saying, with respect to the persons from whom those petitions emanated, viz., the clergy of Ireland, more particularly those about whom he was especially interested, the united body of clergy in the county which he had the honour to represent, that notwithstanding the attacks and unfounded charges which had been brought against them, their opinions were well deserving of the respect and attention of the Committee, whether their high intellectual attainments, their entire devotion to the interests of their profession, or their patience under unexampled sufferings, be considered. The petitions to which he alluded were against the principle of the whole Bill, "as infringing upon the rights of property, as inconsistent with the Coronation Oath, and contrary to the Act of Union." Upon the two latter points he would only observe, that they appeared to him to offer insuperable obstacles; and the Committee could have no doubt of the truth of the first, after the admission of the hon. members for Derbyshire and Dublin, one declaring "that he supported these measures of Ministers, as he hoped they would lead to the confiscation of Church property;" the other "that he considered them valuable only as bringing under the cognizance of Parliament the alteration and distribution of Church property, so that hereafter by a portion of it the country might be relieved from the Grand Jury Cess." Though he admitted these petitions were against the whole Bill, he considered himself justified in alluding to them on the present occasion, as if there was one clause against which more than another the petitioners protested, it was this one, and most justly, as it proved clearly that this Bill, which declared in its preamble "that the number of Bishops might be conveniently diminished, and that this and other alterations would tend to the advancement of religion, and the efficiency, permanence, and stability of the United Church of England and Ireland," was founded on false and delusive principles. With respect to the present clause he would confine himself to replying to the reasons assigned in favour of it on a former night by the late Secretary for Ireland—they were three; and he would admit they appeared to him on that occasion to have much weight.

931
He could well understand that English gentlemen, who were not locally acquainted with Ireland, might be induced by them, if they remained unnoticed, to support this measure. The first was, the comparison of the number of Irish Bishoprics with the number of English Bishoprics, contrasting the extent of their jurisdictions. The second was, the consent of the primate. The third was, the necessity for yielding to the clamour which existed on this subject. In order to satisfy the Committee upon the first point, he would beg to lay before them the peculiarities of the English Church, and wherein it differed materially from the Irish branch. The Irish bench of Bishops consisted of twenty-two; the whole jurisdiction of the Church rested with them; the Deans and Archdeacons in Ireland had no jurisdiction whatever; the Archbishops had the superintendence of their provincial Bishops, and like the other Bishops, the superintendence of their own particular diocese. The English bench consisted of twenty-six Bishops; but a small part of the superintendence rested with them; they had under them thirty-six Deans and sixty Archdeacons, with episcopal jurisdiction; the Deans and Archdeacons superintend the Chapters, and hold their courts and annual visitations; and the government of the Church was so well carried on by them, that the English Bishops hold only triennial visitations. The Archdeacons so completely relieved the Bishops of their most anxious duties, that they were known by the title of "oculi episcopi." The eighteen Irish Bishops did therefore the same work as the ninety-six Deans and Archdeacons performed in England, and the four Irish Archbishops performed the same duty as the twenty-six English Bishops, with the addition of the care and superintendence of their own particular diocese. From hence it appeared, that in Ireland there were only twenty-six ordinaries, that is, persons with episcopal jurisdiction; in England, 122. Where there was one Bishop in Ireland, there were in England six ordinaries. Further, could it be said, that in a country circumstanced as Ireland, whose greatest evils the late Secretary had so truly described, as want of capital, resident gentry, of employment, and of education—the reduction of the Bishops would conduce to remedying any of these evils. Let it be recollected, that there cross-roads are almost impassable, post-
932
horses seldom could be got, travelling was frequently dangerous to clergymen; could it then be contended that it would conduce to the interest of religion to extend the patronage of seven Bishops, when means of knowing their clergy would be diminished, or that the efficiency of the Established Church would be increased by withdrawing from some of the most important towns, such as Cork, Bishops, who from their station and character, exercised a wholesome moral influence, and were looked up to as the supporters of local charities, and the patrons of useful institutions. With respect to the consent of the primate, he need only say, that he so entirely concurred in the high eulogium passed upon that distinguished prelate by the right hon. Gentleman, that he felt it almost presumptuous to entertain a different opinion in any matter affecting the welfare of the Establishment, but they had now the admission of the right hon. Gentleman that he had overstated the assent expressed by the primate. Upon the last point he would only trouble the Committee by reading sentiments expressed so much to his satisfaction, upon a former occasion, by the late Secretary for Ireland, when the motion was only for inquiry into the state of the Church Establishment in Ireland, that he could not omit them at present—"Whether the proposition be considered as one of conciliation or financial advantage, there is no imminent danger which can warrant us in violating the rights and property of the Established Church; she must be supported or given up altogether. It is at present only proposed to clip her wings, and exhibit her in an humbled condition to her rival. If the feelings of the Roman Catholics of Ireland towards the Established Church are intemperate, it is time to show, that her natural protectors are neither too weak nor too indifferent to uphold her, and that her wealth excites no alarm among her friends, whatever jealousy it may excite among her enemies." Having thus as he hoped, disposed of the three strongest arguments in favour of the clause, he must protest against its being repeated, that he and his friends were hostile to any improvements. But let not improvement be tainted with party spirit, nor calculated to insult Protestant feeling in Ireland. He was ready to go even further than was proposed by Mr. Perceval, when he was at the head of

933
affairs in this country. Mr. Perceval opposed pluralities and unions, but now a sufficient sum might be deducted from the incomes of the Bishops to enable Government to carry even their plans into execution, if only they would not meddle with the discipline and ecclesiastical arrangements of the Church, with which, there was no question, they had not a right to deal. Reform, such as he alluded to, would be consistent with the Coronation Oath, with the Act of Union, and calculated to accomplish the wish of a revered Sovereign, "that the day might come when every cottage in his dominion should possess a bible." He would conclude, by entreating the Committee to proceed in this all-important work, according to the advice given on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman, "recollecting, that in a matter of such vital importance, the utmost caution should be used, lest by an indiscreet zeal for doing good, they may inflict an irreparable injury;" to reflect that the progress of this Bill was anxiously watched by many who lived in Ireland, supporting the laws and maintaining the union, and who would learn from the decision of that night, if the giant which would at length overwhelm them was to be fed and pampered on the life-blood of that hope and confidence which once invigorated and supported those loyal men; and he conjured them not to forget the warning voice of that nobleman (Lord Plunkett), who was raised to his present high position in Ireland for the purpose, as it was stated, of conciliating the Protestants—and who in his place in that House declared, "that to take away the rights of one class of people to give them to another, cannot be termed anything but spoliation; that he had no hesitation in saying, that the existence of the Protestant Establishment is the great bond of union between the two countries; and that, if ever that unfortunate moment shall arrive, when we shall rashly lay hands on the property of the Church, to rob it of its rights, that moment we shall seal the doom and terminate the connexion between the two countries."
Sir Robert Ingliscontended, that the question was not, whether the Coronation Oath applied or not to this clause, as stated by his hon. friend, the member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Poulter), but whether the Church of England and Ireland were one; and he had hoped, that the noble Lord would have declared that his hon.
934
friend, in denying that principle, had committed a great constitutional error. He had considered that the question of the Coronation Oath being confined in the obligations it imposed on the Sovereign to his executive functions, had been fully disposed of in former discussions. At all events, he retained his opinion, that whatever power the Legislature might have to modify the oath to be taken by a future Sovereign, yet nothing which could be done now, could have a retrospective effect upon the terms, or on the construction of the terms, of the oath which had already been taken, which must remain with those who imposed, and with him who took it alone. Nothing which could be done now with regard to the oath, could have any operation except with reference to the future. The hon. member for Shaftesbury had also appealed to cases in which the Parliament had interfered with the property of the Church since the Reformation. He begged to ask the hon. Member, whether the Acts of Edward 6th, and of Elizabeth, to which he alluded, were not adopted in concurrence with the decisions of the two Houses of Convocation, and, therefore, under circumstances by which the Parliament were only giving effect to regulations emanating from the clergy themselves? With regard to the amendment, it was not one which he desired to see pressed upon the Committee, as he did not concur with the hon. Mover as to his observations respecting the interest of the Crown.
Mr. Shawbelieved the present course was unprecedented, and asked the noble Lord, whether he could advance any instance of the consent of the Crown being given verbally, instead of under the sign manual, when any important right of the Crown was to be surrendered, although such a course might have been adopted in matters of minor importance.
Lord Althorpcould not mention any case in which the present course had been adopted; and although it was more usual for the consent of the Crown to be given by the sign-manual in such cases, yet he could see no substantial objection to the present course.
The Amendment negatived.
On the clause being again put,
Mr. Shawsaid, he hoped it would not be denied, that in the previous discussions of the Bill, he had not urged objections that were captious, or offered any vexatious delay to its progress; but he considered

935
that they had then arrived at one of the most important and objectionable clauses of the entire Bill. The two leading; principles of the measure, which, in his judgment, must earn for it the opposition of every man who valued the security of property and the interests of the Established Church, were, the alienation of Church property to other than Church purposes, and the general tendency of its enactments to lower the authority, and diminish the just influence of the spiritual heads of the Established Church in Ireland. The clause which related to the appropriation of the perpetuity purchase fund, occurred late in the Bill, and he would not then enter into a premature discussion of it. Still it was in one respect essentially connected with the present clause, inasmuch as if the proper funds of the Church were not diverted from its use, any arrangement or distribution of those funds for strictly ecclesiastical purposes would be much facilitated: but the principle of undue and unprecedented interference with ecclesiastical authority, was more immediately involved in the 32nd section of the Bill then before them. He had already objected to the constitution of the Board of Commissioners—to the power of suspending incumbents, where service had not been performed for three years, and to the difficulties interposed to the building of new churches; all contributing to the same end, but none so decidedly and so fatally as the present clause, by the reduction of the number of bishoprics. He objected to this both in an ecclesiastical and a political point of view. As regarded the first, the only argument ever attempted in support of it was, a comparison with the number of Bishops in England; but in that there was a double fallacy—first, in assuming, that in England there was a sufficient number of Bishops, and secondly, in supposing, that they performed the same duties as the Irish Bishops. The right hon. Gentleman instanced the case of an English diocese, which contained about 1,200 benefices, and covered an immense extent of country; but what, he would would ask, was the consequence? It was, that no one man, however active, zealous, and able, could possibly superintend its concerns: and supposing that they could put out of question all considerations of a political nature—which, no doubt, as affected spiritual Peers, would not, in these times, be calmly and dispassionately entered upon—would any reasonable man
936
deny that, for merely ecclesiastical purposes, a greater number of English Bishops would be desirable? The best proof of it was, that necessity obliged them to depute Archdeacons, who, in England, annually held visitations—had their own courts and registrars—and, in all respects, acted as the Bishops' representatives. In Ireland, the political prejudice would have no weight, as it was not contemplated to make any change in the number of representative Bishops; and with regard to those functions which Archdeacons discharged in this country, in Ireland there was no such practice; but there the Bishops in person held annual visitations superintended the churches, school-houses, and other ecclesiastical establishments within their respective dioceses; and kept up a constant communication, by correspondence and in person, with all their clergy. Yet this Bill, which professed as one of its primary objects, the dissolution of unions, and to promote the performance of duty in person in all cases, with strange inconsistency, was, in respect of the bishoprics, to adopt the principle of unions, and to throw upon the individual Bishops duties which it was impossible for any one of them adequately to fulfil. He would, upon this point, refer to a very apposite authority—that of a petition from the laity and clergy of the city of Cork, one of the dioceses it was intended to suppress, and signed by all the influential gentry in that large and important district. The petitioners stated it as—'Their decided opinion, that no one person, let him be ever so active, can possibly perform the varied and important duties of ordinations, confirmations, and annual visitation, combined with the frequent personal superintendence of parochial matters, throughout the extent of country comprised in the proposed union.' The learned and eminent Prelate who filled that See, which it was proposed to suppress, because the duties were insufficient to occupy a Bishop, had assured him (Mr. Shaw), that though he had been all his life engaged in the most arduous and laborious avocations—which must be well known to all persons acquainted with the nature of the Fellowships and Provost-ships of the University of Dublin—he never had his time and his mind so constantly and indefatigably occupied, as since he had been appointed Bishop of Cork. An hon. Member had complained, that an overgrown episcopacy had been detrimental

937
to the cause of the Protestant Church in Ireland. That hon Member professed much friendship for the Irish branch of the Established Church; but he certainly did not show, that he had any great acquaintance with its present condition. Was that hon. Member aware that, under the care and superintendence of those Bishops whom he ventured to condemn, greater benefits had been conferred, in providing all the means of advancement and extension of the Established Church, within the last quarter of a century, than had been in the entire century preceding? Four times the number of Churches had been built—three times, at least, the number of glebe-houses—and all other requisites and proofs of growing improvement were to be discovered in the same proportion. He had stated, on a former occasion, the number of new Churches, and other licensed places, which had been opened for the performance of divine service; but this had been met by the argument that it was one thing to have churches, and another to have congregations. In answer, then, to that observation, he could mention, that in three dioceses alone, which he declared had been only accidentally selected, but which would serve as a sample of the rest, in thirty new places of worship there were 1,246 regular communicants, making on an average forty-one in each; and that, according to the usual calculation of one communicant in ten who attended the Church, would give an average congregation of about 400 to each Church. He alluded to the dioceses of Cork, Cloyne, and Ferns, and he believed in other dioceses of which he had not the same accurate returns, that the increase had been quite as great both in Churches and congregations. Then with regard to this question as it affected the political and social state of Ireland; absenteeism was the evil that all were deploring, and yet in one sweep that Bill was to remove, independently of any religious consideration, ten gentlemen of high rank, station, and character, from their respective residences in that country. Now if the Government had 40,000 l. a-year to lay out to the advantage of Ireland, he would ask could they expend it more profitably than in fixing ten such residents in the very places from which they were taking them away. The peculiar circumstances of the country were not in this, as in most other Irish questions, sufficiently considered.
938
The second tithe report of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley) observed strongly upon the importance of this distinction; it stated that "In England there are few districts in which the want of resident proprietors or of landowners in easy circumstances operates injuriously upon the condition of the peasantry and the cultivation of the soil—in Ireland there are very many, and those probably in districts where the residence of a Protestant clergyman would produce the most beneficial results," The hon. and learned member for Dublin the other night bore testimony to the fact, that in all the offices of charity and benevolence extending themselves throughout the sphere of influence of the Protestant resident gentlemen there obtained no distinction in regard to religious creed. In 1824, the Bishop of Limerick had stated, that there were ten petitions before the Houses of Parliament, signed by multitudes of Roman Catholics, praying that more resident Protestant clergymen should be sent among them. The truth was, that previous to the combination which was encouraged and excited against that species of property, commencing in the year 1829 or 1830, no persons paid their tithes with more alacrity than the Roman Catholics. They regarded the payment in its true light, as a mere tax upon the land, belonging in nine cases out of ten to Protestant proprietors; and it was not, as had been alleged, from any natural dislike on their parts to the nature of the tax, that we owed the present condition of society in Ireland, but to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic priesthood sedulously circulated in their exhortations and their writings, to let "the hatred of tithes be as lasting as the love of justice;" and that it was the duty of those poor deluded people to "employ against the devouring impost all their wit and ingenuity, with all the means which the law allows," and which latter expression the right reverend writer well knew the people would construe to mean "by all the means which the law forbids." The efforts of political agitators were simultaneously used for the same purpose—and these being unchecked by the Government, the result had been the present deplorable, he might almost say dissolution of society in Ireland. Was it now then proposed to make further unavailing sacrifices to appease this same interested and designing clamour? Did his Majesty's

939
Ministers imagine that this sop thrown to the agitators and disturbers of the public peace, would have any other effect than to renew their strength and encourage their audacious resistance to the laws. Was there anything in the diminution of the number of the Irish Bishops calculated to confer a real benefit on the Roman Catholic population, while it would most justly incense the Protestant? If the requisite sum for all legitimate purposes of a strictly ecclesiastical character could not be otherwise provided, and the Church property be secured, then he and other Protestants would say reduce rather the incomes than the number of our Bishops. But no; that was refused, because, though it would equally accomplish the object so far as revenue was concerned, it would not equally serve to offend and insult the Protestants of Ireland. He charged that upon his Majesty's Government as their real motive in this enactment—and as he had often heard it said in reference to society, that a man of good sense and temper could always avoid a quarrel unless another was determined right or wrong to quarrel with him; so it now seemed to be with his Majesty's Ministers. It was not enough that Protestants should even consent to the same thing being done in a way less offensive to their feelings, because the object would appear to be to give them offence, and to offer them insult. But let the Government of this country beware. He had not failed upon these discussions to observe the tone and manner that the Ministers had adopted. They had permitted hon. Members who were their own supporters to charge upon them as a crime an attempt to support the Established Church in Ireland without repudiating the doctrine. The noble Lord the other night declared his opinion that no Minister could hold his place in England if he attempted to subvert her Established Church, but he studiously avoided applying the same observation to Ireland, and resting the support even of the Church in England upon the ground, not of right or duty, but of that popularity which alone seemed to be the ruling power over the mind of the noble Lord. He suggested the natural inference that if the Church in Ireland was not equally popular, the Minister was not bound to support it. The noble Lord also heard with a studied silence, almost amounting to acquiescence, the hon. member for St. Alban's (Mr.
940
Ward) a supporter of the Government, state, from the seat immediately behind the noble Lord, that so far from the continuance of the Established Church in Ireland being a condition of the union between the countries, he considered it the most likely means of their disunion. Did not the noble Lord well know, that this was no matter of opinion, but that it was declared by the Act of Union as an essential and fundamental article of that national compact, that the United Church of England and Ireland should forever be continued and preserved? Nay, he would tell the noble Lord more—that even if no such contract existed in law between the two countries, there would be in fact, and in the genuine feeling of the Irish nation, no link, independently of the Established Church, strong enough to maintain the connexion with England. Neither his Majesty's Ministers nor the Members of that House should deceive themselves with respect to the feelings of the Irish people. Overthrow the Established Church, and you seal the doom of the Union. The hon. and learned member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) would carry the Repeal of the Union in six months after the Protestant Established Church had ceased to exist in Ireland. He had no desire then to advert to the question of the Repeal of the Union, further than it was inseparably connected with the one before them. Being himself most averse, upon every principle, from that measure, he was the better witness as to the sentiments of others—and he felt, that he should be guilty of an abandonment of his duty, if he did not give timely warning to his Majesty's Ministers, that they were walking upon the edge of a fearful precipice. The Roman Catholics of Ireland almost to a man were against the Union—a large portion of the Protestants regarded it with favour, principally as a means of preserving their established religion. The feelings of many others would be estranged from this country, if this country abandoned their religious establishment in Ireland; and certainly the language of some hon. Members of that House, as applied to the gentry of Ireland, and particularly he would say of the hon. and gallant General (Sir Hussey Vivian) who had just arrived from the castle of Dublin in a sort of demi-official capacity, was not calculated to promote much cordiality of sentiment between them and those who legislated for

941
them in England. He altogether disclaimed any intention of menacing the Government or English Members of that House, but in sober truth and sincerity, and as an imperative duty, he must caution them, that it was not sufficiently borne in mind that the argument—that the Repeal of the Union must lead to a separation, to which he fully assented, and that Ireland could not possibly exist as a Separate state, if that were admitted, was not altogether conclusive of the question at issue—for though he spoke not his own sentiments, yet he was bound to suggest in time what might possibly be the opinion of others under altered circumstances. Such a thing was possible as Protestants conceiving that if the Roman Catholic religion was to be ascendant in Ireland, other great powers might deal with it more to their minds than the Government of this country, which he believed was at that moment in treaty with the heads of the Roman Catholic Church, with a view to form a State alliance between their religion and the Irish nation. Nor was it so clear that, in a choice of evils, republicanism even would not be a lesser one than a democracy in its worst form, when exercising the veriest despotism, as, if they were to judge from some of the leading Journals of the metropolis, it was at that moment in England, under the specious guise of a mixed Government and a limited monarchy. If the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) would pardon the liberty of his saying so, there was no person who more justly appreciated than he (Mr. Shaw) did, the suavity and courteous demeanour of the noble Lord to every Member of that House. But these were times of awful moment, requiring every energy and power of the mind to be awakened; and in allusion to an expression used towards the noble Lord, with reference to a much less important subject, the other night, he did entreat of the noble Lord not to "smile away" the peace, the prosperity, the happiness, and the very existence of Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Secretary Stanleydeclined following the hon. and learned Gentleman through the various topics which he had dilated upon in the course of his speech, as they had nothing to do with the question before the House; and because their only tendency was, to distract the attention of the House from the calm consideration of the subject under discussion. In
942
the first place he must protest against the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that whenever an opinion was expressed by an hon. Member, unconnected with his Majesty's Government, if some Member of the Government did not rise in his place and disavow the opinion in question, his Majesty's Government must, therefore, be held responsible. Such was the fair deduction from the hon. and learned Gentleman's wishing to make the Government responsible for the opinions expressed by the hon. members for Shaftesbury and St. Alban's. The hon. and learned Member censured his Majesty's Ministers for not having at once contradicted the assertion, that a distinction existed between the Churches of England and Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asserted, that the tendency of this measure was, to subvert the Church Establishment in Ireland; whereas its object was, to uphold and support the Church in Ireland, by removing from it those blemishes and defects which only tended to disfigure and to weaken it. With the question, as to whether there should be a reduction of four, six, eight, or ten Bishops the House had nothing to do, until the schedules came under its attention. The question then under consideration was, whether the number of the Bishops was, or was not, disproportionate to the duties they had to perform. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted the Second Tithe Report, with a view to show, that in many parts of the country the residence of the Protestant clergy was attended with the most beneficial results. He (Mr. Stanley) entirely concurred in that assertion, and was of opinion that the greatest good was derived from a resident gentry; and that as the Protestant clergyman was in that situation, his presence was most advantageous. But he would beg the hon. and learned Gentleman to recollect that they were not about to take from Ireland one farthing of income; but the question was, whether the revenue of the Bishops might not be more advantageously distributed even as regarded the Church itself. Ministers did not propose to divest the Church of Ireland of any portion of its revenues; but that they should be more equally distributed. They merely proposed to have such a fresh distribution of the revenues of the Church, as would add to its efficiency, and thereby to the respect with which it would be regarded by the

943
nation at large. He was always unwilling; to repeat an opinion which had been expressed to him in private, in that House; but he would repeat now, what he had said before; he admitted that the Primate did not approve of this measure to its full extent; but he had distinctly stated, that if a measure of the sort were to be adopted, he thought that diminishing the number of Bishops would be the least objectionable mode that could be devised; and had recapitulated the names of some of those bishoprics which he thought might be spared with the least inconvenience; and the very first See that he named was that alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman; namely, the Bishopric of Raphoe; which the Primate recommended should be consolidated with that of Derry. He hoped that the House would excuse him while he proceeded to show that the number of Bishops who would remain in Ireland, after the consolidation of these bishoprics, would be amply sufficient for the performance of ecclesiastical duty. In the bishopric of Dromore there were twenty-six benefices. This was to be consolidated with the united bishoprics of Down and Connor, in which there were eighty-nine benefices, making a total of 125. In the bishopric of Raphoe, there were thirty-four benefices; in that of Derry, fifty-seven; so that the whole number of benefices to be placed under the superintendence of the Bishop of those consolidated dioceses, would be ninety-one. In the bishopric of Clogher there were forty-five; and in the archbishopric of Armagh, eighty-eight; making together, 133. In the bishopric of Elfin, there were thirty-six benefices; in that of Kilmore, thirty-six; together, seventy-two. In the united bishoprics of Killala and Achonry, there were thirty-one benefices; in the archbishopric of Tuam, forty-three; making, together, seventy-four. He must admit that this diocese included a very large extent of country. In the united bishoprics of Clonfert and Kilmacduagh, there were thirty-one benefices; in those of Killaloe and Kilfenora, sixty-nine; making, together, 100. In the diocese of Kildare there were fifty benefices; in the united dioceses of Dublin and Glendalagh, 114; making, together 164. In the diocese of Ossory there were sixty-one; and in Ferns and Leighlin, 118; making, altogether, 179 benefices. In the united bishoprics of Waterford and
944
Lismore, there were sixty-five; in those of Cashel and Emly, fifty-four; together, 119. In the united bishoprics of Cork and Ross, there were ninety-four benefices; in that of Cloyne, seventy-five; making, together, 169. Thus it appeared, that, according to the plan proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, no Bishop would be called upon to superintend more than 179 benefices; and was this too much for the superintendence of one Prelate? The bishopric of Exeter, in which diocese he resided, was much more extensive than any diocese in Ireland; as there were between 1,100 and 1,200 parishes in it. This number might certainly be too great for the superintendence of a single Bishop; but, at the same time, he could not allow that 179 benefices were too many. The number of livings in Ireland was 1,456; and he did not think that the future Archbishops of Dublin would have a disproportionate number of parishes to attend to, considering that they were not distributed over an extensive district. The aggregate revenue of the Church of England did not exceed 3,000,000 l.; of which sum the episcopal revenues amounted to 156,000 l. The total revenue of the church of Ireland, was between 700,000 l. or 800,000 l.; and of this sum the revenues of the Bishops amounted to 150,000 l.; of which 130,000 l. was in rents. It would not be disputed that there was a great disproportion between the revenue of the Bishops of Ireland, as compared with the whole ecclesiastical revenue of that country,—and that of the English Bishops, as compared with the aggregate revenue of the Church of England. He did not wish to take up the time of the Committee on this point; but he had been desirous of showing that there was a material difference as regarded the situations of the two churches, and would now only add, that it should not escape the recollection of the House, that it was not proposed to take away any portion of Church property; but merely to effect a more equal distribution of it.
Mr. Shawhad not said, that the Government was bound by the opinions of what might be expressed by any Gentleman who sat on that side of the House, unless they disavowed those opinions,—but what he had said was this,—that the Government brought in a Bill for the purpose of making a different distribution of Church property a Ireland; and as the right hon.

945
Gentleman alleged, for the purpose of rendering more secure, and increasing the influence of the Church in Ireland. He was bound to believe, that the right hon. Gentleman supported this measure on that ground; but he would ask him whether he considered that other hon. Members in that House supported the Bill, because they believed, that it would tend to the security of the Establishment? Was not the hon. member for Derbyshire among the supporters of this Bill, who admitted that he was desirous of getting rid of the Church of Ireland? He did not mean to say, that the Government was responsible for the opinions of those Gentlemen, but they were responsible for measures which they introduced, and which were supported on such grounds. He did not so much object to the right hon. Gentleman for taking away a portion of the revenues of the richer bishoprics, for other ecclesiastical purposes,—as on account of his reducing the number of the Bishops. He was really sorry to have anything like a difference with the right hon. Gentleman, but he could not help observing (and he said it with the greatest respect to that right hon. Gentleman) that he had not acted altogether fairly in putting the construction which he did on the language of the Primate. He (Mr. Shaw) believed the case was this,—when that most reverend Prelate was informed of the determination of Government to abolish the vestry cess, and that that change must hereafter be made in the revenues of the Church, he observed that, under those circumstances, if no other means could be found, he would consent to a consolidation of bishoprics. The right hon. Gentle-man had no wish, he was persuaded, to misrepresent the right reverend Prelate, but the right hon. Gentleman had put a misconstruction upon the right reverend Prelate's words.
Mr. Gisbornebegged leave to ask whether, admitting that the measure was opposed to the letter of the Union, the hon. Member was prepared to maintain that that act of Union was binding to the very letter on all successive legislatures for ever? The Union was nothing more than an Act of Parliament, and surely the power which gave existence to that Act existed in the Legislature still.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that the Act of Union was not a mere ordinary Act of Parliament, but a solemn treaty which
946
held good so long as the two countries continued in a state of Union. To violate its articles, therefore, was pro tanto to violate the basis of the Union. Then he had not heard the objections to the Bill founded on the Coronation Oath, rebutted by its supporters, indeed it would be impossible. He wished to observe, that the amount of incumbency did not represent the amount of labour. The Bishops in Ireland performed an annual visitation, which took place only once in three years in England. The number of the Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland was increased of late. The small number of parishes was no reason for diminishing the number of Bishops. The principle of destruction had commenced when an assembly containing men, part indifferent, and part hostile, to the interests of the hierarchy, took upon itself to determine what should be the number of Bishops in Ireland. The measure was accepted, as the member for Tipperary said, only as 6s. 8d. in the pound. There was an end to a hierarchy when once it was diminished. The total destruction of it must afterwards become merely a question of expediency. The measure would conciliate neither Protestants nor Catholics. It could not conciliate the Protestants; and the most influential Roman Catholic Members said at the outset that it would not satisfy that body. This clause involved the whole principle; that was, the right of an assembly of laymen to interfere in the spiritualities of the Church. Parliament never did more in this respect than confirm the Acts of Convocation.
Colonel Conollyshould be wanting in his duty to his constituents and his country, were he not to oppose the Bill then under consideration in every stage. He considered the measure as not merely injurious to the Church, but as more calculated to advance the projects of those who were hostile to the connexion of the two countries, than any one Act of Parliament that had ever been devised. He observed with regret that hon. Members in discussing this subject, treated the Church of Ireland as though it were not a portion of the United Church of Great Britain and Ireland. If Protestantism were, as he believed it to be, the purest faith, why then should not the professors of that faith in Ireland receive equal protection with their brethren in England? They held by their religion as faithfully as the people of Eng-

947
land did, and he would beg leave to inform his Majesty's Ministers that Protestantism was the link and bond which united them with England. It was therefore incumbent on Ministers, by every tie moral and religious, as well as political, to cherish, foster and protect the Protestants of Ireland. If hon. Members knew how strongly his constituency, and indeed the whole north of Ireland felt upon the subject then under discussion, they would see how unwise it would be to interfere with their religion, or cause a diminution of their rights. Was it because a majority of the population of Ireland was Roman Catholic that the Protestant Church was to be sacrificed? He did not wish to molest any Roman Catholic, or interfere with the spiritual matters of the Roman Catholic Church, but he could not see any reason why the Protestant Church should be assailed as in the present instance, unless its ultimate annihilation was intended. The hon. Gentleman, the member for Derbyshire (Mr. Gisborne) very plainly stated, on a former evening, his reasons for supporting this measure, which he (Colonel Conolly) could only consider was meant as another sacrifice at the shrine of agitation. But it would not satisfy the Roman Catholics, as had been clearly demonstrated in that House. Why, then, he would ask, did Ministers persevere in a measure which was highly galling to the national feeling, and the tendency of which was to advance those measures which his Majesty's Ministers appeared to deprecate. He could not contemplate any measure better calculated than that then under discussion to forward the views of the enemies of Ireland. The proposition to reduce the number of the Bishops in Ireland was one which he could never consent to. The venerated Prelate at the head of the Church in that country had given it as his opinion, that he would prefer reducing the salaries of all the Bishops to reducing their number. Where, then, he would ask, was the necessity of heaping unnecessary insult upon the Church? What object could there be, in the present instance, of degrading it, unless with a view to its ultimate annihilation? He would not yield to any man in a wish to improve its practice, or render its ministration more perfect; and if this could be effected by altering the appropriation of the revenue of the Church, it should meet with no op-
948
position from him, but to its present degradation and ultimate annihilation he I never would be a party. He loved the Church as being the source of the little moral good which was to be found in Ireland. Why, then, should his Majesty's Ministers wish to diminish the means, and curtail the resources, of an establishment that had produced so much moral good as the Protestant Church in Ireland was capable of effecting? What, he would ask, was the crime which stained the characters of the peasantry of Ireland, but the debased standard of morals which existed there? He knew the wants and wishes of the lower orders in Ireland, and it had ever been his anxious wish to raise them in the scale of society and improve their moral habits—and he was confident that if they were allowed free agency of thought, and that the sources of the Established Church were not curtailed, no more powerful engine could be resorted to than the ministration of the Church of England; the moral and religious character of the people would speedily be improved, and the internal peace and happiness of the country placed upon a secure basis. It was impossible that national prosperity could exist without sound moral principles; and looking to the want of these principles as the greatest evil under which that country laboured, he looked with sorrow upon the introduction of any measure, the baneful effects of which must be to curtail the propagation of principles which must tend to counteract that evil. It was the absence of sound moral principles which made the passions of the people so excitable—it was the want of sound moral principle which rendered life and property insecure, and rendered the laws of no effect—and if Gentlemen wished to uphold the connexion between the two countries, let them beware how they disgusted the Protestants of Ireland. He admitted, with pain, that previous to the Union, the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland acted with great supine-ness. Since then, however, a great alteration had taken place—a stimulus had been applied, and a very extensive diffusion of moral and religious knowledge had taken place. This, he thought, was the moment when great good might be effected. A certain portion of instruction had been communicated to the people; they were now in possession of a considerable degree of knowledge, which, if not accom-

949
panied and controlled by the inculcation of sound moral principles, would, so far from being the source of good, but act as stimulants to sedition, violence, and outrage. When this Bill was first introduced, his hon. friend, the member for Oxford, had spoken, and justly so, of the expansive force of Protestantism. He believed, that accordingly as the population of Ireland advanced in knowledge, and exercised a freedom of thought and action, so would an extension of Protestant principles take place. He had never done anything to induce to proselytism, but he would say the advancement of the moral principles of the Established Religion in Ireland could not be looked upon by any man but as an advantage to that country. He claimed for the Established Church the recognition of her having done much to improve the moral feeling of the country, and instead of being spoliated, she ought to be fostered, cherished, and regarded. He would not repeat anything that might be calculated to lessen the efficiency of what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend, the member for the University of Dublin. He concurred in the view taken by his hon. friend, and would be most happy to lend his humble efforts in carrying those views into effect. He had strong objections to the principle involved in the clause, and he also objected to many of the particular bishoprics which it was proposed to reduce. The Bishops of Cork, Waterford, and Ossory, were not only diocesans, but the trustees of large funds which had been left for charitable purposes. He had heard it from two of the Bishops, and from the Dean and Chapter of Waterford, that if these bishoprics were abolished, the charities would be diverted to other purposes than those intended, and the munificence of the testators would run in a different course from that which they had marked out for their appropriation. He regretted exceedingly to find, that the principles now frequently broached in that House had become so palatable. It was broadly stated, and the sentiments were cheered by hon. Members, that property was merely a matter of opinion. Should these principles continue to gain ground, a subtle casuist would have nothing to do but to set to and despoil it, as in the case of the West-India planter. When such arguments were received with approbation in Parliament, he could not view without
950
alarm the inevitable result which must ensue—a result which had been so long foreseen and which was so rapidly approaching. The public taste for spoliation would be found to increase in proportion as its appetite was pandered to, until at length all species of property would be destroyed.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, he should not trespass long upon the time of the House, and in the few observations which he meant to offer would confine himself to the clause then before the Committee, which he thought one of the most important clauses in the Bill. He stated, on a former occasion, that the House having recognized the principle of the Bill, he would do everything in his power to reform the Church, as far as he could do, adhering to the preamble of the Bill, which set forth that it was intended for the purpose of promoting religion in Ireland. He would beg leave to call the attention of Ministers to the proposition which had been submitted by his hon. friend, the member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), and which had not been met by any hon. Gentleman who supported the Bill. Instead of diminishing the number of Bishops, he could not conceive why his Majesty's Government should not be content with diminishing their salaries as proposed; and thus the fund which, they stated, would be necessary to provide for Church-cess, and the augmentation of small livings, would be placed at their disposal, and the Protestants of Ireland saved from the degradation they must feel if the number of their Bishops were reduced. If Ministers wished to act in the true spirit of reform, why should they not equalize the revenues of the bishoprics—say, for instance, 4,000 l. a-year for each, and thus create a fund adequate for all the purposes required? He strongly objected to the practice of translating a Bishop from one see to another. He thought Bishops should not be political Bishops, and therefore he should wish to see the power of the Minister over them curtailed. He also strongly objected to Bishops not residing within their sees, and would give no opposition to a proposition curtailing their incomes to half salaries, in the event of their not residing six months within their sees. He should like to hear from some member of the Government a reason for not adopting the proposition of his hon. friend (Mr. Shaw), but up to that moment,

951
no answer had been attempted by any hon. Member of that House, whether friend or foe. He had latterly heard very extraordinary sentiments broached in that House with respect to the rights of property. One hon. Member not long ago said that one-half the Church lands ought to be given to the Roman Catholic clergy, and the justice of such an appropriation of the revenues of the Church was not denied by his Majesty's Ministers. He also heard still more recently a most extraordinary speech made by the hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir H. Vivian). No man admired that gallant Officer in his professional capacity more than he did, but having had the honour of a seat in that House for three successive Parliaments, he must say, that he never heard sentiments uttered that appeared to him so extraordinary as those contained in the gallant General's speech—sentiments, be it remarked too, so different from those professed, at least, by his Majesty's Ministers. Those sentiments he must not consider so much the sentiments of the gallant General, as those of the highest personage in Ireland. He could not but feel a considerable degree of distrust at hearing such sentiments broached in such a quarter, when his Majesty's Ministers did not deem it necessary to repudiate them. He should strongly support the plan proposed by his hon. friend for reducing the incomes of the Bishops, rather than their numbers. Should the bishoprics be joined as proposed, the great extent of country they would cover must preclude the possibility of the Bishop discharging efficiently the duties imposed on him. Many of those bishoprics would comprise an extent of country of 150 Irish miles; and he would put it to English Members, whether it was possible the Bishop, under such circumstances, could perform the duty as it ought to be done. The Bishops were in the habit of not only attending the churches, but of preaching in every Church throughout the diocese. It was impossible that that arduous, and what he considered necessary duty, could be performed, if the bishoprics were united. For these reasons, and wishing to promote a real and substantial reform in the Church of Ireland, he should vote for keeping the number of Bishops as at present, but for reducing their incomes.
Lord Althorpsaid, that to leave the
952
number of Bishops as they now were, with twenty or thirty parishes in a diocese, would be a scandal; he meant that it was so contrary to the system in England, that it could not be to the benefit of the Church that it should remain so. The question to be looked at was, what was most expedient and most for the benefit of the Church. And it appeared to him that this alteration was essential to the interests of the Church, and would remove many objections urged against it.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, the late Secretary for Ireland, had stated on a former occasion, that the principal object Ministers had in reducing the number of bishoprics in Ireland, was, for the purpose of creating a fund to meet the sum collected on account of Vestry-cess, and also for the purpose of increasing the salaries of the working clergy. Now it had been stated, and with great truth, that an ample fund could be found without inflicting the gratuitous insult upon the Protestants of Ireland which was meditated. He knew that reducing the number of Bishops would be felt in Ireland as an insult; and that it was a gratuitous one, no man who had heard the speech of his hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) could doubt. The right hon. Gentleman, also, in introducing the measure stated, that another object Ministers had in view was, to do away with abuses in the Church. Now, the only abuse they appeared inclined to remedy was, the curtailing of the number of Bishops. He had listened to the whole of the debates most attentively, and heard no other. His hon. friend, the member for the university of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), had asked a question which had met with no answer, and it was this—whether it would not be better that the Bishops of Derry and Raphoe should each have 4,000 l. a-year, than that the Bishop of Derry should have 8,000 l.? He regretted to find, that one of the arguments brought forward by his hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) appeared to make little impression on his Majesty's Government—namely, the feeling which such a measure as the present was calculated to create in Ireland, with regard to the Repeal of the Union. He (Colonel Perceval) looked upon the consequences likely to flow from it in connexion with that question as most dangerous, and he called upon his Majesty's Government to weigh the matter well before they alto gether estranged

953
the feelings of the Protestants of Ireland. The primate, in a conversation with him, said, that he only consented to a diminution in the number of Bishops, in the event of no other means being found to supply the necessary fund. Those means had been devised, and he hoped his Majesty's Ministers would take the proposition into their consideration. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that the number of benefices which the Bishops had to superintend was very limited, and he cited the instance of Killala, in which there were only twenty-seven benefices. He (Colonel Perceval) believed, that since that return had been made out, the number had been increased by the division of parishes. He knew, himself, that the parish of Erris was twenty-six miles long by twenty in breadth, and within a short period it had been divided into two; but if the funds admitted of it, it ought to have been divided into six parishes. There were other parishes in the neighbourhood where he (Colonel Perceval) resided, which were also so large as to require being divided. He thought they might learn a lesson from the Roman Catholics, who instead of diminishing the number of their Bishops, increased them. In Killala and Achonry there was but one Bishop of the Established Church, while there were two Roman Catholic Bishops. On the whole, seeing that no just reason had been given for reducing the number of Bishops, he must oppose the clause.
Mr. Dominick Brownesaid, that a third of the Protestants of Ireland were Presbyterians, who hated the hierarchy as much as the Roman Catholics. If the Protestants were spread over Ireland as over England, twelve Bishops would be as sufficient for the area of Ireland as twenty-six for England.
Sir Robert Batesoncould not permit the observations of the hon. member for Mayo (Mr. D. Browne) to pass without a reply. That hon. Member stated, that the Presbyterians of Ireland hated episcopacy even more than they did Popery. Now he (Sir R. Bateson) resided in a part of the country, the great body of the population of which was composed of Presbyterians, and on their part he must state, that they entertained neither hatred for episcopacy or popery. In truth there was no class of men who lived in greater harmony with the Church of England.
Mr. Shawdeclined dividing, the Committee on the clause, upon the ground that, as he had stated, when he urged its postponement in the beginning of the evening, it must undergo further discussion when the hon. Members who were alluded to should be in the House, and when the question of the security of Church property should be settled, as, until then, he would not make any proposition touching the reduction of the incomes of future Bishops. He thought, therefore, that the division would be more conveniently taken at a future stage.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses from 33 to 38 also, inclusive were agreed to.
The House resumed; the Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord LYTTLETON, from five Places, against Parts of the Local Jurisdiction Bill: and from the Birmingham School of Medicine, against any Alteration in the Apothecaries Act.—By the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from Whitstone, for the Repeal or Amendment of the Sale of Beer Act.

EAST INDIA CHARTER.
The Commons desired a Conference with their Lordships; which being agreed to, and the Conference having taken place,
The Marquess of Landsdownreported that the Commons had communicated to the Conference the following Resolutions, to which they desired their Lordships' concurrence:—

"1. That it is expedient that all his Majesty's subjects should be at liberty to repair to the ports of the empire of China, and to trade in tea, and in all other productions of the said empire, subject to such regulations as Parliament shall enact for the protection of the commercial and political interests of this country.

"2. That it is expedient, that in case the East-India Company shall transfer to the Crown, on behalf of the Indian territory, all assets and claims of every description belonging to the said Company, the Crown, on behalf of the Indian territory, shall take on itself all the obligations of the said Company, of whatever description, and that the said company shall receive from the revenues of the said territory such a sum, and paid in such a manner, and under such regulations, as Parliament shall enact.

"3. That it is expedient that the Government of the British possessions in India be intrusted to the said company, under such conditions and regulations as Parliament shall enact, for the purpose of extending the commerce of this country, and of securing the good government and
852
promoting the moral and religious improvement of the people of India."

The Resolutions were ordered to be printed.

POLITICAL UNIONS.
The Earl of Winchilseafelt himself obliged to put a question to the noble Earl opposite, for he thought it essential that the House should be informed whether it were the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to bring forward any measures during the present Session for the suppression of the Political Unions. He could assure the noble Earl that he was not in the slightest degree actuated by any party feeling or captious motives, but that he was solely influenced by a sincere wish to remove whatever tended to disturb the peace or to diminish the prosperity of the country. All who heard him must recollect the acknowledgment in that House that the Political Unions were actuated by a spirit and established upon principles totally inconsistent with all government, and it would be recollected also that a hope was entertained that these Unions would die away of themselves if they were left to the good sense of the people. Experience, he thought, must have by this time convinced noble Lords that if they waited for the good sense of the people to suppress these Unions they would have to wait too long. They might wait until some occurrence of public distress induced these Unions to act on the passions instead of on the reasons of the people, to the danger of the public peace. It was the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to take this question into their consideration, for it was impossible for the House to look at the number and position of the Political Unions, and to consider the spirit by which they were guided, without feeling that they were inconsistent with the tranquillity and prosperity of the country. He trusted that the noble Earl would call on that House to adopt some measure on the subject of these Unions, which would provide for the preservation of public tranquillity.
Earl Greygave the noble Earl credit for his assurance that he was not actuated by party feeling or factious motives, but solely by a sincere desire to promote the public interests. He only begged the noble Earl to give his Majesty's Ministers credit for the same feelings, and he could assure the noble Earl that Ministers would never neglect their duty by not proposing to that House whatever measures they might think necessary for the public good, In answer

853
to the question of the noble Earl, he must at once declare, that it did not appear to him at the present moment to be necessary or at all advisable to introduce any new law whatever with respect to the Political Unions. He had never concealed his opinions as to the nature and tendency of those Political Unions, nor had he hesitated to declare his conviction that they were totally inconsistent with good government, as they were established solely for the purpose of effecting a control over the Houses of Parliament. To suppress any attempt of this kind he trusted and believed that the power of the law, as it already existed, was sufficient. This power of the existing law, he could assure the noble Earl, Ministers had given no proof of an indisposition to use and exert whenever they should deem it necessary; but it did not appear to him to be advisable to propose any new law to Parliament; and in answer to the question of the noble Earl, he should say, that Ministers had no intention to propose any such measure.
The Earl of Eldoncould not suffer the subject to pass without seriously adverting to the great number of inflammatory and seditious publications which had issued from the Press, and been circulated through the country for the last two years. He did not advocate the bringing forward any new laws on the subject, for thousands and tens of thousands of the most seditious publications were constantly in circulation, which required no new law to suppress them, but which might be punished by the common law of the country. For the honour and Security of the country such publications ought to be suppressed, and yet no notice had been taken of them by Ministers, except to see whether they bore a fourpenny or a sixpenny stamp duty. The House could not be ignorant that a mass of infamous and seditious matter had been passed over thus lightly. If Ministers acknowledged that the existence of the Political Unions was inconsistent with the good of the country, the common law might long ago have put them down. It was the duty of those who had to protect the Monarchy of the country—it was the duty of those who had to protect that House from libel lous attacks—not to suffer the attacks which Were constantly thrown out against both. It was the bounden duty of Ministers, by carrying the common law into execution, to put an end to such proceedings. He asserted further, that it was the duty of those who were to protect the Monarchy—
854
to protect the House—to proceed without delay. Threats were daily thrown out against the House, and it was the duty of Ministers to take care that the common law was put into vigorous execution. He very well remembered—indeed, nobody could forget—that the other House of Parliament was urged to send down a Commission to Nottingham, but the Motion was opposed. What happened afterwards? Not more than three months elapsed before the Bristol riots occurred. They would never have been committed had the common law been duly enforced upon the offenders at Nottingham. But the case of Nottingham was improperly dealt with, and three months afterwards the conflagration at Bristol took place. An individual had sent to him information of the distribution of the most inflammatory and seditious papers, at a penny each, in Bristol, and had declared that if the circulation of such papers were not suppressed, that would happen which afterwards did happen. He contended that the Attorney General should have gone down to Nottingham, and the subsequent mischief might have been prevented. The common law was such that it might have put an end to the Political Unions long ago, to those Political Unions which the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government had himself stated were inconsistent with the good government of the country. He might be allowed to ask the noble Earl now whether his experience of the good sense of the country had justified his confidence? Let him look at the newspaper attacks on that House within the last three years, or even, continued the noble Earl, within the last three days, and let him say whether the common law ought not to have been put in force in order to put them down.
Viscount Melbournehad no difficulty in stating his entire concurrence, in the opinion that Political Unions might be in the highest degree pernicious; that their tendency was to overthrow good government; and, therefore, that they were disadvantageous to the general interests of the country. But the noble and learned Lord had introduced fresh matter upon this occasion, by referring to the numerous publications of a seditious character. Every body knew that the question of prosecution for libel was entirely a matter of prudence and expediency, and no persons ought to feel that more strongly than the members of the late Administration, who had instituted many prosecutions, but with no great suc-

855
cess. He did not say, that they were improperly instituted; but merely that it was always a question of prudence and expediency whether it was fit to engage in them. The most effectual means had been adopted in some instances to check the distribution of libellous publications; and the persons principally, if not almost entirely, employed in the most seditious and violent of them were at present under prosecution by the Stamp Office. He begged to state, that some of the most objectionable publications had recently been selected for prosecution by the Law Officers of the Crown, who were charged by the noble and learned Lord with neglect of duty. He knew that the number of prosecutions bore but a small proportion to the number of publications; but it was always a serious point for the consideration of Government, whether legal proceedings did not injuriously draw the attention of the public to the libel, making the parties accused perhaps objects of pity and compassion, rather than of hatred and indignation. The noble and learned Lord had now said of unions what he had said upon nearly every other occasion—"What need of your statutes? Why do you not prosecute at common law? That alone is sufficient." The number of libels was as great—they were as rife when the noble and learned Earl was at the head of the country—he meant when the noble and learned Earl was Lord High Chancellor of England—as at the present moment. They were then to the full as bitter and virulent. He could produce proofs of his assertion in great numbers. And these libels were as much suffered to pass unprosecuted then as similar libels had been in the recent times to which the noble and learned Earl had chosen to call their attention. The noble and learned Earl passed from the libels to make remarks upon the riots at Bristol, and then the noble Earl spoke of the riots at Nottingham, and said, that if the one had been made the subject of due notice, the other would never have happened. Why, they occurred within a fortnight of each other. That remark, therefore, was without foundation, and no charge against the Government could fairly be founded upon it. The Attorney General went down to Bristol; it was true he did not go down to Nottingham, and indeed the inquiries occurred with respect to time, so near each other, that it would have been almost impossible for the Attorney General to have attended to both; but even if he had been able to do so, as it was well known that that
856
hon. and learned person represented at that time the town of Nottingham in the other House of Parliament, it was evident that, in reason, in prudence, in discretion, and in common sense, there was ample cause for his not going down to Nottingham to conduct the prosecutions on the part of the Crown. But though he did not go, a Special Commission was issued, under which three persons were convicted and executed. Having given such explanation—an explanation which he hoped would be satisfactory to every reasonable mind—it only remained for him to repeat that it was the determination of his Majesty's Government at the present moment, as it had ever been since they took office, to maintain with rigour and due firmness the supremacy as well of the law as of Parliament, and to take every means to repress any disposition for violence or outrage that might, during their continuance in office, manifest itself throughout the country.
The Marquess of Londonderrydid not rise so much to state his individual opinions as to how far the temporising sufferance of Political Unions by the present Administration, was compatible with public safety, as to express his heartfelt thanks to the noble Earl (Earl Winchilsea) for having so properly introduced the subject to their Lordships' notice. To him it was a matter of unfeigned surprise, that the Ministry should continue to express their approbation of Political Unions, for those Unions had long since ceased to express their approbation of Ministers. Indeed, if he was not much mistaken, the only opinion to which those bodies had for some time given expression was—and a very proper, sound, and discreet opinion he considered it to be—an opinion of detestation and utter contempt for the noble Earl at the head of the Administration, and for every member of whom that Administration was composed. What took place in many parts of the north of England was a satisfactory attestation of the existence of that opinion. The utmost, therefore, he could say for the noble Earl was, that his present determination not to take any steps to put down those Unions, argued an absence of selfishness for which he deserved full credit, for, had he been otherwise disposed, he would have availed himself of the opportunity held out to him, and signed the death-warrant of those political associations, the existence of which could not, under peculiar circumstances, fail to prove annoying.
Lord Segravesimply rose to assert, and

857
he did so from his own personal knowledge, that had it not been for the institution of Conservative Clubs, organized by those very parties who so loudly decried Political Unions, there would now be scarcely a single Political Union of any kind in existence throughout the country.
The Earl of Eldonhad only to observe, in reply to the observation of the noble Baron, if reply it required, that Conservative Clubs were only called into existence on its being found that during the continuance of the present Administration the suppression of Political Unions was not to be expected.
Lord Segravewould still assert, that Political Unions would have one and all dissolved of themselves if it had not been for the formation of Conservative Clubs.
The Earl of Eldonsaid he would only trouble their Lordships with one observation in reply to the latter assertion of the noble Baron. He defied that noble Lord to make out such a proposition as that to which he had given utterance, to the satisfaction of any man in the kingdom, be his political feelings what they might.
The conversation was dropped.

LOCAL JURISDICTION.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that in rising to move their Lordships that this House resolve itself into a Committee on the Local Jurisdiction Bill, it would not be necessary for him to trespass at any considerable length on their attention, in adverting to a subject which he had trodden over so often. The importance of the question remained undiminished; but in consequence of the explanation which had been given on a former occasion, their Lordships, he had no doubt, were now fully acquainted with the nature of the measure. He must, in the first instance, congratulate himself and the country on the large attendance of their Lordships on this occasion. It showed that their Lordships came down to discuss this Bill, in that calm, temperate, and serious manner which so important a measure demanded. It proved that they meant to give to the Bill their most grave consideration—that they would examine all the principles on which it was founded—that they would investigate all the details of which it consisted—and that every part of it should meet with the deliberate attention which the great magnitude of the question required. So long as their Lordships continued so to discharge their duties,—so long as they persevered in showing themselves attentive to what was
858
most conducive to the interests of their fellow-subjects,—so long as they found it expedient not only to entertain, but favourably to meet, any proposition made for improving the condition of the people, by amending the laws under which they lived, by purifying the administration of justice, and by manifesting a sincere desire to meet the feelings and wishes of their fellow-countrymen, when properly expressed, and when they could do so consistently with their sense of duty and the dictates of their conscience; so long unions might combine, and meetings might assemble, and mobs might rage, and the licentiousness of the press expend itself, all would assail their Lordships in vain; and even those threats which had recently been made would fall perfectly harmless on that high council of Parliament. When he first introduced this measure, two years and a half ago, he stated, as the groundwork and the principle on which it proceeded, the acknowledged defects in the existing jurisdictions of the country, with respect to affording relief to suitors in cases of debt, as well as in many other matters. The expense of the courts in Westminster, and the expense incurred in other legal jurisdictions, amounted in such cases as he had noticed to almost a denial of justice. In support of this position, he could appeal to the experience of many, and to the observation of all. He had, therefore, produced this Bill, expounding, at the time he introduced it, as far as he could, the grounds on which its provisions were founded. It was then suggested by a noble and learned friend of his, that it would be better, instead of carrying the Bill further, to place it (after some alterations had been made in it) in the hands of the Common Law Commissioners, who were then far advanced in their most useful labours, with the view of profiting by their advice on various points, after they had given the subject due consideration. He at once acceded to this proposition. Those learned persons most readily undertook the task; and the Bill having received the benefit of their suggestions, was now again before their Lordships. He should crave leave to arrest the attention of their Lord ships for a few minutes, while he briefly adverted to the facts which had been elicited by the Common Law Commissioners, who had received and examined between 370 and 400 cases. He was, he should here observe, in speaking of those cases, by no means disposed to think, that the evidence furnished by lawyers themselves of

859
various descriptions, and particularly by the practitioners of the law in the country, was less strong in favour of the proposed alteration than the evidence of individuals, who must be supposed to be more unbiassed; for he could confidently say, looking carefully to the evidence, that, with one or two exceptions, the solicitors in the country admitted, as plainly as they could do by language, the existence of defects, which it was the object of this Bill to remedy. One eminent practitioner indeed said, that "he had brought, in his time, thousands and thousands of actions, and he never felt any inconvenience from the delay and expense." It was very probable that he had experienced no inconvenience, but he was not the only party concerned. He added, however, "but other parties are not in the same situation—they suffered more inconvenience. The losing suitor was put to more expense than he ought, and the party who gained the cause recovered much less than he should have done, and in a much shorter period also." The only real objection, however, that he had offered to the projected change was, "that the expense attending those local jurisdictions would be to the full as great, if not greater, than the expense incurred at present." With one or two exceptions, the evidence of solicitors, perfectly conversant with the subject, was in favour of the measure. But there was another class of witnesses, not of the same description—persons who were the subjects or the objects of the law, who were the prey of those who followed the profession. He did not use the word "prey" in an invidious sense. The system, he believed, was rarely beneficial to either, and was generally ruinous to one of the parties. He should now call their Lordships' attention to some of the answers given to the queries of the Commissioners. A respectable banking firm at Trentham stated, "that they had frequently given up debts rather than incur the expense of suing for them." Messrs. Hill and Co., bankers of Abergavenny, stated: 'We know from experience that very considerable inconvenience arises from the delay which in tervenes between the commencement of a suit in the Superior Courts and a trial at the Assizes, and also from the enormous expense attending the prosecution of such suit. We have frequently been deterred, and so have many other persons to our knowledge, from proceeding for the recovery of small debts on that account. We believe an effect very prejudicial to
860
trade, particularly amongst small shop keepers, is produced by the delay and expense of the present system, not only from the knowledge which dishonest debtors obtain of the difficulty their creditors are placed in, but also from the facility and encouragement now afforded to emigration, whereby a fraudulent debtor is tempted to sell his goods, leave the country, and cheat his creditors, there being no summary process by which, under such circumstances, a creditor can secure a debt of small amount.' Messrs. J. and C. Sturge, of Birmingham, say—'From the nature of our business, our accounts are generally considerable where any par tics indebted to us become insolvent; but even in these cases we consider it more to our interest generally to submit to fraud rather than take any legal proceeding; and in a small debt we consider it quite out of the question, unless at a certain pecuniary loss, to resort to it, which in all cases we wish to avoid. Great in convenience and expense arise from having to take witnesses, &c., a considerable distance, and keep them there, which latter is much augmented by want of previous arrangement, when the different causes shall come on for trial. We consider the system through which we are obliged to act little better than one of legal robbery.' Mr. Cort, Chairman of the Trades' Committee at Leicester, answers thus:—'Great inconvenience always arises in actions where the amount to be recovered is under 100 l.; and in some cases where the amount is larger, if (which is often the case) the defence is merely to create delay, and the expenses are so great as frequently to deter the creditor from proceeding at all. *** The effect of the system is bad, as it in duces dishonest men, for the purpose of getting into debt, to endeavour to deceive tradesmen as to their means and intention of paying, calculating on the defective state of the laws, by which to evade payment. The losses sustained by retailers, in sums of less than 20 l., have of late greatly increased, and the business, instead of being a source of profit, has been, through the defective state of the laws, most un profitable.' The agent of the Colebrook dale Company answered thus—'Believing the enclosed queries are intended to elicit information relative to some improvement in law process, we should have had pleasure in answering them, had our knowledge and experience enabled us to do so satisfac-

861
torily; but that is not the case. The expense of law, and the uncertainty of its issue particularly with dishonest men) are so great, that we are mostly deterred from resorting to legal measures for the recovery of our debts; as such, we are less acquainted with the Courts of Law than many others probably are.' The principals of a highly respectable wholesale house at Leeds said—"The mode of recovering small debts is so expensive and tormenting, that it prevents us from endeavouring to recover them. The idea of going into Court is terrifying." So it thus appeared, that, from one end of the country to the other, the system was equally oppressive. The dislike to it was not confined to one district, but extended over all. But the objection was not confined to the provinces: even individuals living in the capital felt the same repugnance, the same horror of these proceedings. They, in many instances, thought the best thing they could do was to give up their property and to keep out of law. The retail dealers of Fenchurch-street thus answered—"We are incompetent to give an opinion, for we have such a horror of law, that we never have courage to go into a Court of Law." So strong, indeed, was the sense of the injudiciousness of litigating questions about small sums, that numerous cases occurred of per sons paying demands for debts which they did not owe, but which they feared to contest on account of the expense. A man had better pay a demand of 10 l. or 12 l. than resist it, defeat his adversary, obtain a verdict in his favour with costs, for that verdict would give him less than he would be obliged to expend in his defence in resisting the unjust demand. He could assure their Lordships, that this was frequently, but, of course, not ordinarily, the case; for, if it were, a man might lose his whole property in sums of 5l. at a time. Still, as a matter of gain or loss in a single instance, one had better pay a small demand, though unjust, than to defend an action to resist it. They had the evidence of a learned Serjeant who had, for many years, presided over one of the 40 s. Courts in the metropolis, who stated, that it was a common practice with the suitors in that Court to reduce their demands of 5l. to 1l. 19 s. 11½d. in order to avoid the expense and delay of suing for the whole. He added, that the proportion of cases where the debts were 5l., and those reduced, was about one-seventh of the whole. "There were," he
862
observed, "many instances in which debts of 12 l. and 13 l. were thus reduced to under 40 s., the creditors preferring to forego the remainder rather than risk the expense of suing, even with a prospect of a verdict in their favour, for the whole; but the cases were common in which claims of 5l. were thus reduced." All these facts had made the Commissioners thus report to his Majesty—"We believe the complaints made by numbers, whose evidence is stated in the appendix to this Report, to be just; that creditors are, from a want of sufficient means to obtain redress, obliged to abandon their just demands; that debtors are, from the same cause, tempted to a dishonest resistance, and that the result is great injury to public morals, and private rights." He did not feel it necessary to detain their Lordships longer on this part of the subject than while he added, that nothing was more calculated to weaken the attachment of the people to the Government, and to lessen their respect for the laws, than the knowledge, that those laws failed to give them that protection to which all subjects were entitled, as well in their property as in their persons. To such a state of things it was necessary that some remedy should be applied. He now came to the consideration of the remedy. The only remedy of which he had ever heard, save that proposed in the Bill now before their Lordships, was the improvement in the system of the Courts. He would except one other which had been suggested—of transferring claims for debts to a certain amount for adjudication to the Quarter Sessions; but, he felt, that it would be a waste of their Lordships' time to enter into any arguments against so wild a scheme as this of transferring to Courts already so overloaded with other business such an addition as this would turn out to be. The other remedy, then, was the improvement in the County Courts; but these were so numerous—so different in their modes of practice—some of them acting on very old practice, and others under the authority of Acts of Parliament; in short, the defects of them were so numerous, that he was convinced it would be much easier—as had once been said of an individual—much easier to make one entirely new than to improve those which were already in existence. The extent of the jurisdiction, the nature of the pleading, the form and practice in many of those Courts, were greatly different from those in others. In some the jurisdiction extended to claims of

863
5l.; in others, in general, it did not go beyond those of 40 s. In some the pleadings were as operose, and the whole process as tedious and expensive, as in the ordinary Courts of Law; in others there was frequently a delay of five months between the commencement of the suit and the final decision. In some it happened, not un-frequently, that an expense of 6l. was incurred in recovering a debt of 40 s. Then there was the inconvenience of the distance, for the suitors in some of the County Courts had to come a distance of fifty miles to proceed with their claim for the recovery of a debt under 40 s. There was, also, the great disadvantage of the want of a Judge. The Sheriff, who was in law the Judge, went out every year. In every case the Sub-sheriff might be, and in many instances was, changed as often, and with each change there might be a change of the assessor; so that there was this radical defect in the system—there was the want of a Judge. But, it might be said, you could place a permanent Judge over these Courts, by appointing some professional man with a good salary, and might change the system of pleading and attachment, for, by the practice of some of the Courts, the moment a suit was commenced an attachment might be issued against him; and if he did not come in, and pay down a certain sum into Court, his goods might be sold even before the cause was tried; but, he repeated, it would be much easier to make new Courts, where they would be unfettered by old customs and different practices, than to remodel the old County Courts. But, in such remodelling, they could not even preserve the name of County Courts. Indeed, in effect they had ceased to be so already, for in the original construction of those Courts the suitors were the Judges, which they had, in most cases, ceased to be, but in the suggestion of the improvement of the Courts it would be necessary in some counties—in Lancashire and Yorkshire, for instance, and even in the West Riding of Yorkshire—to have more than one or two of such Courts, while, in other instances, three or four Courts must be moulded together to be included in the jurisdiction of one Court, which could not thus even preserve its name of a County Court. Now, as to the necessity of the establishment of such Courts as he proposed, it was scarcely needful for him to do more than to point out the vast number of causes which were brought into Court for sums
864
under those over which the proposed Courts were to have jurisdiction. In the year 1827, the number of affidavits of debt in London for sums above 10 l. was 93,000, and of these 78,000 were for sums under 100 l., and 30,000 of these, again, were for sums under 20 l. Out of 830 actions, tried in London and Westminster, in one-third verdicts were given for sums under 20 l. He remembered, that, at one Assize for Lancashire, the average amount of the verdicts given was under 15 l., the lowest sum for which a man could then be held to bail. The number of causes in the Oxford Circuit, in two years, was 340, of which 160 were for sums under 20 l. These instances were enough to show the necessity of dealing with the subject. He was aware, however, that they might operate both ways, and render some noble Lords cautious in meddling with a matter so important and of such extent. But, the amount of actions for small sums should induce their Lordships to apply a remedy to the evil; and allow men to sue for money really due to them so as not to have a prospect of losing more than they gained by a favourable verdict. Their Lordships were not without examples of the good effects which might result from the establishment of such Courts as his Bill proposed. There were some Courts on the same general plan in Lancashire, but though defective in many respects, and capable of great improvement, they had been productive of much benefit. However, as he had said of the County Courts generally, it would be much easier to have new Courts than to remodel and alter these. But they had a much stronger illustration of the sort of Courts he meant, and a better proof of the good which would be likely to result from them, in the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland, in which almost every action between man and man might be tried, and in a cheap and expeditious manner. Those Courts were, he admitted, capable of being greatly improved, and, he hoped, that the time would arrive when such improvement would be made; but even defective as they were in some respects, and if they were never to be improved beyond what they now were, they were such as Englishmen might look upon with envy from the great benefits they were calculated to confer. The first thing which would strike an Englishman, in looking at the practice of those Courts, was the cheap rate at which justice might be administered. A man

865
might sue there for 12 l.; and if the action were undefended, which was often the case, the costs did not exceed 10 s. If the case were defended, it would amount to much more—it might come to 5l., which was a great deal too much, and in this respect the Courts ought to be improved. But even here the plaintiff had an advantage which he could not have in England, for after the taxation of costs he would find, that he obtained the sum for which he sued within 5s., while the plaintiff in Westminster Hall very frequently found himself out of pocket in consequence of his costs in recovering a verdict for 15 l. or 20 l. Now, in Scotland, a man who sued and recovered a verdict for 100 l. would not find himself out of pocket more than 20 s. The advantage of this system would be further seen in the number of cases decided in the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland, which, taking the average of three years, ending in 1823, the date of the last Return, would be found to amount to 22,000 above 5l. in each year. Out of these there had been only 117 appeals, and of which not more than one-half had been prosecuted; so that a vast proportion—more than 99 in 100 cases—were finally disposed of in the Courts below. Then, what was the amount of property involved in these causes? Taking the amount as for one county—the greatest mercantile and manufacturing county in Scotland, Lanarkshire, as a criterion—the calculation was, that, in the course of the same three years, the property disposed of in these Courts amounted to no less than 500,000 l.; which, taking into account the proportion of the population and wealth of Scotland to those of England, would give the sum of 3,000,000 l., as capable of being disposed of, in three years, by the Local Courts he proposed. He mentioned these facts, by way of illustration of the great difficulty under which the suitors of England at present laboured; and he was quite sure it was not necessary for him to say more to induce their Lordships to consider the expediency of giving the proposed plan a favourable trial. He would now say a word as to the question of compensation. If it was intended to raise any objection to the measure on this ground, he should, he hoped, remove it by stating, that there was nothing in the Bill on their Lordships' Table which could create a cause for compensation. It was, indeed, the opinion of the Commissioners, that the small local jurisdictions should be abolished, and in the principle of that
866
opinion he fully concurred. He thought, that such jurisdiction should be gradually merged in the new Courts; but there were considerations which, in his opinion, would render it imprudent to abolish the small local jurisdictions at once. It would be impossible, at first, to know the amount of business which might be done in the new Courts, and until they had some experience in that respect, it might prove exceedingly inconvenient to burthen those Courts by transferring to them the business of the small local jurisdictions. Some of the small debt Courts disposed of 7,000 or 8,000 causes in a year, and one of them even disposed of as many as 20,000; and, therefore, great inconvenience might and would be experienced till the Local Courts were got into train, and till it was ascertained what they could accomplish. When they found what they had to do in those Courts, they might then inquire which of the smaller Courts they should allow to remain and which to abolish; for he did think, that some of the small Courts might be continued with advantage; but, he thought it would be the better course not to touch the smaller Courts at present. At the same time, it was not his intention that the small Courts, and those which this Bill would establish, should have concurrent jurisdictions. He would keep them separate, leaving to the new Courts the jurisdiction in all cases above those of the smaller Courts unless the Legislature should see fit to take further proceedings with respect to the latter. He would now say a word upon a subject connected with this Bill, which more properly belonged to the other House of Parliament—he meant how the Judges and Registrars and Clerks in the new Courts were to be paid. He was afraid, that in dealing with this question their Lordships and the other House would find themselves in a diffculty which they could not easily obviate; and that while they anxiously desired to take one course, they would be obliged to follow another. If there was anything which the public had a right to expect more than another, it was, that the due administration of justice should be at the general expense, and not at that of the suitors. The suitor had already to pay his attorney, his counsel, and the expense of bringing his witnesses. If the principle of regulating those Courts were good, the suitor ought not to be called upon to pay anything more than he could recover by the verdict in his favour; but, un fortunately (and this was one of the strong

867
arguments in favour of the Courts which this Bill would establish, the expenses were so great in our ordinary Courts, that the costs of the plaintiff frequently exceeded the amount recovered by the verdict in his favour. They had, however, now lived to see the day when taxes upon law proceedings, as such, were admitted to be most unjust and impolitic as sources of revenue. Since the time of Mr. Bentham's unanswerable demonstration on the subject, there was, he believed, no sensible man who entertained any other opinion than that such taxes were most unjust. In accordance with this now general admission—an admission now recognized by the Legislature itself—it should follow, that the Judge, the Registrar, and the clerks of the new Courts should be paid by the public, and not by the suitors. Yet when lie said this, he had great doubts, considering the necessities of the State, and the unwillingness of the subject to submit to any new addition on their burthens he feared it would be necessary to have some fees taken in the new Courts; but while he admitted this overruling necessity he must enter his protest against the principle, and insist that any tax, no matter what, for the purpose of drawing the payment from the public rather than from the suitor would be better than fixing it on law proceedings. Another point on which he would say a few words was, the probability that this Bill might be opposed by a band of individuals, whose interests might be more or less concerned; but he trusted, that any appeal from those parties would be made to their Lordships in vain. It would be absurd and unjust to let the petty interests of a few individuals stand in the way of a great measure in which the interests of the public at large were so greatly concerned. Unfortunately, however, it was seen, that important public measures were sometimes greatly impeded by the opposition of such petty interests. It was stated by Bishop Burnet, that when Lord Somers introduced his Bill for the better protection of suitors in Courts of Law, it was "found to affect the clerks and under officers, whose interests were more considered than those of the nation itself." The Bill consequently encountered the hostility of those who had some petty interests involved in the question, and in order to escape their opposition, some of its most important clauses were omitted, and the utility of the measure essentially narrowed. He trusted, that if any such attempts were made with respect to this
868
Bill, they would be defeated. He now came to the last point on which he meant to occupy the attention of their Lordships he meant the changes which be had made in the Bill since its first introduction. In the first Bill the jurisdiction of the Courts was intended to extend to actions of 100 l., but ill the present Bill the jurisdiction was not to extend to cases where the sum exceeded 20 l. and this he made in deference to the recommendation of the Commissioners, who were of opinion that they ought not to go further at first. Another change was, that it was not intended to proceed at once with the establishment of these Courts all over the country, but the Crown was to have the power to select three or four districts in which such Courts should be established at first, and as they had experience of the operation of these Courts to extend them to other places. If he should be told that this was an experiment, lie should take it, not as an objection to the plan, but rather as a compliment. It was an experiment; and an experiment, too, in which he and their Lordships might have occasion to make alterations as they should see how it worked: for his own part lie did not expect that he should ever be able to present any bill to the House in the operation of which experience might not show—even if passed in the exact state in which it was drawn—that many things had been omitted which ought to have been inserted, and some things inserted which it were better had been omitted. He therefore thought it better that they should proceed at first with caution, and therefore with greater chance of safety; and when guided by experience, they might even in a few months come to a perfect system, or at least to the foundation of a system, so complete as to enable the people of this country to say what they had now no pretension for saying—that they could obtain cheap, effectual, and universal justice. He would now move, that their Lordships should resolve themselves into a Committee of the whole House on this Bill.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that, in pursuance of his pledge, that if he should find this Bill a just and wise measure it should have the best support that he could give it, he had given it his most serious consideration. He had not, however, trusted wholly to his own opinion, but had consulted with those on whose judgments he placed greater reliance than on his own, and the result was, that he

869
could not support the Bill in the shape in which it now stood. In this, he repeated, he did not merely give his own opinion, he had conferred with many persons, much more experienced than himself, and he must say, that in Westminster-hall—from the highest to the lowest—with some, he would admit, learned exceptions, the great body of the learned profession were adverse to the measure. It might be said, perhaps, and his learned and noble friend might be inclined to insinuate, that some of these were interested parties. He would admit, that some of them were; but the great body had no other interest in the matter than that which they possessed in common with their Lordships, and he must add, what he was sure his noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor) would admit, that no body of men were ever less disposed than the body to which he referred, to oppose their own interests to any measure which had the public advantage for its object. He would freely admit, that with the multitude, this was a popular measure. Well, it might be so. It promised cheap—it promised expeditious law. Those were plausible topics—topics well calculated to catch the breath of popular opinion. But it should be borne in mind—and he trusted the country and their Lordships would think well upon it—that cheap law did not always mean cheap justice, nor expeditious law expeditious justice. His noble and learned friend had laid some stress on the opinions of the Law Commissioners, to whom the consideration of this matter was referred, and he was ready to admit, that the talents and ability of the learned Gentlemen who composed that Commission gave a weight to their opinions which entitled them to great respect, but he must say, at the same time, that besides the fact that one Commissioner had dissented as to the extent of the jurisdiction of the new Courts, there were men equal in learning and ability to those Commissioners, and far exceeding them in numbers, who came to a very different conclusion on the subject. As the question had been referred to the Commissioners, he had taken the trouble to go through the whole mass of evidence appended to their report, and he must say, that much of it was inconsistent and contradictory. He would, however, pass over that, and come to the opinions given by the great mass of individuals connected with the trading community, who, he admitted, were most interested in this measure; and, amongst these, he found that many seemed
870
to be only anxious for an expeditious mode of recovering their debts. Some were clamorous for the repeal of the Insolvent Law, which would thus place the debtor at the mercy of his creditor; and there were others who required what he was sure would excite a smile amongst their Lordships, or at least on the countenance of his noble and learned friend, for they asked no less than that commercial questions should be decided without the aid of any legal authority, and left entirely to the decision of a number of merchants, who would thus be left to administer the commercial laws of the country. When he found this evidence, so much relied upon, containing matter of this kind, he owned that he was not disposed to attach that importance to it to which Ms noble and learned friend seemed to think it entitled. He was ready to admit the existence of the great evils, and inconveniences, and hardships complained of in our present system, but, unfortunately, those hardships and inconveniences were almost inseparable from any system which could be devised. Justice must be administered upon some general rules, and, in the adherence to those rules, it would be impossible to avoid hardships and inconveniences in some cases. He was sure, that even in the new system which his noble and learned friend proposed it would be impossible to avoid them. But he hoped, that before he sat down, he should be able to convince their Lordships that the difficulties and the hardships of which his noble and learned friend complained, under the administration of justice; as it now stood, might be obviated without I that total dislocation of our whole system I for the administration of justice, which his I noble and learned friend, by the present I Bill, proposed. Before they changed that; system, they ought to examine its principle, and their Lordships would, perhaps, allow I him to direct their attention to the foundation on which it rested. It was admitted on all hands, that the administration of justice in this country was more pure than I that of any other country in the world. It was not only uncorrupted and incorruptible, but it was, he was proud to say, above suspicion. But, when we had this purity in the principle of its administration, should we not be cautious how we put this system to any hazard by a change? He said, that there was no country on the face of the earth, in which greater attention had been paid to the form of proceedings, and to the due administration of justice between man

871
and man, than in our own. Now, why was it that our proceedings were in all cases so clear and definite? Because the great object of our system was to avoid litigation. If contests arose between individuals about their rights, they went at once to consult their legal advisers; and so clear in most cases was our law, that nothing was more usual than for suitors, on their first application, to receive this answer:—"You have no chance of success. You should adjust your difference as you best can, and so put an end to the contest at once." He believed, that out of every fifteen suits commenced in our Courts, not more than one ever came to trial, for the parties, as he had already stated to their Lordships, immediately consulted their legal advisers, and thus obtaining a knowledge of their real situation, without incurring further process and expense, proceeded to adjust their differences in the mode, which, the certainty of the law being decidedly either for them or against them, rendered most expedient. It was the beauty of this preventive part of our system, that their Lordships ought to bear perpetually in mind whenever they were called upon to legislate on projects of this nature. To what was it to be ascribed? And what, above all other things, was the cause of it? It was to be ascribed to the central system of the administration of the law in England. Twelve or fifteen Judges, educated in the same manner—sitting together at one time, and in one place—consulting each other daily, and, if need be, hourly—subject to the criticism of their compeers, subject also to the examination of an acute and vigilant bar—kept constantly alive to the justice of the decisions of the Judges by the importance which they exercised over the interests of their clients—ensured for the judgments of our Judges, a certainty, a precision, a freedom from corruption, and even a freedom from the suspicion of corruption, such as had never existed in any other country. There was, moreover, this further advantage in the system, that the same individuals going as Judges into the different counties of England, and carrying with them the same temper and the same spirit to administer the law in the provinces, rendered its proceedings uniform and universal; and even where any of their number committed on the circuit any mistake, rendered that mistake easy of correction, by reference to their whole number, when again assembled within the precincts of
872
Westminster-hall. He had detained their Lordships at this length, in detailing the principles on which our present system was founded, in order to enable them to decide, with more certainty, whether they ought or ought not to sanction the inroad which his noble and learned friend was intending to make upon them by his present Bill. On an occasion of this importance—for he admitted it to be an occasion of importance, and the full attendance of their Lordships showed, that they considered this question, from its connexion with the impartial administration of justice, to be a question of importance—on a question of this importance, he wished to fortify his own judgment, by the authority of others of greater weight and experience than himself. Mr. Justice Blackstone, in describing the administration of law as administered by our Judges of Assize, used this forcible and elegant language:—'The very point of their being strangers in the country is of infinite service in preventing those factions and parties which would intrude in every cause of moment, were it tried only before persons resident on the spot, and as this constitution prevents party and faction from intermingling in the trial of right, so it keeps both the rule and the administration of the laws uniform. These justices, though thus varied and shifted at every Assize, are all sworn to the same laws, have had the same education, have pursued the same studies, converse and consult together, communicate their decisions and resolutions, and preside in those Courts which are mutually connected; and hence their administration of justice, and conduct of trials, are consonant and uniform; whereby that confusion and contrariety are avoided, which would naturally arise from a variety of uncommunicating judges, or any provincial establishment.' That was the principle laid down by Mr. Justice Blackstone—a principle verified by daily experience, and of the truth of which their Lordships must, from their own observation, be fully convinced. He would next proceed to show their Lordships, that, if they should determine to adopt this Bill, they would be proceeding in an inverse order from all their former proceedings. Formerly, the administration of justice throughout England was by Local Courts and Tribunals. Great inconvenience was found to result therefrom, and the system was abandoned in consequence, and the present system was established in its stead. The Report of the

873
Commissioners alluded to the opinion given on this subject by Sir Matthew Hale. He wished to point out to their Lordships the reasons upon which that learned and excellent Judge rested his opinion, for those reasons were decidedly opposed to the retrograde course, which his noble and learned friend now proposed to them to pursue. Sir Matthew Hale, speaking of the improvements made in our laws from the time of Henry 1st, down to that of Edward 1st, mentioned, that up to the time of Henry 2nd, the administration of the common justice of the kingdom seemed to be wholly dispensed in the County Courts, Hundred Courts, and Courts-baron—Courts which, at that time, were of higher character than they were now. 'This,' said Sir Matthew Hale, 'doubtless bred great inconvenience, uncertainty, and variety in the laws—first, by the ignorance of the judges, who, in process of time neglected the study of English law, as great men usually did.' The learned Judge then proceeded as follows:—'Secondly, another inconvenience was, that this also bred great variety of laws, especially in the several counties. For the decisions, or judgments, being made by divers courts, and several in de pendent judges and judicatories, who had no common interest among them in their several judicatories; thereby, in process of time, every several county would have several laws, customs, rules, and forms of proceedings; which is always the effect of several independent judicatories, administered by several judges. Thirdly, a third inconvenience was, that all the business of any moment was carried by parties and factions. And, although in cases of false judgment, the law, even as then used, provided a remedy, by writ of false judgment, before the king or his Chief Justice; and in case the judgment was found to be such, in the County Court, all the suitors were considerably amerced; which also continued long after in use, with some severity; yet this proved but an ineffectual remedy for those mischiefs. Therefore the King took another and more effectual course; for in the 22nd year of his reign, by advice of his Parliament, held at Northampton, he instituted justices-itinerant; dividing the kingdom into six circuits, and to every circuit allotting three Judges, knowing or experienced in the laws of the realm.' Thus, their Lordships would perceive, that the principle which his noble and learned friend wished to introduce "gain into the
874
system of the country was that very principle which had formerly existed in it, and which had been abolished on account of the inconveniences to which it had given birth; owing, first, to the ignorance of the Judges; next their varying and contradictory decisions; and, lastly, to their permitting all business of importance to be carried by parties and factions. To obviate these inconveniences, that great Monarch, Henry 2nd, had adopted the system of justices-itinerant, nearly in the same form in which the system existed at present; and to revive those inconveniences, nothing more appeared to him to be necessary, than the enactment of this project of his noble and learned friend. Their Lordships would perhaps think, that he was treating this part of the subject too seriously, for they might suppose that the extent of the jurisdiction which the Bill of his noble and learned friend would create was more limited than, in point of fact, it really was. He was therefore anxious to show their Lordships the extent to which this Bill would transfer the business now transacted in Westminster-hall from the Courts there to the local tribunals which this Bill was intended to establish. He had himself made many inquiries upon the subject, and he was bound to say, that they fully confirmed the statement of his noble and learned friend on the woolsack. He had found, by reference to the business of the circuits which he had himself attended, and by inquiries which he had made of those who were most conversant with the state of business in Westminster-hall, that by this Bill full two-thirds of the business now transacted in the Courts of Westminster-hall would be transferred to these local tribunals. One thing, of which their Lordships ought never to lose sight in the course of this discussion, was the great, he might even say the enormous, extent of the measure proposed by his noble and learned friend—a measure which would unquestionably detach from the Courts at Westminster one-half, if not two-thirds, of the business at present transacted within them. This was not all. There were some inquiries for which these local tribunals were certainly not adapted, and which, by some strange fatality, were in future to be monopolized by them. The jurisdiction of these local tribunals was to extend to all cases of libel, where the plaintiff' laid his damages at 50 l. Now, as the amount of damages must, in all cases of libel, be uncertain, and as it was to be enacted, that if

875
a plaintiff, trying his cause in Westminster-hall, did not recover a certain amount of damages, he was not to be entitled to recover any costs, it followed almost as a matter of course, that after the passing of this Bill, all actions for libels in which the amount of damages was uncertain, would be tried before these local tribunals. What! try a libel by six common Jurymen under a judge residing on the spot, living among the parties, knowing the witnesses intimately, influenced perhaps by their local prejudices, and thus acting so as to create a feeling, or if not a feeling, a suspicion, that he was acting partially? Would their Lordships let such a measure have their support, merely because it emanated from the liberal spirit of his noble and learned friend? There were a great number of similar cases, which, by this Bill, would be transferred from the Courts of Westminster-hall which were competent to decide upon them, to local tribunals, which would possess no competency at all. All actions of false imprisonment, where the damages in the first instance must of course be uncertain, must, as matters of course, for the reason which he had already stated, be tried before these local tribunals; so that every Magistrate who unknowingly transgressed the law, or was guilty of any technical violation of it, would be liable to have an action brought against him, and to have it tried, not before a Special Jury, but before this narrow tribunal of six common Jurymen, on whom party prejudice and every other narrow feeling was likely to operate, under a Judge who was living on the spot, and who might be, in consequence, either the enemy of the Magistrate against whom the action was brought, or the enemy of the party who brought it. He mentioned these circumstances to give their Lordships an insight into the real nature of this Bill: for, when noble Lords said, that this was a Bill to enable individuals to recover the amount of their just debts at a low rate, they were only taking a very partial view of it; and he would illustrate this, by calling to the recollection of their Lordships what the argument was which had been used not very long ago for the abolition of the wish Judicature. What, he repeated, was that argument? Was it not that the same Judges always went the same circuit, and that partiality, influence, and corruption were supposed to prevail there in consequence? He should never forget the speech which he had had the good fortune
876
to hear made in the other House of Parliament by a noble Earl who was then leaning against the Table, The noble Earl, upon that occasion, after referring to the opinion of Blackstone, which he (Lord Lyndhurst) had already quoted, and after stating that the results in Wales had been exactly what Blackstone had predicted as likely to follow from an opposite system to that which he had been describing, asked: "Is it possible to describe more accurately the state of Wales? We have the despised jurisdiction, the suspicion of partiality, the conflicting practice." That was the ground upon which the noble Earl pressed upon the other House of Parliament the necessity of altering the constitution of the judicature of that part of the British empire. On that occasion, as he had already told their Lordships, he was present in the other House of Parliament; and then he heard another individual argue the same question exactly upon the same principles. These were his expressions:—'The first objection to the system of Welsh Judges was, that they never changed their circuits: to whatever circuit they were appointed, over that they continued to preside; and thus it happened that they became acquainted with all the landholders of the neighbourhood, with the gentry—nay, even with the very witnesses who came before them. The names, the faces, the very characters of these persons soon became familiar to them, and out of this grew likings and prejudices which never did and never could cast a shadow of shade over the twelve Judges of Westminster-hall.' He need not mention to their Lordships the name of the individual who used that phraseology; their Lordships were already well acquainted with his style, for they were in the habit of listening to it almost every night with mingled feelings of delight and instruction. Abolish the twelve or the fifteen Judges of Westminster-hall, because they become, by going their circuits twice a-year, liable to partiality, or, what is almost as bad, the suspicion of partiality; but establish, at the same time, a set of Judges who are to be going for years, and for several times in each year, the same narrow circuit who are to reside constantly within it, and who by residing within it, are likely to become ten times as familiar as the present Judges with the faces and characters of the parties between whom they have to decide, and of the witnesses whom they have to examine. Could

877
their Lordships, if they had not seen the present Bill, have believed, that his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would have consented to propose to them the reintroduction of a system which was pregnant with evils, even ten times worse than those which he had always been so active in denouncing and remonstrating against? His noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had said, that this Bill was only an experiment. Now, it appeared to him to give to his Majesty's Ministers the power of establishing as many of these Local Courts as they might think fit. The Bill formerly introduced on this subject was precise and definite, and that very circumstance led him to believe, that there was more meant by this enactment than his noble and learned friend publicly and openly avowed. The operation of this Bill was formerly to be confined to the county of Kent, and to one of the northern counties; and after the experiment had been tried and found to succeed, application was to be made to Parliament for its extension to other parts of the kingdom. But now let their Lordships mark the difference. Abandoning the principle of this old Bill, his noble and learned friend now proposed to give a power to his Majesty's Government to establish as many Courts at any time and at any place as it might deem convenient. When he saw, that the former provisions of this Bill were abandoned, that greater powers were given to the Government in their stead, he could nut help looking at this Bill with greater jealousy than perhaps he ought otherwise to have done. He could not help thinking that it was intended at once, and without trying any general experiment, to establish this Bill in full operation. But his noble and learned friend had pursued his argument still further. In the course of it, his noble and learned friend had referred to the existence of Local Courts in other countries, and to their operation in those countries. Into that part of his argument he readily and willingly followed his noble and learned friend. That system, as their Lordships were well aware, had for some time past been established in France. He requested their Lordships to take up any book that had been written by French lawyers on that subject, and after reading it, to form an idea of the practice of those Courts, and of the nature of their system; influence, partiality, corruption, or the suspicion of corruption, were the prevailing features in it. Establish the
878
same system here, and might not precisely the same consequences result from it? "Oh, no," said his noble and learned friend," we have tried this system in Scotland, and nothing of the kind has happened there." To that assertion he (Lord Lyndhurst, frankly replied: "No, you have not tried that system. I admit, that Local Courts are at present established in Scotland, but you, the highest law authority in the country, have told us, that those Courts must be purged and purified before they can become all that you wish them." That Local Courts had been established in Scotland he readily admitted; but that they worked abominably he would prove by the admission of his noble and learned friend himself. He well recollected, that on certain petitions being presented from the inhabitants of Scotland by Mr. Cutlar Fergusson, his noble and learned friend had expressed his feelings respecting those Courts in the following terms:—'It had frequently happened, as the law at present stood, that a delay had taken place of two years, and in some instances of five years, before a cause could be finally adjudicated before this officer. In causes concerning accounts such delays were frequent. The written pleadings from the two parties went on for a long time, and amounted to an immense mass of papers. The Sheriff-substitute had to go through them all, and in the fulness of time he gave his decision on the matter. It might then be brought by appeal before the Sheriff depute, who might reverse the decision, or order it to be referred to the Court of Session, and from that Court it might finally be brought by appeal to the House of Lords.' There were stages, too, he recollected, in these appeals from the Sheriff-substitute to the Sheriff-depute; and he recollected well, that his noble and learned friend had told them, that the usual course on those appeals was for the Sheriff-depute to affirm the process of the Court below by taking the papers and by writing upon them, after he had read them, the word "adhered." In some county or other it was much doubted whether the Sheriff-depute ever perused the papers that were sent to him by way of appeal, and in order to discover that fact, some rose-leaves were placed between the pages of his brief. The papers came back with the word "adhered" endorsed upon their back, but on examination it was found that the rose-leaves, to use his noble and learned friend's phrase, remained unruffled. He

879
used this circumstance to prove, that this, experiment had not been tried successfully, in Scotland. At present the practice of the Scotch Courts was admitted to be a nuisance. Whether when the written pleadings should be abolished, and the vivâvoce evidence should be admitted in their stead, the nuisance would be abated, was another question, into which he was not called upon to enter on the present occasion. There was another country, besides Scotland, in which this system had been tried, and he would now read to their Lordships the opinion which Captain Hall had published regarding its operation in the United States, desiring them continually to bear in mind that the habits of Americans were, with some slight exceptions, the habits of Englishmen. He would apologize to their Lordships for detaining them at such length, were he not conscious that he was now only following the path and treading in the steps of his noble and learned friend in order to make good his position. Captain Hall said:—"The principles of bringing justice home to every man's door, and of making the administration of it cheap, have had a full experiment in America, and greater practical curses, I will venture to say, were never inflicted on any country." Speaking of the state of Pennsylvania, he adds:—'They have done away with nearly all the technicalities of the law; there are no stamps, no special pleadings, and scarcely any one is so poor that he cannnot go to law. The consequence is a scene of litigation from morning to night. Lawyers, of course, abound everywhere, as no village containing above 200 or 300 inhabitants is without one or more. No person, be his situation or conduct in life what it may, is free from the never-ending pest of law-suits. Servants, labourers, every one, in short, on the first occasion flies off to the neighbouring lawyer or justice of the peace to commence an action. No compromise or accommodation is ever dreamt of; the law must decide everything. The lawyer's fees are fixed at a low rate, but the passion for litigating a point increases with indulgence to such a degree that these victims of cheap justice, or rather cheap law, seldom stop while they have a dollar left.' Then there was another testimony to the same effect in Faux's Memorable Days in America. Faux says:—'Litigation frequently arises here from the imaginary independence which one man has, or fancies he has, of others; to show which,
880
on the least slip, a suit is the certain result; it is bad for the people that law is cheap; as it keeps them constantly in strife with their neighbours, and annihilates that socialibility of feeling which so strongly characterizes the English.' Having referred to these instances, he would now call the attention of their Lordships to the manner in which it was expected this Bill would work. First, with regard to the practitioners of English law. He contended that to no set of men did the liberty of England owe more than it did to the members of the English Bar. They had been, on the one hand, the safest guardians of the people against the assaults of arbitrary power, and he had no doubt that they would prove themselves on the other, the strongest barriers of the throne against democracy and republican usurpation. Now, this Bill was, in his opinion, destructive of the independence of the English Bar. As soon as the Provincial Courts were established, which were to take away from Westminster-hall two-thirds of the business now transacted in it, they would have an immense body of provincial barristers. Many of the barristers now practising in Westminster-hall must necessarily abandon their town practice and convert themselves into provincial barristers. Need he tell their Lordships that such barristers would be inferior in learning, would be inferior in talent, would be inferior in intelligence, would be inferior in all those great and glorious qualifications which had so long distinguished the bar of England? Let their Lordships look again to the mode in which this Bill would operate on the bar. It would take two thirds of the ordinary business from the Assizes, where young men recently called to the bar went to learn experience, and to form themselves to the practice of the Courts, and to succeed to those vacancies in their profession which the death of some and the elevation of other members of it were daily opening to their hopes and to their ambition. The business done at the Assizes would be so small in consequence, that young men would cease to go the circuits, and the little business that was left would be absorbed and monopolized by the provincial counsel. Now, it ought to be recollected that from the members of the bar, the Judges and the Lord Chancellor must of necessity be selected. Let their Lordships remember how deep an interest they had in upholding the character and maintaining the dignity of that class of men from whom the future Chancellor

881
must be selected. Again, the Judges who were to preside in these Local Courts were to be barristers of ten years' experience, and men of irreproachable character. Now, he would tell their Lordships that if they sent such a man to live by himself in the country, and not to associate with his equals in legal knowledge and character, the chances were that in the course of five years that man would degenerate into a mere drone. He would ask their Lordships whether a man of such a character, ay, or of such a class, was a fit person to be Lord Chancellor? He had looked at the former bills introduced on this subject by his noble and learned friend, and at the table of fees which those bills sanctioned; he had found those fees to be so low, that none but very needy attornies would work for them. The effects of the Bill, therefore, would be to place in the lower department of the profession a set of men on whose honour and integrity you could place no reliance; you would have them promoting chicanery and encouraging litigation, for no other object than to recompense themselves by the multitude for the small amount of their fees: and thus you would degrade the legal profession from its highest members to the lowest, by involving judges, barristers, and attornies in one common poverty and ruin. If he (Lord Lyndhurst) had been fortunate enough to possess the powers of eloquence which belonged to his noble and learned friend, he would have placed before the eyes of their Lordships a picture of such hideous deformity on this topic as would have caused them to turn from it with shuddering and horror. But he would ask their Lordships was the cost nothing in this proposed alteration of the law? Let one-tenth part of the cost which this Bill would occasion to the country, be applied to the improvement of their present system, and all the defects in it, which his noble and learned friend deplored so vehemently, would be done away with for ever. According to the calculation of his noble and learned friend, a sum of 150,000 l. would be necessary to form this new establishment: but he should not be acting fairly to their Lordships, if he did not acquaint them that he had been informed by practical men that the cost of it would be somewhere between 2,50,000 l. and 300,000 l. He admitted that neither their Lordships nor the country could pay too much for clear, precise, and accurate justice; but to pay such a sum as he had just mentioned for vague, indefinite, and uncertain justice, was an
882
absurdity too gross for either House of Parliament ever to sanction. There was not, in his opinion, the slightest necessity for this measure: and, he would ask their Lordships to consider what was the mode by which his noble and learned friend arrived at the conclusion that this Bill would establish cheap justice. From what arose the necessity to detach from Westminster Hall the causes which were to be transferred to these new tribunals? What were the different stages of a suit? There was process—then came the interlocutory proceedings—and lastly, the trial itself. Those were the three stages. Now, let their Lordships mark how his noble and learned friend arrived at the first of these stages. "I'll have no process and no plea," said his noble and learned friend; "I'll merely have a notice inserted in the schedule." Now, if this were a wise mode of proceeding in causes of small amount, why might it not be successfully applied in the Courts of Westminster-hall to those cases where the cause of action exceeds 20 l? If there should be neither process nor pleading in the progress of actions in Westminster-hall, process and pleading would undoubtedly cost nothing. If, then, the plan of abolishing them in the local tribunals were wise—though he did not mean to say that it was wise—why might it not be grafted on the plans now adopted in the Courts of Westminster-hall? As to the wisdom of the plan, one word might perhaps be quite sufficient. Their Lordships had recently passed a Bill giving to the Judges of the Courts in Westminster-hall the power of drawing up the pleadings in such a manner upon distinct points, that each of the parties knew what the other intended to prove upon the trial and thus was prevented from carrying to the Assize town a number of unnecessary witnessess. Now under this Bill there were no pleadings, there were no distinct points to be proved upon the trial; and thus it compelled the parties to the suit, and the witnesses, all to go to trial—the one not knowing what was to be proved against them, and the other being ignorant of the points to which they might be called to give their evidence. He had now called the attention of their Lordships to the first step in the suit. The next was the interlocutory proceedings. He was now addressing himself to some noble Lords who were themselves lawyers, and was speaking in the presence, and in the hearing, perhaps, of some of the ablest men of the profession, and he took upon himself to aver

883
that interlocutory proceedings were more cheaply conducted through the medium of the Post-office in London than they could be in any district where the suitor had to follow the Judge, either in person or by his attorney. The interlocutory proceedings must often be taken upon the spur of the moment. An attorney hi these Local Courts would often be compelled on behalf of his client to take horse and follow the Local Judge as fast as he could ride; whereas now he wrote to his agent in London to attend at the Judge's chamber without any additional fee to his client—for the fee of the agent and the fee of the attorney were all one, the two parties dividing it equally between themselves. This part, then, of his noble friend's plan would increase, not diminish the cost of an action at law. Now as to the trial; half the expense of the trial consisted of fees paid to the Court and to its officers. Let these fees then, be abolished; let no fees be paid either to the Court or to its officers. All the fees taken in Courts of Justice are now the property of the public. The public had a right to abolish them; for, if he mistook not, a Bill was recently introduced into Parliament enabling the Government to abolish the fees taken in Courts of Justice, even without making any compensation to the present receivers of them. "But then," said his noble and learned friend," these Local Courts are to be established in small districts, and therefore the witnesses will not have the trouble and expense of travelling so far as they travel at present." Was it necessary for his noble and learned friend to go all the lengths of this Bill to effect that saving, when there was already introduced into the other House of Parliament another Bill, enabling the Crown to subdivide counties, and to hold the Assizes in different places within those subdivisions, in order to prevent these very evils? Why was his noble and learned friend guilty of these exaggerations? He knew the school in which his noble and learned friend had been brought up. At every Assize held at York there were 200 causes, and out of those 200 causes his noble and learned friend had generally had 150 briefs. At York the witnesses were generally kept a week, sometimes a fortnight, before they were examined. All this had perverted the mind, and blinded the judgment of his noble and learned friend. In the smaller counties of England this was by no means the case, but even if it had been the case, the new Bill to which he had just referred,
884
would obviate the difficulty, for counties might be subdivided, and the Assizes held, in as many places as his Majesty, with the advice of his Council, might be pleased to appoint. But then, said his noble and learned friend: "Witnesses are kept at the Assizes a long and indefinite time." Here again his noble and learned friend was misled by his own theatre of action. At York and at Lancaster the Assizes might last ten days or a fortnight; but on the circuit which he had himself gone—as, (or instance, at Nottingham, Derby, and Leicester—all the causes were generally tried in two days, and thus the public were put to no great inconvenience, inasmuch as a great part of the witnesses were dismissed at the end of the first day, and the rest at the termination of the second. There was one difficulty, but that not an insurmountable difficulty, with which he (Lord Lyndhurst) felt, that he had to contend on this occasion; but it was his duty and the duty of their Lordships to struggle to surmount difficulties rather than adopt this monster of a Bill. At present there were only two circuits of the Judges in the year. Now, he admitted that in the interval between the summer and the spring Assizes a creditor might be prevented for eight months from getting judgment against his debtor. To remedy this evil let there be three Assizes in the year, and let the Judges be compelled to take upon themselves this additional labour rather than the country be compelled to submit to the mischievous alteration of its laws now projected by the noble and learned Lord. He had thus stated a brief outline of the plan which he would propose to their adoption in lieu of that proposed by his noble and learned friend. He would also give a summary jurisdiction for the recovery of debts of a small amount. He thought that that principle was applicable in many instances to which it was not at present applied, and he would therefore extend it throughout the country, providing fit tribunals to superintend its operation. He would frankly avow that he would extend it beyond 5l. He had hitherto considered the principle of his noble and learned friend's Bill. He did not wish to enter into its details at present, lest he should fatigue their Lordships; but he must mention to them two or three of its details as a sample of it as a whole. Nothing was more easy than to throw out a general idea of legislation, nothing more difficult than to carry into effect a plan which should remedy de-

885
fects existing in the laws, without creating greater defects than those which the plan was intended to remedy. For instance, under this Bill an individual conceives that he has a good cause of action for 30 l.; he brings his action accordingly in the superior Courts; but during the proceedings preparatory to the trial one of his witnesses dies, or at the trial fails to attend; the consequence of this is, that he gets a verdict for less than 30 l. and thus loses all his costs. That was an injustice arising out of this Bill, and owing its existence to its very principle. Another point was, that the Commissioners had recommended one thing, and that his noble and learned friend had adopted another, with regard to this lull. It was a clause in this Bill that every action should be brought in the place where the party resided.
The Lord Chancellor.—That is a mistake in the printing of the Bill. A line has been dropped in the copying, and entirely altered its meaning.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, as such was the case, he would not press his objection on that point any further. Again there was a clause in the Bill by which the defendant was to have the right of summoning the plaintiff or plaintiffs to attend before a Judge, and to be examined as to the cause of action. Now, he would state very briefly the hardship of such a regulation. He would suppose, that a House in Liverpool furnished goods to a tradesman in Surrey, and that the Liverpool house was obliged to bring an action against him for the recovery of their value. Suppose the defendant to claim his right to examine the plaintiffs, and each member of the firm as a co-plaintiff in person before a Judge; in that case all of them must attend upon pain of an arbitrary penalty. In such a case would not the House at Liverpool prefer to sit down content with its first loss rather than incur a second loss of 10 l. or 15 l. for each partner, on occasion of his journey to London? Would not the members of the firm say, "we had better abandon our cause than all of us take a journey to London? Again, the judgments recovered in these Local Courts were to be liens on land. Now, when a judgment is recovered against an individual in the Superior Courts it is signed and docketed, and everybody knows where to look for it; but when these Local Courts are established, where are you to look for the charges on a man's estate? You must find out every place in which a man
886
has resided, and examine the Court-rolls there before you can find whether he has or has not any charge upon his estate. Proceeding onwards to execution, we find that a defendant can assign his lands to the plaintiff for the satisfaction of his debt; but in the clause giving the defendant that power there is no arrangement made, that the plaintiff shall hold the surplus of the land above his debt for the benefit of the defendant, and that he shall afterwards give the defendant a full and true account of it. From this circumstance it was evident, that his noble and learned friend had not drawn up this Bill himself, but that he had employed some great bungler to arrange its parts and adjust its clauses. There was another point in which he considered that this Bill would be very prejudicial. What was the great cause of the frauds so often detected by the Courts of Justice? Fraudulent assignments. A creditor obtains judgment against a debtor, and then a whole day is often occupied in investigating whether the debtor has not executed a fictitious assignment to defeat the just claim of his creditor. Now, the Bill of his noble and learned friend would facilitate these fraudulent assignments in a most extraordinary way. The property of a debtor is, by judgment of these Courts, to be vested in the creditor; the consequence will be, that to neutralize this clause a fraudulent debtor will get himself sued by a fictitious creditor, judgment will be hurried on between them with the greatest rapidity, the property will thus be transferred into the power of the fictitious creditor, and, at the conclusion of the transaction, the real creditor will find himself deprived of his only source of remedy. The means by which he is to get rid of this fictitious assignment are not mentioned in this Bill. There were other matters of detail into which he might enter; but he thought that these were sufficient to prove his proposition that nothing was more easy than to point out faults in an existing system of legislation, and nothing more difficult than to remedy those faults, without introducing into it evils still more dangerous and diffusive. He had little more to address to their Lordships, unless it were a word or two upon a visionary scheme for erecting a Cour de Reconciliation. As his noble and learned friend had said nothing about any such a Court, he supposed that he had abandoned it as a part of his project. His noble and learned friend knew well that such a Court had been tried in France, in Switzerland,

887
in Belgium, in Holland, in Geneva, and that it had been abandoned in them all, because it had signally and lamentably failed. The only casein which it had succeeded was in Denmark and Sweden, and even in those countries accounts had been given of its success which had entirely misled his noble and learned friend. His noble and learned friend had told them that in those countries so many causes went into Court, so many were adjusted, and so many came out of it and proceeded to trial. Now, he was informed that you could not go to trial in those two countries without suing out a writ of reconciliation, and he understood that in those two countries, as elsewhere, one-fifteenth of all the actions commenced were settled upon that first step. He had now done. He thanked their Lordships for the calm and dispassionate attention with which they had listened to his statements. In this question he had no personal feelings to gratify, no personal interest to serve. This question could not in any point of view be considered as a party question, and he was quite sure, that none of their Lordships would deal with a proposition affecting the impartial administration of justice as such a question. He had told his noble and learned friend some time since, that he should consider this Bill with candour and fairness. To the best of his ability he had so considered it, and he now thought its principle so mischievous that he felt himself bound, in discharge of the duty which he owed to his country, to Westminster-hall, and to himself, to arrest its progress at this stage. He should therefore propose, that this Bill be committed on this day three months.
The Amendment was put.
The Lord Chancellor, after a short pause, said he felt it necessary again to occupy the attention of the House, in consequence of the statement just made by his noble and learned friend—a statement which his noble and learned friend seemed to consider perfectly fair and candid, and which he (the Lord Chancellor) would not say was wanting in fairness and candour; but this he must be allowed to state, that a statement more completely overlooking the facts of the case—more completely overlooking the provisions of the measure to which his noble and learned friend professed to have paid so much attention, and of the recommendations of that Report, which he likewise professed deeply to have studied, and on which the present measure was grounded—a state-
888
ment more full of unintentional omissions and unintentional disregard of facts, he had never yet heard, either from the noble and learned Lord himself or from any other person. He must confess, that the first part of his noble and learned friend's statement had staggered him considerably—but, before he proceeded he begged to apologize to their Lordships for speaking at the present moment. He believed, that by the practice of their Lordships' House, the mover of any Bill was, by courtesy, allowed the privilege of a reply; but all the advantage of this privilege would be lost to him if, upon sitting down, he should be replied to by any of their Lordships. He should, however, proceed at the present moment, upon the supposition that none of their Lordships desired to speak on the subject before the House, inasmuch as a pause had ensued after the putting of the Amendment, and the question seemed about to come to the vote. He, therefore, thought it right to avail himself of the ordinary courtesy extended by their Lordships to individuals in his situation; and he now considered that he was making his reply. To return to the point at which he broke off; he repeated that he was greatly staggered by his noble and learned friend's statement, that the learned Commissioners were not unanimous in their approval of this measure, since one of them dissented from the rest with respect to the provisions of this Bill. Now, if his noble and learned friend had condescended to cast his eye upon the signatures appended to the Report, he would have found—
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he was aware that the Commissioners had affixed their names to the Report, but what he had stated was, that they did not approve of many of the provisions of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: Was, he then, to understand that such a grave charge was meant to be brought against those learned personages, whose names and seals were appended to that Report, that they did not approve of the Bill, at least so far as it followed the suggestions contained in their Report? [Lord Lyndhurst, No!] The whole five of the Commissioners approved of all the recommendations contained in the Report; and therefore they must, of necessity, approve of the provisions of the present Bill, because, as far as regarded its main principles, it only went to the extent of those recommendations. The rest of the Bill related to matters of trifling importance—such as limiting the jurisdiction of

889
the Local Courts to sums not exceeding 20 l.; allowing the right of appeal in certain cases; giving them jurisdiction in various matters with certain exceptions, which exceptions were precisely the same as those stated and recommended by the Commissioners in their Report. Indeed, he had not gone as far as the Report. The trial of an action of ejectment by a landlord against his tenant, in cases where the rent did not exceed 20 l., he had purposely omitted from the jurisdiction of Local Courts, though recommended by the Commissioners, in order that the Bill might contain nothing which would in the slightest degree interfere with its principle—that no question should be allowed to be raised in these Courts which could by any possibility have any reference to the right of freehold or copyhold property. He had also fallen short of the recommendations of the Commissioners in another point. They had recommended that an equitable jurisdiction should be given to the Local Judges on questions of legacies. He, for reasons which he had stated on a former occasion, had not embodied that suggestion in the present Bill. Their Lordships, however, on reading over the Report, to which the Commissioners had attached their signatures and seals, could have no doubt that every one concurred to the fullest extent in the leading provisions of the Bill establishing Local Courts with a certain amount of jurisdiction. There might be a difference with respect to the questions of execution and reconcilement, but they were insignificant and not essential parts of the Bill. Their Lordships might make any alteration they pleased in Committee with respect to those parts, if it was to them that the learned Commissioners objected, and yet the measure might still stand, and in every one essential particular be carried into execution according to the Report approved of by those learned personages. His noble and learned friend then urged an argument which astonished him almost as much as anything that had fallen from the noble and learned Lord in the course of his speech that night. The noble and learned Lord said—"Look to the evidence to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred, particularly that given by bankers, merchants, and tradesmen, and you will find it so tainted by deep-rooted prejudice, and so full of objections to various parts of the law (one witness advocating the establishment of a commercial tribunal such as existed in France, to take cognizance
890
of disputes arising out of mercantile transactions; another objecting entirely to all insolvent acts) that no reliance whatever can be placed upon it." Excellent well would this argument have been if ever for one moment he had relied on the opinions of those tradesmen, those merchants, and those bankers—if he had ever dreamed of placing any dependence on their views of Law Reform, and on their sentiments of what ought to be done by the legislature to remedy those defects at present existing in the practice of the law. But this was not the purpose for which he had referred to the evidence of these persons. He had over and over again described them in their capacity of sufferers, as objects of prey, and he wondered that that expression did not fix itself in the mind of his noble and learned friend, who was so sensitive to any attack on the profession of which he was a distinguished Member, and that in the exercise of his candour, on which he so much piqued himself, he had not been candid enough to recollect the object for which he (the Lord Chancellor) referred to that evidence. If the noble and learned Lord had recollected that he (the Lord Chancellor) had designated those persons as objects of prey, he could not have failed to have had the candour also to recollect that he (the Lord Chancellor) treated them, not as legislative advisers, but suffers, as persons who could speak as to how much they suffered, as to what they lost, and what they did not gain, as to what they endured, and what they said they could not endure, because of its being absolutely intolerable. And who such good witnesses as those who so suffered, and who declared that they were tired of suffering, and that the point of endurance had been passed? Every one of those witnesses—the pettiest tradesman of them all—however ignorant he might be of the law, however prejudiced against the Insolvent Acts, and however ill-qualified to give counsel as to the proper tribunal to be established; every one of them was ten thousand times a better witness to the fact to prove which alone he had resorted to their evidence than his noble and learned friend, or that galaxy of talent and honesty to which the noble and learned Lord bad referred, and of which he was the favourite, if not the chosen advocate—namely, that disinterested body of men, the lawyers in Westminster-hall; the barristers, both town and provincial, high and low; everything, in short, that belonged to a Court of Justice, from the registrars

891
down to the clerks, the mace-bearers, and the purse-bearers of the Judges; and particularly the solicitors and attornies, and the solicitors' and attornies' clerks. This was the body to which his noble and learned friend referred, and which was notorious for nothing so much as talent and skill, dexterity, professional acuteness, nimble-ness in getting out of difficulty themselves, and getting others into it if they could. It was not, however, for these qualities which the community at large allowed them one and all to possess in an almost unlimited degree, that his noble and learned friend had eulogised them. The theme of his noble and learned friend's panegyric was their purity, their disinterestedness, their self-denial, their entire abrogation of all feeling of self. The noble and learned Lord said—and he somewhat embarrassed him (the Lord Chancellor) by appealing to him to countenance the doctrine, which he wished to God he could have done—that "the moment you propose a reform of the law in any one of its branches, which would have the effect of diminishing the profits of professional men, or of interfering in any way with their interest, that very instant you may lay your account that you will not find—nay, that it will be impossible for you to find (if you went about, like the philosopher of old, with a lantern to search for the thing)—alawyer resisting the change you propose, because that change will be prejudicial to his own interest. On the contrary, the first thing you ought to expect is, that the whole of Westminster-hall will rise up, not in arras to resist the alteration, but with open arms to embrace it—to hail the improvement with gladness, and to felicitate themselves on the glorious era opening to the country, when the profits of lawyers would be diminished, when cheap justice, and near justice, and speedy justice would be disseminated over the land, and none would have to pay for it but the harpies of the profession." The noble and learned Lord had professed to deal candidly with him (the Lord Chancellor), and he, in return, would really deal candidly with the noble and learned Lord; and whatever advantage it might be to the noble and learned Lord's argument and detriment to his (the Lord Chancellor's), he would at once admit that the profession of the law was subject to a great deal of obloquy on the score of paying too much regard to their interest, and for other things to which they were nut entitled. They were much too frequently and lavishly censured for this as
892
well as other failings; but this, he must add, as the result of his long experience, his constant and uniform observation (and he never was more convinced of the justness of any conclusion to which his experience and observation had brought him) that the great body of the profession of the law—he would not say, that there were no exceptions—but the great body of the profession of the law, he repeated, were against any change in the law until change was forced upon them; and uniformly and without exception they were behind the rest of the community—they Jagged after the age they lived in in their views of jurisprudence and of legislative improvement in jurisprudence. But though this feeling of disinclination to any amendment of the law existed on their part pretty universally, it was not shared among them equally and distributively; but those highest in the profession had the largest proportion of this bad thing as they usually had of the good things of the law, and, generally speaking, the Judges were those who possessed the most deep-rooted prejudices against any amendment of the law. He did not blame those learned personages for this: he did not even wonder that they possessed such a feeling. It was natural to suppose that men who had been educated, and who had grown up, in the study of a particular system, must be adverse to anything which rendered their previous reading in part useless, and made it necessary for them to begin to learn the law anew. He merely stated the fact, that this feeling of hostility to any amendment of the law was strongly fixed in their minds—and that no one could deny who had either lived in the profession, or had worked, or attempted to work, in the thankless and often-time barren vineyard of Law Reform. His noble and learned friend had made some observations on the great advantages of the present system, and the mischiefs which the present Bill was calculated to introduce by changing it; and he particularly alluded to that which he called "centralizing judicature," in consequence of the Superior Courts in Westminster having a control and superintendence over all Law Courts. He entirely agreed with his noble and learned friend in thinking this to be a great advantage, and which ought not to be sacrificed; but would not any one have believed, from the course of argument adopted by the noble and learned Lord, that he (the Lord Chancellor) had introduced a bill for the purpose of insulating as well as localiz-

893
ing the Administration of Justice—for studding the whole country over with Courts of Justice unconnected with each other, and placed beyond the control of the courts in Westminster-hall? If his noble and learned friend had read the part of the Bill relating to this matter with the same industry which he appeared to have bestowed on one or two clauses, he would have found, that an appeal was allowed from the local courts to Westminster-hall, in all matters relating to law; and no man would ever dream of allowing an appeal on matters relating to fact, least of all his noble and learned friend, who knew, not only that this was not necessary for the object which lie seemed so ardently to desire—the maintenance of a uniform system of law—but that it was not allowed as the law was at present administered. It was a rule of law in the higher courts not to allow any Motion for a new trial when the matter in dispute was under the value of 20 l., and that rule had been adopted in mercy to the applicant, as he could only obtain leave for a new trial, on the payment of costs, and they would amount to more than the value of that which was litigated. On the same principle the learned commissioners, having limited the jurisdiction of local courts to sums not exceeding 20 l., allowed an appeal—not in matters of fact, but in matters of law—and in case of misdirection on the part of a Judge, so that he would be kept under the superintendence and control of the Courts of Westminster, by which their supremacy would be maintained, the uniformity of law secured, and the possibility of the occurrence of that mischief which the noble and learned Lord apprehended, prevented. His noble and learned friend had next talked about the great defalcation of business in the superior courts and in the Assizes which this measure would occasion, and had assumed, that two-thirds of the whole number of causes would be carried away from the superior courts and Assizes, that Westminster-hall would be robbed of its business, and the more respectable part of the Bar injured. He (the Lord Chancellor) had already said, that the number of writs issued for debts above 10 l. amounted to upwards of 90,000, and one-third of them only were for debts under and equal to 20 l. Therefore the noble and learned Lord was incorrect in saying that two-thirds of the causes would be removed from those courts. [Lord Lyndhurst said, he had spoken of
894
the causes actually tried.] He was aware whom he had to deal with. He knew if he had given in another account than that which he had just stated, it would be said that that was only an account of the number of writs issued, and not of the causes actually tried. He, therefore, had taken the trouble to obtain a return of the number of causes tried, and he found that the proportion of those for sums not exceeding 20 l. was still about the same. It appeared from the last return published in 1830, for London and Middlesex, that the number of actions was 819; of these 313 were for sums not exceeding 20 l., being a proportion of little more than one third; so that, instead of two thirds of the business being abstracted from Westminster-hall, little more than one-third would be taken away, even supposing that the removal of every action for sums under 20 l. would leave a blank in those courts. This, however, he would presently show not to be possible. In the Oxford Circuit there were 340 causes tried, and less than one half—namely, 160—were for sums not exceeding 20 l. These were returned, which had appeared in different reports of the law commissioners, founded on authentic documents laid before Parliament; and the result was, that in Middlesex and London the number of causes tried for sums under 20 l. amounted to one-third of the whole number; and in the Oxford Circuit the number was something greater but he utterly and distinctly denied that it was anything like two thirds of the whole amount. But he contended that the establishment of local courts would not cause a defalcation of business in the superior courts equal to the number of causes which would come under the jurisdiction of the new tribunals. What was it that now prevented many men from bringing actions in Assize Courts? The risk, nay, the almost certainty, of great expense, and the chance of the cause not coming on for trial at all. His noble and learned friend knew, that dining the first day or two after the commencement of the Assizes the business was done with great attention and care. He did not mean to say, that some attention and care was not paid to the business as the Assizes drew to a close; but it was undeniable, that a very great difference was observable, not on the part of the Judges, but of the professional men, in the way in which the hitter portion of the cause-paper was got over. In consequence of the pressure of business, and the disinclination

895
on the part of suitors to incur more expense, references, more or less voluntary, began to be agreed to. A great tendency-was shown to get through business, well if possible, but at all events to get through it; and if any remanets were left, so much the worse for the parties concerned. If, then, the cause-list was relieved from the trumpery 10 l. 15 l., and 8l. causes—if they were sent to be tried before Local Courts, an abundance of time would be given to the Assize Courts to try causes of importance. By relieving the cause-paper of trash, a door would be thrown open for questions of real importance, well deserving to be made the subject of discussion before a Judge and a Special Jury. His noble and learned friend had justly said, and no one agreed in the observation more than he did, that any improvement of the law would be most dearly purchased if it tended to degrade the profession, and made justice bad while it made it cheap. His noble and learned friend had laughed at the idea that ten years' standing at the Bar was any security for talent or ability. Why, the term of ten years was the minimum, and had been fixed upon for the purpose of ensuring on the part of the Judge a certain degree of standing and experience in the profession; but would it be any defence for any Minister who appointed a local Judge to say, that though the man was unfit in other particulars, he was qualified in respect to his standing at the Bar? Any man who looked at the Bill with any fairness must admit, that a certain standing at the Bar was not intended to be the only qualification for a local Judge. The person chosen for a Judge must be selected for his learning as well as his standing—he must be a man of unsullied honour and unimpeached integrity—above suspicion as to deficiency in skill and experience, and such as Westminster-hall would approve of; and no Minister, be he ever so powerful or headstrong in behalf of a favourite—be he ever so little watched (if it were possible that a Minister could live a single instant, day or night, without being watched; this he knew to be impossible; and he thanked God, that it was so) would dare to appoint any man to be a Judge, whom the approving voice of the Bar did not recommend to his choice, or at all events sanction when chosen. The noble and learned Lord said, that the residence of the local Judges within the bounds of their jurisdiction was liable to the same objections as had been
896
urged by him (the Lord Chancellor), and others against the expediency of permitting the Welsh Judges always to travel the same circuit. He, as well as the learned Commissioners, had given all their attention to this subject, and they had com; to the conclusion of adopting what they considered the lesser evil of two. If it were possible that the local Judges could be resident and non-resident at the same time—if they could be in two places at once—if it were possible for them daily to administer justice in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and attend the Courts of Common Pleas and the Exchequer, undoubtedly it would be a great advantage. But they were driven to a choice of evils; and if their Lordships looked to the 21st page of the Report, they would find, that this subject had not escaped the notice of the Commissioners; and after mature deliberation and balancing of the advantages on both sides of the question, they had determined to recommend the residence of the local Judges as the least evil. His noble and learned friend, in speaking of cheap law not always being good law, had referred to the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland, and had observed that certain observations which he (the Lord Chancellor) applied to those Courts in another place were inconsistent with his present argument. He had a perfect recollection of the nature of those observations; and his recollection would, perhaps, be considered as fair and as candid as that of the noble and learned Lord, who did not happen to be present when they were uttered. He would venture to say, that there never was a greater perversion of fact committed by any combatant in the zeal of debate than that of which the noble and learned Lord had been graciously pleased to be guilty on this subject. What he (the Lord Chancellor) had stated on the occasion alluded to by the noble and learned Lord was, that the local jurisdiction in Scotland was capable of great improvement—that the administration of the law was cheap, but that it might be made greatly cheaper—that those courts possessed many advantages, but that they also had many disadvantages and defects; and he recommended—what he was surprised his noble and learned friend, if he wanted a subject for attack, did not recollect—the issuing of a Commission of Inquiry. How was it that his noble and learned friend did not call on the Government to issue a Commission in the present case? He was sure that his noble and learned friend took

897
a note of those words, and that he was ready to make the attack, but his noble and learned friend knew, that he could not at the same moment attack him (the Lord Chancellor) for approving and condemning the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland, and he felt, therefore, obliged to make his election of which of the two weapons he would employ. Admitting that abuses existed in the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland, yet it could not be denied, that they were useful institutions; and with all their defects, he could not, as an Englishman, help envying the people of Scotland the inestimable benefits they derived from the Sheriff's' jurisdiction. His noble and learned friend had assumed another fact, that the Sheriffs' jurisdiction did not exist in Scotland. When it was destroyed he did not know, but he had stated to their Lordships that during three years, ending in 1823, the number of cases tried in their Courts amounted to 22,000. But it was said, that appeals were made from these decisions to the Court of Session and the House of Lords, and in some cases he admitted that such was the fact. But out of the enormous mass of 22,000 causes decided in the Sheriff's' Courts, only 117 had been carried to a higher tribunal. His noble and learned friend then pronounced a deserved panegyric on the character, honour, and talents of the bar; and concluded by cautioning their Lordships not to agree to any amendment of the law which should have the effect of lowering their character and lessening their independence. But if he had satisfied the House that nothing but the most incorrect and exaggerated statements of the probable effects of this measure could lead to the supposition that it would reduce the business of the superior Courts to one-third of its present amount—if he had proved to their Lordships that the inevitable tendency of the Bill was, to keep important business before the high tribunals, and take away trifling motions, with which those tribunals ought never to be burthened—if he had satisfied their Lordships that the Local Courts, instead of being under no control from the Courts in Westminster, would be constantly and perpetually superintended by them, then he must be permitted to say, with all the feeling of deep respect and attachment which, from long habit and daily and hourly intercourse, he had imbibed for that renowned body the Bar of England, that this was a measure which might be patronized and carried into execution, without the slightest fear that it would
898
lower or degrade that virtuous and illustrious body. His noble and learned friend had been pleased to be merry on the subject of reconcilement, and had called it a fancy—a crotchet. [Lord Lyndhurst: I called it a fanciful project.] He thought it of very little consequence whether the noble and learned Lord used the expression fanciful project, or crotchet. The former, in his opinion, was a very good definition of the latter. The noble and learned Lord had called the question of reconcilement a fanciful project, because nothing of the kind existed in England. He admitted it, but was it the part of intelligent and rational men, looking into the institutions of other countries, at once to reject whatever had been tried there, though it might have succeeded, because it was foreign and not English? In the adoption of the plan of reconcilement there could be no harm or danger, because, supposing that any parties would not be reconciled, they stood in no worse situation than before. In the course of eighteen years, no fewer than 724,000 cases had been carried before Courts of Reconciliation on the Continent, and of these cases 448,000 were settled without further litigation. To this he would add, that in 1823, 31,000 cases were brought into the Courts of Reconciliation, and of those 21,000 were settled. But his noble and learned friend said, that these cases never would have come to trial if the process of reconcilement had not existed; but his noble and learned friend must surely forget an account which he (the Lord Chancellor) had read, and which entirely destroyed the whole of his argument. The very year, in which Courts of Reconcilement were established—namely, the year 1796, the number of actions tried in Courts of Law was immediately reduced to one-third. He was sorry to detain their Lordships so long, but he felt placed in a very peculiar situation. He felt bound, not only to defend the present measure, but also to vindicate the learned Law Commissioners, who had been attacked in a very unsparing manner by the tendency, if not by the intention, of the noble and learned Lord's argument. They were men, let him be permitted to say in passing, who were not overmuch given to change; they were very far from being of a rash or innovating spirit, and their principles of Reform, with the exception of one of them, were wholly confined to the law. Perhaps that might recommend them to some of their Lordships; but, at all events, it ought to recommend them to his noble and learned

899
friend, who seemed afraid of dangerous and rash innovations. If the hon. and learned Commissioners had a tendency to a little Law Reform, he would venture to say, that they were as cautious, scrupulous, not to say timid, Reformers of the law, as ever had the name of Law Reformers, save and except one or two of their Lordships, who were always describing themselves as disposed to the amendment of the law, though no plan ever yet proposed to effect that object was found to suit them. The learned Commissioners had given the utmost attention to all the evidence which was tendered to them; and they explained the reasons for recommending the plan contained in their Report, and the principles of the present measure were in perfect conformity with that plan. But this at least showed one circumstance fully—that his noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) must have been deceived by some of the information which had reached him, and which had led him at the outset of his speech to declare that all the lawyers in Westminster-hall, and all those who had been consulted upon this subject, were opposed to the present measure. This was undoubtedly very strong, and it was nevertheless very strange, that amongst these men of Westminster-hall there should be found persons of the first eminence, and persons, too, who, according to the language of the day, were firmly opposed to anything that might be called an ultra-reform experiment, and that still it was not amongst those who had investigated the subject, and examined its details, that the opponents of the measure were to be found, but, on the contrary, the hostile opinions had been given by those who neither had inquired nor examined, nor been members of the Commission. And then who were those that were for this measure, and of a different opinion from those Gentlemen who had not examined it? Why, they were the very men to whose judgment he had been challenged to submit it upon its first introduction, and to whom his noble and learned friend had agreed to refer the whole question. He (the Lord Chancellor) had said upon that occasion "agreed, there cannot be a more respectable body," and the reference had been made to them accordingly. It however, now appeared, that his noble and learned friend would not agree to be bound by the award, as in common cases, but wished to take up a different ground. He might then say to his noble and learned friend: "Well, this may be according to your information; bat, at all events, it has met
900
with support in Westminster-hall, from one branch of the illustrious profession you desire so much to uphold, and from the very men by whose decision you expressed your willingness to abide." All he (the Lord Chancellor) need say for himself and for the Commissioners was, that he thought by their opinion his noble and learned friend ought to be bound, saving always to his noble friend such exceptions as he might have to particular clauses. It would be in vain for him (the Lord Chancellor) to deny that Westminster-hall should flourish, and that the circuits should have full business; they ought, and they would flourish. But this was, at all events, required, and it was but common justice to ask for this, that the shame and the scandal, and the opprobrium should be removed of men coming forward, not to give advice, but to state the result of their sufferings under the system; and the result of all that had been brought forward was, that for debts of small amount, the subjects of the Crown found themselves in the courts of justice barred of their rights; that the justice of which so much was boasted was only a mockery, and that it was not possible for any one to have it if he had not money in his pocket; that if a man had a debt of 18 l. due to him, he must pay twice as much to recover it; and that if be failed, however just his claim, he not only lost that, but had enormous costs in addition to submit to. When it was known that in the County Courts, as now constituted, a case had occurred, that for a pound of butter, value 8d., 30 l. costs were incurred—when in another case, in the county of Sussex, a man was summoned thirty miles from his home to the County Court, to answer for a debt of 5s. which he had paid, and which he paid again sooner than go. But this was nothing, for there was no doubt that many would pay and had paid 5l., rather than submit to expence and inconvenience. Many might think this a small sum, and no doubt so would his noble and learned friend, but a small amount of pounds was great to a poor man; and, besides all this, there was another and a much more serious feeling: there was the feeling of wrong done, and of wrong suffered, and a feeling rendered a thousand times more exasperating by these people being told: "Come here and you have your remedy—you have here judges who are dignified by long practice—you have an illustrious bar to advocate your rights: these are the Courts you should come to, and here are the men who can assist you;" while their experience tells them the result

901
will be: "You are ruined instead of redressed;" and, what was infinitely worse than ruin, men felt themselves most grossly insulted by the infliction of a double wrong, where they ought justly and particularly to expect right. This was the wrong he wished to redress, and this was the object for which his judicial reforms were introduced. He was not the first labourer in this course, and he hoped in God he should not be the last. He was not the first who had endeavoured to draw the attention of the Legislature to the poor man's wrongs. His noble friend, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, had to this great object long devoted his time and his talents. That noble Lord had some years ago brought in a measure in some respects different from the present, but which also was in several points similar. That measure the noble Lord gave up, from the hopelessness he then felt of one not connected with the Government being able to succeed. He gave it up to a right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), who was in a situation to feel himself so responsible that he considered he would not do justice to the country if he left the law no better than he found it. That right hon. Baronet did not find himself in a position to carry the measure, but he adopted it, improving it also by his own study; and when it was subsequently propounded to the Legislature in 1830 in the other House of Parliament, leaving out many parts of the former measure, according to the recommendation of the Commissioners, it met, if not the entire, at least the general and the cordial assent of that right hon. Gentleman. He recollected the right hon. Baronet saying, that he would resign the conduct of the Bill to him. If he had detained their Lordships, as he felt he had, too long, it was solely because, in defending himself, he not only defended the Law Commissioners, but every other noble and right hon. person who had been willing to agree to the details and principles of the present measure, and against whose practice and principles, if he (the Lord Chancellor) were not in office at the moment, every invective and every sneer as to monsters and fancies, and all the point—wherever there was point—in his noble and learned friend's (Lord Lyndhurst) declamation, and every weight in his noble and learned friend's assertions, were, or might be, levelled with equal force at their principles and measures of legal reform, as they were at the Bill then under the consideration of The House. In conclusion, he would say one word
902
as to the extent to which it was proposed to try these Courts; whether in the measure proposed by the right hon. Baronet, or in that brought forward by his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it had always been designed to confine the experiment to one or two counties; but if his noble and learned friend thought it any improvement (though in his opinion it would be none), that the Act should name the very counties to which it should be extended, he (the Lord Chancellor) had no objection to restore this declaration. His reason for being of a contrary opinion was, that it was not possible to ascertain, without examination, what divisions of counties it might be best to select, as well as that on inquiry it might turn out there were parts of neighbouring counties which might conveniently be transferred to these divisions. He hoped that his noble and learned friend had never thought that this Bill was or could be introduced with any idea of its becoming a source of patronage to the Government. [Lord Lyndhurst: I never insinuated or thought of such a thing.] He was sure his noble friend had never entertained such an idea, and the notion of it as possible had occurred from his noble and learned friend's having spoken of the exercise of the power of the Ministers of the Crown. Noble Lords would, however, see that when he was out of office, and when the idea of filling the situation he then held was the last that could occur to him, he was anxious for this Bill, and last April, when he brought it forward, he had proposed to begin with one or two counties, and if the experiment were successful, then to extend it to England generally. Therefore there was nothing new either in his advocacy of the principle or in the details of the measure. He ought once more to apologize to their Lordships for occupying so much of their time, but he felt it to be absolutely necessary that he should not allow the debate to close without assigning his reasons for introducing the measure to their Lordships' notice.
The question was put, but no division took place, and the Bill was committed pro formâ.