Sitting of 24 June 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Sir WILLIAM CHAYTOR, the Number of London Bankers who have become Bankrupts from January 1824, to the present time.—On the Motion of Sir HARRY VERNEY, an Account of all Places in England and Wales where Assizes or Quarter Sessions are held, particularly of those at which the County Gaol or House of Correction is situated.—On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, an Account of the Number of Stamps issued to each Newspaper in Ireland, from the 5th of January, 1832, to 5th of April, 1833.—On the Motion of Mr. J. H. TALBOT, an Account of the Property left by Messrs. Dormer and Comerford, the Founders of Trinity Hospital, New Ross.—On the Motion of Mr. PEASE, an Account of the Quantities of Large and Small Coals Exported last year.
Bills. Read a third time—Parochial Rates Exemption Corporation Officers.
Petitions presented. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Licensed Victuallers of Dublin, against the Spirits, Wine, and Beer (Ireland) Bill.—By Lord EBRINGTON, from the Landed Proprietors of Devonshire, against the Tithes Commutation Bill.—By Mr. PARKER, from the Medical Practitioners of Sheffield, against the Apothecaries Bill.—By Mr. BRIGSTOCK, from Bath and Warminster, for Amending the Weights and Measures Act.—By Lord GEORGE BENTINCK, from the Guardians of the Poor of King's Lynn, Norfolk, in favour of the Sea Apprenticeship Bill.—By Mr. THOMAS ATTWOOD, from Birmingham, for an Inquiry into the Conduct of the Police at the Coldbath-fields Meeting; from the same Place, for the Repeal of the Corn Laws, and again for the Repeal of the Malt Tax, and the House and Window Duty.—By Mr. GILLON, from Hamilton, against the proposed Alteration of the Boundaries of that Place.—By Mr. WATSON, from Canterbury, for making Extra-Parochial Places Contribute to the Support of the Poor.—By Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE, from Lanquhar, for the Abolition of Slavery.

LICENSING MAGISTRATES.
Colonel Evanspresented a petition from a licensed victualler, named William Spicer, relative to the conduct of the Magistracy in granting victuallers' licences. The petitioner stated that he kept a public-house in Tower-street, Seven Dials, and that having taken an active part on the behalf of one of the candidates for the coronership of Middlesex, he thereby incurred the displeasure of a Magistrate of the county, and was in consequence threatened with retaliation; that very shortly afterwards Mr. Flower, the Magistrate alluded to, obtained a licence for a public-house within sixteen yards of the petitioner's house, while there were already near fifty licensed public-houses within a radius of 100 yards from the house of the petitioner. He also stated, that the house alluded to was next to a chapel, and that it was very much against the wishes of the inhabitants to grant any additional licences, as there
1130
were already a great many more public-houses in the neighbourhood than there was any occasion for, and that the parishioners accordingly petitioned the Magistrates against the granting of the licence, but no regard was paid to the petition. The hon. Member then read the certificate of a magistrate, named Becket, whose name had been attached to the licence, declaring that his signature had not been fairly obtained.
Mr. Lambdid not think the House could interfere, except by an alteration of the present law. If malversation or corruption were brought home to any Magistrate, he was punishable at common law; and Magistrates had not unfrequently been brought before the Court of King's Bench and punished, though he was bound to admit the chances under the existing law were very unfavourable to the complaining party. He believed the petitioner had been hardly dealt with, and attributed it to the great powers intrusted to Magistrates by the Act, but he nevertheless did not see any remedy but by an amendment of the present laws.
Sir Francis Burdettthought the petitioner's case one of great oppression. He had long been of opinion, that the law required alteration, and that opinion was very much strengthened by the singular case before the House, which went to show that it was in the power of a Magistrate to grant a licence improperly, as well as to refuse one. The law had been long and loudly complained of, and he did not see a fitter opportunity for inqiury than in the present instance. A much higher value was set upon property of this description, and more money given for it, on the good faith and understanding that no new licences would be granted in the immediate neighbourhood, unless a positive necessity was shown for granting them. In this case none had been shown, and he was bound to say there was every appearance of the exertion of undue influence. Under these circumstances, he earnestly recommended the gallant Colonel to carry the matter further, and suggested a Committee of inquiry
The Petition laid on the Table.

CORN LAWS—CURRENCY—AND ASSESSED TAXES.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodpresented a petition from 150,000 persons, assembled at a public meeting of the inhabitants of Birmingham, at New Hall

1131
Hill, against the Assessed-taxes, the Corn-laws, and all other taxes on industry. The meeting from which this petition emanated was one of the best conducted he had ever attended. When he had last the honour of presenting a petition on the subject of the Corn-laws, he was told by an hon. Member opposite, that he, the Representative of a manufacturing constituency, should attend to their interests peculiarly. But that was a principle he never could, never would, admit. For when he learned that the labourers in several parts of England had no more than 4s. 6d. a-week, and when he knew that several parishes were obliged to mortgage their rates to support their poor, so wretched and so numerous were they, he could never conceive any censure deserved for honest interference to alleviate the distresses of the agricultural labourer. The fact was, that while the Corn-laws existed, the curse of the country, the monetary laws would also exist. He would prove, that in consequence of both, the condition of the people of England were deteriorated fifty per cent. The fact was, that the population had increased thirty percent, while the land had been deteriorated twenty percent, and thus the people had been reduced to the condition of subsisting upon one half of their former food. Ministry succeeded Ministry, and still no relief followed, and the people were left to perish gradually. But they put forward, and adopted in Lord Liverpool's Administration free trade; this they boasted was as great a discovery as the Elixir Vitæ. But he would undertake to prove, that the free trade they granted had only the effect of reducing the rate of labour, and impoverishing the people, who had still to pay the same amount of taxes. Until there was a free trade in corn, in taxes, and in money, it was useless to talk of its advantage. The hon. Member then proceeded to urge the necessity of a change in the monetary system of the country, and related the following anecdote in illustration of the necessity of what he called a free trade in money: Some time since a nobleman applied to a tenant for his rent. The tenant pleaded his inability to pay on account of the miller owing him for a quantity of flour. The landlord sent for the miller, who pleaded his inability to pay the farmer on account of the nobleman owing him a sum almost equal to it. The consequence was, that
1132
the nobleman sat down and wrote a cheque, which he gave the miller, the miller gave it to the farmer, and the farmer returned it to his landlord; and thus three men, who were at daggers drawn, and about to go to law, for want of a mere organ of exchange, by the creation of that organ on a piece of paper settled their differences, paid their debts, and they parted quite satisfied with each other. "Instead of studying the prosperity of the people, the study of political economists had been for the last twenty years to break down the principle of exchange. He would illustrate it in a familiar way. The first question he would ask was, what was the first necessary of life? and the answer would be, bread. The second? money. What was ruin? he would then ask, and he would be told it was the incompetence of an honest man to pay his debts, and that brought him again to the first principle on which he set out—exchange. He could not but complain of the conduct of the present Ministry and the reformed Parliament. They had coerced Ireland; and they had suffered England to go unrelieved. The Whig Ministry, which had been out of power for seventy years, would, if they had done justice to Ireland and England, have continued in 100; and instead of fearing that other place, a collision with which they so much dreaded, it would be rather a football than anything else for them, if that other place did not content itself with the sentiments of the country and make the people's happiness its own. He had another small petition to present from the same meeting of 150,000 people, against the house and window taxes exclusively. The petitioners complained, and he agreed with them, that they and the country were unable any longer to bear the present pressure of taxation. The country was groaning under them; the people cried from one end to the other that they would not pay any more; the Ministry seemed determined to compel them to pay, to get blood from a stone: bat he would bid them beware. Though the poor people of England were devoted to the aristocracy, still there was such a thing as spurring a willing horse to death, and treading on the worm till it turned on its oppressor. In opposition to evidence of the prosperity of the manufacturing part of England, given before the manufacturing Committee, he must say, that he believed that for the last seven years

1133
there had been, and was, no prosperity in the country. What was it which caused them to cry out for reform, if prosperity existed? Was it prosperity which made almost every man among them politicians, and politicians determined on having redress? Was it prosperity which caused, within the last few years, thousands of broken hearts to emigrate from England—this happy country—merry England, as it was called in old times? No, it was the criminal conduct of an ignorant and ungrateful Government, who would rather sacrifice one-half of the people than give up any preconceived dogma or sacrifice a single atom of a favourite theory. He would ask, was it happiness and prosperity which caused an increase of crime to a fourfold amount within the last few years; and urged the agricultural population to those burnings, which were at once the disgrace and the proof of the poverty of the country? No; it was vain to talk thus. Prosperity was no longer among the people of England, and would not be while the present system was kept up. He had also a petition to present from George Solly, praying for an issue of one pound notes payable in silver, and expressed his entire concurrence in the prayer. In no country in the world had a restriction been laid on money, and no such restriction had been laid on money or its representative in this country till the year 1775, when Sir George Saville, then a Member of the House, rose in his place and exhibiting a sixpenny note, asked if it were wise to allow such things to circulate. At that time notes of every description were allowed to be made and issued by anybody who chose to do so. The late Sir Robert Peel, one of the most upright, useful, and valuable members of society, he had ever known, was one of those who issued notes to a very large extent; and in fact, the Government was never insane or wicked enough to interfere with them. A great outcry had been raised against the issue of paper money; but no reason had been given against it. He, however, could give some in its favour; for there was Russia, the most barbarous power in Europe, able to ride down England, enslave Poland, to paralyze France, and annihilate Turkey, and put the world in fear; and all this was in consequence of her paper money. In Russia too there were no complaints of poverty among the people; and, although
1134
he would admit their paper issue had sunk in value three-fourths, what harm had it done the country? The people were comfortable, and the government was all powerful. But Gentlemen said, that England had gold; that the standard of value protected them—why, the Bank of England had the power of raising the standard when they liked, under the present system—of sinking thereby the price of estates, and thus of purchasing them almost for a song; and even of making the sovereign of three times the present value. In fact, of ruining the entire country if it chose. But, fortunately, it did not choose to play such pranks. He would conclude by presenting a short petition from the council of the Birmingham Political Union against the conduct of the new police at the late Coldbath-fields' meeting. In the prayer of the petitioners, and the opinions they expressed of the conduct of the authorities on that occasion in the subsequent proceedings in the Court of King's Bench he most cordially concurred. They deprecated them, and so did he, as much as man could. He did not mean to say, that the meeting was a legal or an illegal one: but he would not hesitate to say that it was a most wanton and disgraceful attack on the liberties of the people of England which he, on his conscience, believed they were as much opposed to, and as willing to ride down, as any Tories in existence ever were. He would warn them not to touch too much on public privilege, for there were limits, after passing which, resistance was lawful in every sense. But that was not even the worst—that grand magnificent institution, Trial by Jury, had been set at nought by the Government; and the solemn oath of seventeen men, each as honourable and as conscientious as any one of his Majesty's Ministers, was utterly disregarded by them. The Ministers had shown the cloven foot fully in that last finishing touch to the transactions; they had commenced with the Irish Coercion Bill, and gone with the Coldbath-fields' business. Where would they end? He thought the system of police as at present established, wrong. If it were paid by the parishes, and the power over it taken from the hands of the Ministry, he should be satisfied; but otherwise, he would always oppose the cursed, rascally system. They were going too, to spread it all over the country—to introduce it to Manchester and Bristol

1135
and Birmingham: but he could tell them the people of Birmingham would never have it, and he hoped the country, generally, would act in the same manner. Petitions to lie on the Table.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
On the Motion of Mr. Secretary Stanley, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Temporalities of the Church (Ireland) Bill
Mr. Secretary Stanley Mr. Secretary Stanley moved to strike out of clause 54, a proviso, which was rendered unnecessary in consequence of the omission of clause 147 from the Bill.
Mr. Humesaid, that he understood the right hon. Gentleman to intimate that this was necessary in consequence of clause 147 having been struck out of the Bill, which clause, in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, was the only one worth attending to, either by that House or by the country. As well as he understood the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, the object of his Amendment was this—that whereas as the law stood at present, it was not in the power of any person to sell Church land in perpetuity, this Bill went to give that power to certain Commissioners, and the Amendment provided that the proceeds of the sale thus made by those Commissioners should be solely appropriated to the maintenance of the present Church Establishment of Ireland. He wished to know whether he was correct in his interpretation of the Amendment, as he had not heard distinctly a single word that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman on the subject?
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that by the 147th clause the purchase monies, arising out of the sale in perpetuity of Bishop's lands was to be left as a separate fund in the hands of the Commissioners, to be treated differently and appropriated to different purposes from Church property generally. Now, it was thought that the distinction which the Government had thus, in the first instance, proposed to make between that property and other Church property was not a well-founded one, and it was, therefore, deemed right and necessary, without affirming or denying the power of Parliament to deal with Church property as it might think fit, that such a distinction should not by this Bill be created between any portions of that property. Now clause 147 having been omitted, if
1136
clause 54 should stand as it was, the surplus funds which would arise in the hands of the Commissioners from the sale of Bishops' lands would be excepted from the operation of the Bill. It was, therefore, proposed by the present Amendment to strike out that exception, and that those surplus funds should, like the other Church property specified in that clause, be appropriated in substitution for the vestrycess, and for other purposes strictly ecclesiastical. The Bill, thus amended, would leave precisely where it was the power of Parliament to dispose of Church property to purposes other than ecclesiastical, and it would, as it was desirable that it should, leave undetermined and untouched the question, whether it was right or whether it was not right that such property should be appropriated to the purposes of the State.
Mr. Humesaid, that if he understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, this Bill should be described as a Bill for adding 3,000,000 l. in value to the already enormous income of the overpaid and sinecure Established Church of Ireland. That was the position, the unenviable position, in which that, the first Reformed House of Commons, was placed. He would appeal not only to the House, but to the country, whether, after all the complaints that had been justly made, after all the exposures that had been witnessed as to the enormous and overgrown wealth of the Established Church in Ireland, it was not too much that a Reformed House of Commons should be called upon by his Majesty's Ministers, not to reform that Church—not to curtail and lessen its expenditure—but actually to add to its wealth, by increasing the value of its property? It was too much that they should be now called upon to give up this surplus to the Church, seeing that it had been explained by the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in the first instance, and also by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that the appropriation of this surplus to other than ecclesiastical purposes would not be depriving the Church of any property, as the lands out of the purchase of which in perpetuity it would arise would be purchased at present only for the lives of the incumbents. The fact was, that this Act gave a new value to that description of property, by allowing it to be sold in perpetuity, and the surplus arising from that sale obviously became

1137
public property, as it was in the first instance explained to be by the right hon. Gentleman, and by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This he would say, that it was nothing less than an attempt at a gross delusion upon the country, thus to bring in a Bill ostensibly for the reform of the already overgrown and sinecure Church establishments of Ireland; and by a subsequent alteration in the Bill, instead of reducing the income of that far too rich Church, actually to place at its disposal in perpetuity land that at present could only be purchased for the lives of the incumbents. He would submit, that much as that House might be disposed to yield to the wishes or demands of his Majesty's Ministers, it should not proceed to sanction such a proposition as that—a proposition that went to transfer the fee-simple of all this property to the Church of Ireland, that at present only possessed a life interest in it. He could not bring himself to believe, that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would lend his sanction to such a monstrous proposition. It was so completely contrary to all the promises that noble Lord had made—it was so utterly inconsistent with all the pledges he had given—it was so diametrically contrary to the expectations of the country, that he (Mr. Hume) would put it to the Committee whether they were prepared to proceed to vote 3,000,000 l. additional for the support of a sinecure Church in the absence of that noble Lord, and whether it would not be more advisable that they should wait to have the benefit of his presence, in order that they might know from himself whether he approved of such a proposition, and in order that he might explain to them, if approving of it, a change in his sentiments so diametrically opposed to them as stated by himself in the first instance, and also as explained by the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion. He had always given the noble Lord the credit, and the country had given him the credit, of being a plain, well-meaning, direct and honest man. He, therefore, could not bring himself to believe, that the noble Lord could be a party to such a proceeding as the present one,—to such a violation of all his previous promises and pledges, on the faith of which the country depended, on the faith of which that House for three or four months depended, and on the faith of
1138
which hundreds of Members had given their votes for the passing of that odious act, the Irish Coercion Bill;—he could not, he repeated, bring himself to believe that such a thing was possible. He could not believe, that the noble Lord had relinquished that part of the Bill to which alone the country had looked with satisfaction, and on which that House had depended, until he heard the noble Lord declare to himself, and until he heard him state, that instead of reducing the revenues of this sinecure Church, he approved of a proposition for adding 3,000,000 l. to them in value. He made that estimate upon the authority of the noble Lord himself. If it were not correct, why, he would ask, did the noble Lord make such a statement at the time? Why did he then estimate this surplus at 3,000,000 l.? If the right hon. Gentleman then considered that statement to be incorrect, why did he not at once correct it, and why did he allow what, upon his own showing, was a delusion thus to be practised upon the country? The object of this clause, as it was proposed to be amended, was to transfer to the Church of Ireland the fee-simple of the whole of this property, and to keep up for ever the enormous revenues of an overgrown establishment, that was odious to the people of Ireland, and expensive to the people of England. The object of the clause was to keep up that establishment at an expense of 20,000 military in Ireland. He was ready to allow 8,000 or 9,000 military for that country under ordinary circumstances, but the additional 20,000 men were necessary there for the maintenance and preservation of a sinecure Church. Instead of reducing the amount of military in that country, as he would contend they should to the standard of 1792—namely, to 10,000 men—they would be obliged to maintain them at their present amount if they passed this clause in the proposed amended form, in order to secure the existence of a sinecure Church in that country. Feeling, therefore, that they should not proceed in the absence of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that they should wait to have the benefit of his presence in discussing this part of the Bill, he would beg to move as an Amendment that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Major Beauclerksaid, that the hon. member for Middlesex bad forestalled

1139
him in what he was going to say. He did think that, at this time of day, when all Europe reproached them with, and laughed at them for, their overgrown and enormous Church Establishments, it was too much to call on them to vote 3,000,000 l. additional in value to the income of the Church Establishment. He would recommend the right hon. Secretary to withdraw the clause altogether. He would give his cordial support to the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex.
Sir Henry Willoughbydenied the possibility of creating a new value in property, by Act of Parliament, so as to make it applicable to public purposes. But in the first place, the hon. member for Middlesex was mistaken in supposing that this Bill would give to the Church of Ireland something that it had not before. He would assert positively that the fee-simple, as well as the interest in those lands, was in the Church of Ireland, and in the Church of Ireland alone. He repeated, that it was an error to suppose it possible that Acts of Parliament could impart new value to property, so as to render it available for public purposes: such a doctrine would strike at the root of all property in the kingdom. If, by an Act of Parliament, a new road or a new canal was made through his property, so as to give an additional value to it, was it to be contended that that additional value should go to the public?
Lord Duncannonwas sure that no man who was acquainted with Ireland could be ignorant of the enormities arising from the Vestry Cess in that country, and therefore could not but think that the clause which went to take away that impost was a great benefit upon the people of Ireland. He begged to observe, that he had voted the other night for leaving out the 147th clause, not with a view of taking from the Parliament the appropriation of Church property; if the omission would have had that effect, he most certainly should not have so voted, but he considered that by the course he had followed he had merely done that which would cause the appropriation of the Church funds to the payment of the Church Cess; the House having, on a former occasion, thought right to alter the clause which imposed a tax upon original incumbents, that tax being intended originally to pay the Church Cess. He felt satisfied that the surplus, whether it might amount to 1,000,000 l. or 3,000,000 l, as had been suggested by the
1140
hon. member for Middlesex, would eventually be at the disposal of the Parliament, or, in other words, could not be appropriated by the Commissioners without the approbation of the Legislature.
Mr. Humesaid, that it appeared to him that the terms of the clause involved another deviation from the principles which had been stated when the Bill was first introduced. The noble Lord, the member for Nottingham, in stating the reasons which had induced him to concur in the vote of the last night, had seemed entirely to forget the grounds upon which the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had introduced the Bill. It had then been stated by the noble Lord that the relief intended to be afforded to the people was to be effected from and defrayed by a tax upon the present incumbents and Bishops, and upon the bishoprics and livings falling in. He could not see how the present Amendment could be carried while the 49th clause was retained in the Bill, for the House would remember, that by it every sum due and payable to the Commissioners of First Fruits and arrears, or any sums advanced by them for repairing, rebuilding, or improving glebe and other houses, should be transferred and made payable to the Commissioners named under this Act. It would only be fair to let the House and the country know what was the amount of this, and it was a proceeding much to be deprecated that by an Amendment like the present, of four or five lives, a vote of 400,000 l. or thereabouts should be taken without notice.
Mr. Secretary Stanleycould not think that the hon. member for Middesex really understood that to which he objected. He (Mr. Stanley) imagined that the hon. Member, with all his calculations, could not attach much importance to the point, whether the public should pay now that which eventually they must be bound to pay by instalments; and whether this obligation was fulfilled by the 147th clause, or by the 54th clause, he (Mr. Stanley) apprehended no great difference was made. The object of the Amendment proposed to be added to the 54th clause was merely to transfer to it from the 147th clause a provision for the payment from other sources of a sum of between 300,000 l. and 400,000 l., which if the Amendment was now thrown out, must remain for twenty years, and to meet it the Vestry Cess must be continued.
Sir Robert Ingliscontended, that Church property was as sacred as any other species of property whatever. The noble Lord, the member for Nottingham, had talked of the enormities of Church Cess, and he could not but think that the speech of the noble Lord was much more fit for a former member for Kilkenny than became the representative for the county of Nottingham. But with reference to the alleged enormities of Church Cess, he would refer to the returns made to Parliament, which showed that in no case had it amounted to more than eighteen-pence an acre, and in numerous instances to not more than two-pence halfpenny. He, therefore, was of opinion that the observations which had been thrown out on the subject of Church Cess being a grievance were a delusion of the public. It could not be shown, that it was such a grievance as to call upon the Parliament to interfere. Again, it could not be shown that any surplus would arise, and the most morbid lover of crime and spoliation would not encourage a principle of taking property when there was nothing real to grasp at. In his view, money was a secondary object in this question. His great objection was the interference which was made with the spiritual functions of the Church, and without, for one moment, conceding to the House its right to interfere with the property of the Church, and feeling also that the property sought to be affected did not exist, he must, on the contrary, protest against any such interference by an assembly of laymen instead of a clerical convocation. So long as such an interference was made with the spiritual functions of his Church, he should oppose the Bill.
Mr. O'Connelladmitted to the fullest extent that the House had no right to interfere with the spiritual functions and jurisdiction of the Church. He could not assent to any such interference with the Church to which he (Mr. O'Connell) belonged; and, on the same principle he would object to such an interference with the spiritual functions of the Church to which the hon. Baronet was attached; but still he thought that the House had a complete jurisdiction over the pounds, shillings and pence—the tithes and oblations of the Church—and he only regretted that jurisdiction had not been more expressly and distinctly laid down and enforced in the present instance. The emphatic value and importance of
1142
the present Bill had been left out by the omission of the clause with reference to the Vestry-cess, the evils of which were but now too well known, and from which the hitherto prevailing wrangles would, under this clause, be but increased. He had frequently admitted those evils, and had said, and would now repeat, that in the shape the Bill at present stood in, it would not effect any beneficial change. He could not but revert to the expressions of spoliation and plunder which had been applied by the hon. Baronet below him (Sir Robert Inglis) and he would inquire of the hon. Baronet if he had read or examined the returns which had been moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the member for Cambridge, because he would have found the number of benefices under the Established Church in which divine service had not been performed for three years ending February 1833—he would have found that in the diocese of Water-ford, out of sixty-five benefices, in eighteen (more than one-fourth), no service had been performed for the last three years. Let the hon. Baronet talk of spoliation after this for in all these tithes were collected. After this, talk of morbid appetites for robbery and spoliation! But he must think that was a most rapacious appetite which would call for tithes and oblations for doing nothing. Again, he would remind the House and the hon. Baronet that in several of the parishes the clergy had sued for the May tithes, and after all this, he thought that there could not be much regret that the Vestrycess should be taken from them. He would mention an instance to show how this was applied. In a parish in Wexford, 10 l. a-year had been allowed to the clerk for ringing the bell, and when the bell was broken the salary was increased to 15 l. a-year, there being then no bell to ring. He could show this from Parliamentary Returns. Again, in many benefices there were neither baptisms nor visitations of the sick performed, because it was not required by the population; and, with respect to one benefice (Kilsheda), he could appeal to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Duncannon), whether any of those services or any other of the Established Church had, for the period he had mentioned, been performed; for, though worth 1,000 l. per annum, there was nothing in the shape of a Church, except the remnants of one. Would the hon.

1143
Baronet now talk of the morbid appetite for spoliation? In the dioceses of Limerick, Aghadoe, and another, there were 106 benefices, in the majority of which, he would venture to say, no service had been performed for three—nay, for fifty three years. Indeed, in the diocess of Limerick there were twenty-seven benefices in which no service had been performed for three years, as shown by the returns. Was it, then, in the support of such a system that one clergyman in Ireland (the reverend Mr. Hickson) should have troops quartered with him to assist in the collection of tithes? Would, after this, the hon. Baronet speak of spoliation? He should therefore move the amendment of which he had given notice, to the effect of depriving vestries of the power of imposing any rate or cess for organists, bell-ringers, and other subordinate parish officers. The hon. Member however at the suggestion of Mr. Stanley postponed his amendment to a future stage of the Bill.
Dr. Lushingtonhad listened to the returns which had been alluded to by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and was surprised that after quoting those documents the hon. and learned Gentleman should differ from the provisions of the Bill. It was evident that a grievance was to be remedied, which grievance, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's own showing, must remain, unless the Amendment now proposed should be adopted. The only object of the amendment was to engraft on clause 54 certain portions of clause 147, and it was a mistake to suppose that by it any additional funds were to be appropriated to Church purposes. Any resulting surplus would remain unimpaired for future appropriation. The Amendment was merely following up the principle of the Bill,
Mr. Hume'sAmendment was with drawn.
On the question being again put,
Mr. Shawsaid, that though he admitted the want of Churches in Ireland was most deplorable, yet he must insist that within the last seven years the number of benefices in which no service was performed had decreased. If the returns had been made in 1800 instead of a more recent date, it would have been found that six-sevenths of the whole were in the State complained of. He would also
1144
venture to say, that there was no clergyman who had proceeded for his May tithes, and was prepared to show that the conduct of that body generally had been most mild and forbearing.
Mr. O'Connellwould entreat the hon. and learned Member to inquire whether the reverend Dr. Ryan, of Leixlip, had not collected his tithes up to the 28th of May. He would also refer the hon. and learned Member to Fermoy, where he would find two different modes of proceeding had been adopted for the purpose of increasing the costs. He (Mr. O'Connell) could also show an instance of a Church having been rebuilt three times within twenty years, and yet it could not be stated, that there was an increase of Protestants in Ireland.
Mr. Ronaynecould not avoid stating to the House the course which had been pursued with regard to tithes by another clergyman, the reverend Mr. Devereux of Stradbally. That individual had sued a widow of the name of Macarthy, through his agent, for 17 s. 6d., for tithes up to 1832, which she was compelled to pay, with 2l. 10 s. costs of a latitat; and the receipt given was on a mutilated stamp, stating that she had paid her tithes and the costs up to a certain time, but without specifying the amount. The receipt was signed J. Claridge, "and the circumstance was verified by the affidavit of the widow, which he held in his hand. After such a proceeding, what could be said of the humanity of the Church? He had other affidavits detailing similar events and transactions. He could not but add, that he trembled for the consequences that might arise from announcing to the people of Ireland that the Legislature had no power to remove those grievances in the Church of which they had so long complained.
Sir Samuel Whalleycontended that the purposes of the Bill were entirely altered by striking out the 147th clause. No surplus could arise from the sale of perpetuities which was not already disposed of by this Bill in other clauses besides the 54th clause, for there were two other clauses which empowered the Commissioners to make grants for building parsons' houses, and, secondly, for the augmentation of small livings. The tax upon future incumbents would be slow in accumulating, and therefore, with such an appropriation of the other funds, there

1145
was no chance of a surplus for the purposes anticipated.
Mr. Hardywas of opinion that any surplus would be at the disposal of the Commissioners, with the authority and approbation of Parliament; but the question which the hon. member for Middlesex seemed most anxious to impress upon the House was, whether that surplus should be applied to secular or ecclesiastical purposes. The hon. Member had said, that the proposition would give 3,000,000 l. additional to a sinecure Church. If the surplus were to be applied to secular purposes, it was incumbent on the hon. Member, and those who thought with him, to bring a specific Motion forward. He must take that opportunity of saying, that he was not bribed to support the Coercive Bill by any chance of getting 3,000,000 l. He disclaimed having given his support to the Coercion Bill on the understanding that Ministers were pledged to carry this or any other remedial measure. He had supported it solely with the view of suppressing disturbances in Ireland, The tranquil state of Ireland at the present moment proved that the Coercion Bill had answered its purpose.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. Member who spoke last was offering something like a gratuitous insult to Ireland when he boasted of having invested the Lord-lieutenant with the power of stifling the expression of public opinion in that country. As to the Coercion Bill having tranquillized Ireland, the Irish Members had always contended, that if Government had exerted its power before that measure was passed, agrarian disturbances could easily have been suppressed.
Mr. Finncharged the Whig Government—he charged the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies—with having provoked and produced the excesses, to repress which he had called for the Coercive Bill. When that right hon. Gentleman talked of the extinction of tithes, he (Mr. Finn) had done what he could to prevent the people being deluded. He had gone amongst them and told them that it would not be so; he had called on them not to suffer themselves to be deluded, and had told them that those words would never be carried into effect. In Kilkenny, the very county which had since been proclaimed, he had attended
1146
two anti-Tithe Meetings. He had then endeavoured to check the spirit of insurrection which had been roused and encouraged by the Whig Government. He was quite sure that, at the beginning of those disturbances, the Irish Gentleman might have put an end to them, but those disturbances were encouraged by the Whigs. But those Gentlemen were now known; they had stirred up almost Revolution to get their Reform Bill passed; but it was properly said, that this had given the people the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. They would let them have nothing else. The delusion, however, was now seen through; and when those Gentlemen went to the hustings they would be told to go away.
Mr. Slaneyrose to order. He did so with regret; but he appealed to the Chairman whether the hon. Gentleman was not departing altogether from the subject before the House.
Mr. Finn: The hon. Gentleman should have called the hon. member for Bradford to order who referred to the Coercion Bill, which was not now before the House. Was that hon. Gentleman to be allowed to attack the hon. members for Ireland, and must he not defend them? Was the hon. Member's escapade to be permitted, and was he not to follow him? He was stating that a delusion had been practised, and that it had been seen through. The Bill before them was another delusion, with the promise of 3,000,000 l with which it had been introduced. He meant that there was a division in the Cabinet on the subject. The noble Lord, the member for Nottingham, had declared, that Church property was public property, and might be appropriated by the State. But the right hon. Secretary and the noble Lord at the head of the legal profession had declared, that it all belonged to the Church. The right hon. Secretary, however, had found out a means of getting out of this dilemma. He had said: Oh, there is a new value to be given to the property of the sale of the Bishops' land for perpetuity, and that new value we may take for it does not belong to the Church." As well might the guardian of a child say, that the new value given to the child's property by his management belonged to him and not to the child. A trustee might as well claim all the improvement in the funds placed in his charge. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth

1147
had unanswerably proved the sophistry of that statement. Another of the Whig schemes was shown on Friday night. In the early part of the evening they could only muster 42 supporters—84 to 42—and they were defeated. But on the same evening these Whigs mustered 272 supporters, when they wished to get rid of the clause. This was another proof of the delusions they practised. The first division was a good pretext for getting rid of the 147th Clause. In fact, the Whigs were prompted by the Tories. The Tories were Viceroys over them. The Whigs only did the Tories' business. We were governed by Tories in the disguise of Whigs. They filled their places for the Tories. The people, however, were now aware of the delusion—they were glad that the Whigs, too, had turned against them, and they now knew their enemies.
Mr. Shawsaid, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. member for Clonmel, that clergymen were compelled to resort to an expensive process to recover tithes, because in many instances the server of the cheap process refused to perform his duty. In no instance, however, did clergymen resort to legal proceedings until all other means had failed. It was said, that order was restored in Ireland; but he happened to know, that the reverend Mr. Austin, the holder of one of the largest livings in Ireland had lately thrown it up and quitted the country, because he was unable to obtain his tithes.
Mr. Lynchsaid, that if he understood the effect of the Amendment, it was, to add the perpetuity fund to the common fund, to be applied to the purposes to which that common fund was applicable. He objected to that appropriation for this reason—the perpetuity fund either was Church property, or it was not. If it was not, as the Government argued, it ought not to be applied to the ecclesiastical purposes mentioned in the 54th Clause, because, being created by the State, it was clearly the property of the State; if, on the other hand, it was Church property, the appropriation of it to ecclesiastical purposes was augmenting an establishment which was already mischievously large, and ought to be diminished.
Mr. Humesaid, that the effect of this clause would be to set up and add to the stability of the Irish Church, in a ten-fold degree. He could not at first understand what the right hon. Secretary for the
1148
Colonies meant, by saying there would be no surplus. He now saw how it was, for the Commissioners, having the power which was by this clause given to them, would doubtless take care to apply every penny of the fund to the augmentation of every living in Ireland. It ought to be entitled a Bill to add to the permanence and increase the revenues of the Established Church in Ireland, and not to reform its abuses. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether the words as the said Commissioners are hereafter directed, "applied to the 84th Clause, giving the Commissioners power to augment benefices?
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that the 84th Clause was certainly referred to. The object was to throw the whole into one general fund, to apply that fund to the general objects of the Bill—such as the abolition of the Vestrycess, &c., and then to that purpose of the Bill comprised in the 84th Clause—the augmentation of benefices up to the amount of 200 l. per annum.
Mr. Humesaid, he was glad he had drawn forth this explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. In England it was with the utmost difficulty that we could get small benefices of even 40 l. or 50 l. a-year augmented, and yet now they were going to give away that which had been admitted to be State property, for the purpose of increasing an already much overgrown establishment. He was surprised, that the hon. member for Bradford should deny that the Coercive Bill was introduced to that House and recommended by his Majesty's Ministers for their adoption solely on a pledge that remedial measures should be introduced. A similar pledge had been given last Session, when the Tithe Act was carried; and at the commencement of the present Session, he told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the pledge of Government had not been fulfilled. The noble Lord admitted, that the Government had not been able to carry through these measures, but repeated his pledge that he would not propose coercive, unless he intended to bring in remedial, measures; and upon this pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer many hon. Members voted for the Coercive Bill who would not otherwise have given it their support. He had a right, then, to complain of the manner in which this pledge was kept. This measure was not remedial

1149
for it tended to keep up and perpetuate that which was the greatest cause of discontent in Ireland, the Church Establishment—a Church which was in many cases a sinecure, in many others greatly overpaid, and which the great majority of the nation, being of a different persuasion, regarded as the badge of their conquest and disgrace. He wished to know what the right hon. Secretary for Ireland thought of the alteration?
Mr. Secretary Stanleyadmitted, that his noble friend when he brought forward the Coercive Bill did state, that he should have been exceedingly reluctant to bring forward such a measure, unless he also meant to bring forward measures for the removal of grievances. Two of the most prominent of those grievances were represented to be the collection of Tithes and of Vestrycess. A Resolution had already been passed which would put a stop to the collection of tithes, at least, for the present; and he then held in his hand a Bill for the total abolition of Vestry-cess. And if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) would propose any words to make that Bill more forcible, those words should be added. Was not this a performance of their pledge? His noble friend never intended to meet what appeared to be the expectation of the hon. member for Middlesex—namely, to destroy the Irish Church, for the preamble of this Bill was then lying on the Table, in which it was expressly stated, that the fund to be raised was to be applied to the building, &c., of churches, the augmentation of small livings, and to such other purposes as might conduce to the advancement of religion, and the efficacy, permanence, and stability of the United Churches of England and Ireland.
Mr. Littletonexpressed his surprise, knowing as he did the opinions of the hon. member for Middlesex, that he should object to allowing a clergyman of the Established Church 200 l. a-year. He, however, still said, that the property of the Church was subject to the control of Parliament whenever there was a surplus not required for the purposes of the Establishment; and though he gave his willing support to the alteration made last Friday yet he was thoroughly satisfied that whenever this fund should exceed those wants—and the House would every year have the means of investigating this point—the sum so increasing beyond the necessities
1150
of the Established Church ought to be placed at the disposal of Parliament. He was convinced the great majority of Members in that House were of opinion that the property of the Church was subject to the control of Parliament; but he had no doubt that the great majority were also of opinion that such property ought not lightly to be applied to other than religious purposes.
Mr. Robinsonhad voted in the—he would call it—memorable minority on Friday night, in order to record his disapprobation of the disingenuous and uncandid—to use the mildest terms—conduct of Ministers in withdrawing the most important clause of their own pledged Bill.
Clause agreed to.
On the 56th Clause, which had been postponed, being read,
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell moved an Amendment to the effect of totally repealing the 7th of George 4th, which, he contended, perpetuated the worst machinery of the Irish Vestry system. Without this repeal the clause would be wholly inefficacious as a means of relieving the Catholics from the Vestry-cess.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that on the introduction of this Bill it was never contemplated to do away with the whole law regulating parochial assessments in Ireland. The object of the present Bill was, to regulate the temporalities of the Irish Church, and nothing else. To accede to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be at once to put an end to the provision now existing for the poor for foundlings, and other useful purposes, such as fire-engines, to which nobody, whatever were his opinions, could be opposed. The principle of the present Bill went to relieve the Roman Catholics from all Church-cess for the support of the Protestant Church. He did not mean to defend the 7th George 4th, and his (Mr. Stanley's) first act on coming into office in Ireland was to bring in a bill to amend that Statute with respect to appeals. The present Bill would not remove all that was in that Act, but it only permitted such portions to remain as were applicable to really useful purposes. If a change were to be made, let it be done by a Substantive Act of Parliament, and not in this incidental manner.
Mr. O'Connelldeclared, that this Bill was merely a delusion. In the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters

1151
on Friday, they asked triumphantly to cover their abandonment of the clause then debated, whether the removal of the Vestry-cess was nothing, while today all their boasted pledges were decided to be good for nothing. With respect to coffins for the poor, and deserted children, and fire engines, there was great imposition, and for 74 l. charged, which appeared in one of the returns, he did not believe as many shillings were expended. He protested both against the 7th George 4th, and the present Bill as frauds upon the people. They were something like the surplus of 400,000 l. promised, but which, upon the examination of the right hon. member for Tamworth that night, would appear to be no more than 274 l.
Sir Robert Peelnever heard a question mooted where there appeared so little real ground for difference of opinion. The object of the Bill was to do away with an exclusive Protestant Vestry altogether. That was done, and all that was retained was what might be effected for general purposes by Protestants and Catholics indiscriminately. The hon. and learned member for Dublin contended for the total repeal of the 7th George 4th; but the effect of this would be to repeal all the Statutes by which any provision existed for the poor in Ireland. At present some provision was allowed to be made for the poor, and from the nature of things the Roman Catholics must benefit by it. He would take from the return before him St. Mary's parish. There a sum of 248 l. was voted by the vestry, to which Catholics were admitted. Of this one item was 40 l. for coffins for the poor. Of that it could not be doubted Catholics had their share. The next item was 100 l. for foundlings, and here also the same principle would apply. The system of thus providing for deserted children might be in itself unwise, but was this and all the other aids thus afforded to be at once done away with, and without any substitute?
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that Catholics, though legally admissible to these vestries, were in fact excluded. In Dublin they were held in vestry-rooms perhaps twelve feet by ten in extent, and the mass of the parishioners were kept out. As to the 40 l. for coffins in St. Mary's parish, he would allege, that not 10 s. of that sum were applied to the burial of Catholics. His objection was to the machinery of the 7th George 4th, which was highly obnoxious.
Dr. Lushingtondid not mean to advocate the Act complained of, but the effect of the Amendment would be, to put an end to all legal provision for the poor. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member's objection might be obviated by words in this clause declaring, that if any parish officer hereafter levied any Vestry-cess for mere Church purposes, any officer levying or suing for the same should be liable to pay four times their amount, and to double costs. The hon. and learned Member talked of the Common Law, but at Common Law there were many purposes most useful, and almost indispensably necessary, for which Vestries had no power to make a rate.
Mr. R. Sheilstrongly reprobated the 7th George 4th, both as to appeals and costs, and asked whether, as Parliament had removed all other distinctions between Catholics and Protestants, they would permit this one to remain.
After a few words from Mr. O'Connell, in reply—The Committee divided on Mr. O'Connell's Amendment:—Ayes 48; Noes 189: Majority 141.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Nagle, Sir R.

Attwood, T.

O'Brien, C.

Baldwin, Dr.

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Barron, H. W.

O'Connell, M.

Barry, G. S.

O'Connell, D.

Blake, J.

O'Connell, J.

Butler, hon. P.

O'Connor, F.

Chapman, M. L.

O'Connor, Don

Clements, Viscount

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Dashwood, G.

Oswald, J.

Evans, Colonel

Oswald, B. A.

Evans, G.

Perrin, Lewis

Faithful, G.

Roche, W.

Finn, W.

Roe, J.

Fitzgerald, T.

Botch, B.

Fitzsimon, C.

Ruthven, E. S.

Fitzsimon, N.

Ruthven, E.

Hume, J.

Seale, Colonel

Hutt, D.

Sheil, R. L.

Howard, R.

Stavely, T. K.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Talbot, J. H.

Lalor, P.

Trelawney, W. L. S.

Lambert, H.

Vincent, Sir F.

Locke, W.

Walker, C. A.

Lynch, A. H.

PAIRED OFF.

Macnamara, Major

Methuen, P. C.

Martin, J.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 110 being put, which enacts that the Commissioners may suspend the appointment of clerks to rectories, &c., where divine worship shall have been intermitted for three years,
Mr. Shawsaid, he owed an apology to the Committee for having' already occupied so large a portion of their time in the discussion of the details of the measure before them, but he trusted, that taking into consideration the peculiar situation in which he stood in reference to the Irish branch of the Established Church, they would feel, that he was not entirely without excuse. He hoped, too, that they would do him the justice to acknowledge, that while he was uncompromising, he had not been vexatious in his opposition, and that from the second reading to the present time he had endeavoured not to dwell upon minor points to which he objected, but to lay hold of those broad and striking features of the Bill which demonstrated to his mind, that it would never pass into a law without great and irreparable injury to the united Church Establishment. While it professed to reform, he had pointed out, that its real tendency was to spoliate the property and greatly diminish, if not altogether destroy, the efficiency of the Church. As regarded the question of property, he admitted, that the omission of the 147th clause which had occurred on Friday night was a considerable improvement; but the second ground of objection—the contracting the influence and crippling the energies of the Protestant religion in Ireland, remained in its full force, and pre-eminently lay in the 110th clause, which the Committee had then to consider. The principle upon which the Government went was, that there should not be an incumbent where there was not service in a benefice. With that he was not inclined to quarrel; he allowed it was an evil that there should be an incumbent without service being performed; but there were two ways of remedying the evil—the one to remove the incumbent, the other to establish the celebration of service. The Government proposed the first, which he (Mr. Shaw) could not too strongly deprecate; but he would gladly adopt the second, and assist to the utmost in extending the benefits of the established religion into every district of the country. That was the course which the Irish Bishops were successfully pursuing at the very time that it was sought to reduce their numbers by nearly one-half, and transfer their authority to a kind of lay Commission, whose duty the clause then under consideration would make it to prevent that very extension of the
1154
benefits of the Establishment which the Bishops had been labouring (and with the best effect, to promote. A reference to the history of the Irish branch of the Church for the last thirty years would best illustrate his meaning. There were in Ireland about 1,400 benefices—it was admitted, that in many of them service had not been regularly performed; but if they went back to the year 1800, it would be found, that at that period the observation would have applied to at least 700 of them, or the half of all the benefices. But what was the fact at present? That there were, under the anxious care and superintendence of the Episcopal Bench, new churches built in about 500 out of the 700, where they had then been deficient, he had no doubt that there were at least 100 other places licensed for divine worship, where there were not the means of building a Church, which would leave but 100 benefices still unprovided for; agreeing, as nearly as could be, with the Return lately printed by the House. He had gone over that Return with his right hon. friend, the member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), whose continued indisposition, he lamented to say, deprived the friends of the Church of his valuable aid that night; and it appeared that deducting the cases to which the clause was inapplicable, on account of their being either in lay patronage, or parts of unions, or rectories entire, with vicarages endowed, there would not remain above sixty-sis benefices of those already returned where service had not been performed for the last three years. Take them, however, at 100; and let them suppose that such a Bill as the present had passed thirty years ago, the consequence would have been, that instead of 100, 700 benefices would have been still unprovided for; and while six-sevenths of the only ground that could be possibly assigned for suspending these incumbents had been already removed, and its diminution was rapidly progressing, the House was called upon to arrest its progress, and to place the remaining seventh part out of the pale of the established religion. He protested against the right of a state professing an established religion so to act; while they tolerated other religions, they could only be justified as a state in encouraging the one by law established—they could not with propriety or justice shut out from its benefits any portion of the community As well might

1155
they contend because one class of persons—say for instance the Jews, in regard of the observance of the Sabbath—did not personally make use of or ask the protection of the civil law of the land—any district of the country in which such persons happened to reside should be excepted from its operation. The same principle applied in respect of the established religion as of the established law. The clause, compared with the progressive improvement then taking place in Ireland, furnished the most irrefragable argument against the transfer of the ecclesiastical authority to the Commissioners. There had been 500 glebe-houses, as well as 500 Churches, built within the same period of thirty years; and among the 1,400 beneficed clergymen, there were but 135 who could in any sense be called pluralists. Was that, then, such an unhealthful state of the Church as to demand the undue interference attempted? It was said, that it might have been easy to build new Churches, but that they were without congregations. That he altogether denied; and as an illustration of those places where churches were not yet built, he could state, that in forty new churches or places of worship, which had accidentally been brought under his consideration as having been very recently erected or established, there appeared to be averaged congregations of nearly 400 persons. Some hon. Members argued as if the Established Church was malum, in se; and that the great object was to cut it down, instead of extending it. The hon. member for Middlesex treated it as a standing army in time of peace. The hon. Member might wish that neither mind nor body should be kept under restraint; but while he (Mr. Shaw) did not desire any unnecessary legal control to be exercised over men's individual actions, he would as far as possible multiply the checks which moral and religious cultivation were calculated to produce in the general conduct of a people. Independently of higher spiritual considerations, the clause was, in a mere temporal and political one, highly objectionable. Looking to the circumstances of Ireland in this respect, could any one deny, that the Protestant resident clergy were an incalculable advantage? He would not compromise his own opinion that they were paramountly so, as holding up the sacred light of truth in what he must consider the
1156
darkness which surrounded them. But he would even appeal to the Irish Roman Catholic Members of that House, whether in all the relations of society—in all the offices of kindness and benevolence—in relieving the poor—advising the uninformed—assisting and comforting those that were in sickness or any other distress, there could be found more accomplished gentlemen, better neighbours, or sincerer friends, irrespective of religious distinctions, than the clergy of the established Church in Ireland? He reminded them that they were not to be relieved of the tithe—that was to be paid the same as if the incumbent had not been suspended; no real benefit could therefore accrue to any class or to any person. He trusted the Government would not persevere in retaining a clause which would not serve the Roman Catholic, or even gratify the agitator—while it must permanently injure the established religion, and would undoubtedly give serious offence to the whole Protestant population of Ireland. Mr. Shaw then read an amendment to the effect that all monies saved by the suspension of an incumbent should be applied for the sole purpose of building a Church within the particular benefice where such suspension took place; and he said, that he would first divide the Committee upon the omission of the whole clause—and if that was carried against him, he would afterwards move the Amendment on the bringing up of the Report
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that the object of the clause was quite the reverse of that attributed to it by the hon. and learned Gentleman. That clause was intended to conduce, and he was sure would conduce, to promote the interests of the Protestant Church, and the diffusion of the Protestant religion in Ireland. The way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman, it appeared, wished to produce that desirable end, was by erecting Protestant Churches in places where there was no Protestant congregation, and where there was not even a probability of a Protestant congregation. Now the present clause went to work in a different manner. It proposed to empower the Commissioners, the majority of whom would be ecclesi s-tics, to transfer the emoluments accruing from benefices where no duties had been performed for a certain period, and where there were no duties to perform, to the illpaid

1157
paid Ministers and curates of places where large congregations existed, and heavy duties were discharged. That was the true way to consult the interests of Protestantism in Ireland.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin had no need to be so mightily frightened as to the anticipated effect of this clause. If the words of the clause were—"that the celebration of divine worship shall have been intermitted therein for the period of three years previous to the 1st of January, 1833," then, indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman might have some grounds for alarm; but the words in the clause were—"for the period of three years previous to the passing of this Act." The Act Would not be passed at least for a month to come. The hon. and learned Gentle man had therefore only to address a circular to his constituents—to the 2,000 Protestant clergymen that existed in Ireland; and let them sally forth to celebrate divine service in all those hitherto neglected benefices. They had abundant time to perform the work. It would be a piafraus, to be sure; but what of that, when the interest of the Church was at stake? It would effectually defeat the object of the present clause. He had no longer any interest in the measure, because it would in its present shape altogether disappoint the expectations of the people of Ireland.
Colonel Conollysaid, that although he had relaxed nothing in his hostility to the general principle involved in the Bill, he considered the clause then under discussion as forming one of the most objectionable features of the whole measure; it bespoke not merely an intention, but a manifest desire, on the part of his Majesty's Ministers, to eradicate the Protestant religion—a circumstance which he could not view without pain, or cease to deplore. He was satisfied, that the consequences of the measure must be such as he predicted. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, in the early part of the evening, laid great stress upon the return that had been made of the number of benefices in which divine service had not been performed for three years, hut it was rather strange, seeing that he was a supporter of the measure, that he should have selected the diocese of Limerick. Now it was notorious that that diocese had been for a long period deprived of the superintendence of its excellent diocesan,
1158
owing to the infirmity of the venerable Prelate; and the return clearly showed, that that was the part of Ireland in which the greatest number of deserted livings were to be found; establishing, as he considered, a,prima facie case of the consequences likely to ensue in a diocese where the Bishop did not reside. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, in one part of his speech, made a statement which was not borne out by the fact. He said, that churches had been built where there was no necessity for them. He believed that no such case existed. In the three provinces in Ireland with which he was connected, he never heard of such a circumstance—on the contrary, he knew several instances in which churches had been built, where the congregations were at first small, but they had gone on increasing, until at length it was found necessary to call for the enlargement of the Church and for the appointment of an additional curate to attend to the parochial duties. He thought the right hon. Secretary had been carried away a little by his feelings when he said that the best way of preserving the Church was by effecting its destruction. He could not conceive how the right hon. Gentleman could propose to advance the interests of the Church at the same time that he was curtailing the means of imparting moral and religious instruction. He was sure that if the clause were not omitted altogether, the next best thing that the House could do would be to adopt the amendment of his hon. and learned friend, the member for the University of Dublin. Upon common grounds of fairness he put it to the House whether it was just, that the funds raised within any parish should be diverted to other purposes than the sustentation of the Church in that particular district? The right hon. Gentleman undertook to legislate upon the grievances of Ireland; but in this instance he did not abolish the payment of tithe in the parish—he left the burthen, but he removed the advantage. He removed every semblance of religion in the parish, and then he talked of advancing Protestantism. It appeared to him most extraordinary, that while the right hon. Gentleman was destroying Protestantism, and sweeping it from the face of the country, he should in the same breath take credit for being its most steadfast friend and warmest supporter. When he considered the three years

1159
that had been selected, during which, if an intermission of service had occurred the benefice was to be declared void, it appeared to him that a more inappropriate period could not have been chosen. The clergy during that period had been driven from the country for fear of their lives; and Dr. Butler that respected and aged gentleman, had been expatriated, and the Protestants of his parish would, he feared, very soon have to follow their rector. The character of Dr. Butler stood without impeachment. It had been urged against him that he had been bred a surgeon: the fact was so; but from the moment he took orders he united medical skill with his sacred functions—his house became a dispensary—and never was there a more cheering instance afforded of parochial care united with splendid munificence, than the conduct of Dr. Butler presented. He was driven forth from his parish—not because he was an absentee, or supine, or neglectful of his duties—but because, in the sphere in which he moved, his conduct was such as to do credit to human nature, and add dignity to the character of a clergyman. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Tipperary looked upon the measure with distrust, inasmuch as he conceived it was not calculated to further his views. Now he objected to it because it was too well calculated to realize those objects which it was known were dear to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He looked upon the measure, in fact, as a monstrous stride towards the extinction of Protestantism in Ireland. He felt sincerely that such must be the consequence of the measure; and so feeling he trusted he might be pardoned for warmly expresing those sentiments.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that his objection to the proposition before the House was, that instead of encouraging the performance of divine service in parishes where it had not been for some time performed, the Bill proceeded upon the principle of preventing its performance in future The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we would have a church built in every parish, whether there was a congregation there or not? By no means—but in parishes where it might not be deemed adviseable to build a church, it might be adviseable to license a house for divine service. He did not certainly mean to say, that even out of these funds they should in every case he at the expense of building a church; but the utmost
1160
benefit having arisen from providing a house for the celebration of divine service where there was no church, he did not think the House ought to object to the adoption of a plan which could not be attended with a fiftieth part of the expense of building a church. The House would be enabled to judge of the value of the plan, when he stated that even in the wild districts of Cunnemara, where there was generally supposed to be no Protestant population, congregations had come to places so licensed. He held in his hand a list of the houses licensed in the diocese of Tuam, where the Roman Catholic population had an immense preponderance. By this list it appeared that one of the houses was attended by a congregation amounting to 120, another by a congregation of sixty, and a third by a congregation of seventy-five. Now, although the House might not deem it right to build churches for these small congregations, he did contend that it was the duty of the House to provide them with the means of attending divine worship. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that, upon the whole, the measure would be beneficial to the Protestant Church in Ireland, but he must say, that he greatly doubted whether the Bill contained anything which could compensate for the shock which that and other clauses would give to Protestant feeling in that country. The right hon. Gentleman, in justification of the clause, to which he had previously adverted, referred the House to the Return upon the Table, showing the number of benefices in which divine worship had not been performed for three years; hut the Return was so imperfect as hardly to afford the House the means of forming a correct judgment. Taking it, however, as he found it, he could not agree in the conclusion that the evil which the clause was intended to remedy was a very crying one. He took up the first page, and he found that in the diocese of Clogher there was not a single benefice to which the clause would apply. He turned to the next diocese—that of Meath, and he found eight benefices in which divine service had not been performed for the last three years. But out of these eight there were only two to which the clause could apply, for the remaining six were in the hands of lay patrons. In Down he found only two benefices returned, hut in neither of them would the clause apply. In the next diocese there was only one benefice to which the clause could apply—

1161
so that in the three first pages of the Return he did not find more than three benefices to which the clause would apply, and was it, he would ask, worth while to adopt so dangerous a principle where the evil complained of was, comparatively speaking, of so trifling a nature? He went on and found that in Raphoe and Dromore there were no benefices to which the clause would apply—and that in Ossory, out of twelve benefices, in which divine service had not been performed for three years, there were only six which came within its provisions. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted Limerick, in which there were sixteen benefices to which the clause would apply. [Mr. Stanley twenty-seven]. Yes, twenty-seven benefices in the whole, but only fifteen or sixteen upon which the clause could be brought to act. But in none of these cases had we any calculation of the value of the benefices, of the amount of the population, or how far the licensing a house for divine service might be found expedient. He thought it necessary that the Protestant feeling in Ireland ought to be consulted upon this subject, and that the House should pause before it led the Protestants of Ireland to believe that Parliament was capable of countenancing any plan which discouraged the Protestant religion. Suppose, as had been well urged by his hon. and learned friend, the member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), that the principle now about to be acted upon had been adopted in the year 1800. Since that period,500 churches and,500 glebe houses had been built in Ireland, and there was no doubt, that half of them never would have been built, had such a Bill as that then before the House been passed thirty years ago, and, of course, so many places would have been deprived of the benefit of a resident clergyman and the means of attending divine service. What he would now, however, ask of the House was, not that a Church should be built in every parish, but that a house should be allowed to be licensed where divine service might be performed, in those parishes wherein the building of a church might be too expensive, and not absolutely necessary for the accommodation of the inhabitants. If the right hon. Gentleman would deduct the number of benefices from the Return to which the clause would not apply, he would sec that the practical result would be small indeed, and would but ill compensate for the offence which would be given by it to the
1162
Protestant feeling in Ireland, and for the apparent indifference of the House of Commons to the religious wants of the people.
Lord Duncannonthought it necessary to respect Catholic as well as Protestant feeling. He was anxious to support the Protestant establishment, but not in parishes where, there being no Protestant inhabitants, the benefices were merely sinecures—a scandal to the Protestant Church, and a grievance to the Roman Catholic population.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that it appeared to him that the object of the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend, Mr. Shaw, was, that the progressive improvement now taking place under the superintendence of the Bishops in Ireland should not be put a stop to. He objected to the last three years being taken as a criterion—a period which was more fertile than any preceding period in the expulsion of clergymen from their livings. It appeared that the Bill was to have no operation until after the avoidance of the living. If peace and tranquillity should be restored in Ireland, and if service should be performed in the parish for fifteen years to come, it was not imperative upon the Commissioners to prevent the operation of the clause. The noble Lord the member for Nottingham stated that in one parish some of the parishioners were fourteen miles from the Church; that might be a good reason for licensing houses, but the circumstance added little to the strength of the noble Lord's argument in favour of abolishing benefices.
Mr. Secretary Stanley,to remove all difficulty, was willing to take the date of the return as the period from which the three years should be computed. He therefore, moved to insert the words, "three years next preceding the 1st of February, 1833."
This Amendment having been agreed
Mr. Estcourt Mr. Estcourt moved the following Amendment—namely: to insert after "1833" the words, and shall not have been resumed and regularly performed within six calendar months before such avoidance."
The Committee divided on this Amendment—Ayes 63; Noes 237: Majority 174.
Clause agreed to, as were the clauses to 148.
The House resumed, the Committee to sit again

SHERIFF'S EXPENSES.
Mr. Fysche Palmer Mr. Fysche Palmer moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee upon the Sheriffs' Expenses Bill.
The Solicitor General opposed the Bill, many of the clauses of which were highly objectionable.
Mr. Robert Gordonsupported the Bill. It was important that the expenses to which the Sheriff of a county was liable should be reduced.
Mr. Tookeopposed the Bill, which presented in his judgment a perfect wantonness in legislation. Some of its provisions were ridiculous.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyobjected to the Bill because it went to saddle the county, already sufficiently burthened, with an annual expense of between 500 l. and 600 l. If the learned Solicitor General would divide the House on the Motion, he would support him.
Mr. Fysche Palmerdenied that its provisions would impose on the counties of England a single additional shilling.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—Ayes 42; Noes 60: Majority 18.
The Bill was therefore lost.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord SUFFIELD, from Hexham (Northumberland) for Church Reform.—By the Karl of SHREWSBURY, from the Roman Catholics of Wigan, to Legalize Marriages Performed by their own Clergymen only.—By the Bishop of LICHFIELD and COVENTRY, from Baslow,—for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Inverness, for abolishing Slavery, and giving Compensation to the Owners of West-India Property.—By the Earl of CARLISLE, from a Methodist Congregation, for Abolishing Slavery, and giving Religious Instruction to the Negroes.

LOCAL JURISDICTION.
On the Motion for recommitting this Bill,
The Earl of Eldonrose and said, that if the measures then before their Lordships, and the Bills in the other House, the object of which was to alter the existing state of the law were passed, as it were, in a mass, the consequence would be a great deal of mischief and confusion. In opposing those measures, he was not actuated by anything personal—far from it. He protested before their Lordships, that nothing but the most sincere wish to do his duty, and more particularly to the poor subjects of this country, could induce him to give the determined opposition which he meant to give to the present Bill. He would say Let the Bill go over and over again through a Committee, and if it could be so altered as to meet his views (which he feared was impossible), he would not further oppose it; but if the contrary were the case, he would come down on the third reading of the Bill, and enter his protest against it." He begged leave to examine the Bill a little in detail. Was it a Bill for at once establishing Local Courts throughout the country? No such thing. It went to alter the whole course of proceedings under the common law, by selecting such counties, or parts or districts of counties, as those to whom the power was given, might think fit and proper places wherein to try this new experiment. What would be the consequence of this? Why, there would, under this system, be one mode of administering the law in one county, and another in another county. In some districts they would proceed according to the existing law of the land, while in others, they would have recourse to the Courts established under this Bill, for the purpose, he supposed, of enabling people to judge whether the new system, or the Common-law, worked best. The profession
1106
of the law were more disinterested than the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack seemed to suppose. The Judges were willing to assist in effecting any improvement or wise alteration in the law, although they might view with some apprehension so extensive and sweeping a measure as this. He objected to that part of the Bill which related to the appointment of Judges in the Local Courts. There was a wide difference between the way in which the law was now administered by the sages of Westminster-hall, and the way in which it would probably be administered by young men of ten years' standing at the bar, or sergeants who might not he of ten years' standing. There were many contradictions and discrepancies in the Bill. The first clause assumed the positive necessity which existed for the establishment of Local Courts, while the second spoke of the matter as being neither more nor less than a mere trial—a mere experiment. Under this new system, the country Commissioners of Bankrupt would be superseded. Now, he knew, from his own experience for many years, that the country Commissioners of Bankrupt were a most estimable body of men. Many of them had been at the bar, or had practised as solicitors, for a long period of time; and he knew not of any delinquency having ever been committed by any of them. He could not approve of a measure by which a young barrister was to be sent down to supersede the Judges of the land. Such a barrister would be empowered under this Bill to meddle with the real property of individuals, to deal with estates, either in possession or reversion, where verdicts were obtained in one species of cases for 20 l., and in another for 50 l. He objected also to the Judge, who had fruitlessly attempted to reconcile a cause, being afterwards allowed to preside at the trial of that cause in the Local Court. Against that, there was no provision in the Bill. He would pay proper attention to the Bill, if it got into Committee; but he could not conceive any alteration that could be made in it that would lead him to give his consent to such a measure. He should not say a word in the Committee, because he could not see what alteration could be made in the measure, so as to render it a safe and proper one; but if the Bill arrived at a third reading, he would come down, and with all his heart and soul, register

1107
his dissent to the measure. It might be considered the opinion of a superannuated lawyer; but such as it was, the present generation and posterity should be apprized of it. His Lordship concluded by moving. That this Bill be re-committed this day six months."
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he was sure his noble and learned friend would believe that he was sincere when he expressed the great respect which he must naturally feel for his long and mature experience; and he would further observe, that any opinion which his noble and learned friend might form, however different it might be from his own, must always command his attention. The alarm respecting Law Reforms, however, which on this, as on former occasions, his noble and learned friend had manifested, seemed to deprive him of that acuteness and accuracy of judgment which were necessary in coming to a correct knowledge of the nature and principles of the intended alterations. He confidently expected, that when the measure was reduced to its proper size—when it was shown in its own true and natural dimensions—when it was proved that it was not likely to produce those evils which the scared imagination of his noble and learned friend had predicted, it would receive the sanction of the House. He could not, however, and he was sorry for it, hope for the support of his noble and learned friend to the measure,—he could not hope, that his noble and learned friend would hereafter feel less repugnance to it than he did at present. First of all, his noble and learned friend, exercising his own judgment on the subject, had assumed, that a mass of measures, having extensive law reforms for their object, were to be considered at once—were to be taken in the lump—were to be swallowed at one gulp—without any time being given for deglutition or digestion. So far from that being the ease, the purpose of those who had the care of these measures was to avoid such haste—to render it, impossible, if any thing could effect that, for any one to bring that charge. To attempt to preclude the bare possibility of himself and his learned friend being subjected to such a charge, the measures had all been separated; they had been kept sedulously apart; one by one they had been propounded to their Lordships—one by one they had been brought forward, with such explanations as could be given of
1108
them—and on no occasion had their Lordships been called on to consider more than one of them. All that he and his learned friends had done on any occasion, and all that their Lordships had been called on to do on any given evening was, to advance one of these measures one little moderate step. His noble and learned friend had expressed himself sorry that they were legislating in such a hurry; but to show how slowly they had proceeded, he would just advert to the course which had been pursued. First, the principle of the Bill was, by agreement, to be taken and discussed on the motion for going into Committee. He (the Lord Chancellor) came down and opened the measure to their Lordships, a debate ensued, was brought to a close, and, without a division, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. Why, then, one would have thought, when their Lordships had gone into the Committee, and disposed of the principle of the measure—when, in fact, they had been twice in Committee, and made amendments in the Bill, that all further opposition to the measure as a whole would have been at an end. But now, on a motion for recommitting the Bill, up got his noble and learned friend, and made a motion which was directed, not against the details, but against the principle of the measure which had already been recognized. He never knew such a course to have been adopted in either House of Parliament. On the motion that the House should resolve itself into a Committee, into which they had previously gone, and in which they had made some progress, and when they were about to make still further progress, his noble and learned friend rose and proposed the extraordinary amendment, that the Bill should be recommitted that day six months, instead of going on, and making some further progress in this great question. This course of proceeding was somewhat hard on their Lordships. He would not complain of any inconvenience which it had caused to himself, although he must say, that it was a hardship on him also. They had taken the debate on the principle—they had gone into Committee—night after night, by considering the Bill in Committee, they had admitted the principle—and yet several attempts had afterwards been made to impugn it. One night he had a long argument with one noble and learned friend (Lord Lynd-
1109
hurst), when the principle of the Bill was largely discussed; that noble and learned friend came down on another night, and, on the motion for committing the Bill, entered on the same subject; and now, when they were about re-committing the Bill, he was compelled again to renew the debate with his other noble and learned friend. When this debate was closed, and his noble and learned friend's motion was negatived, as he hoped their Lordships would negative it, after they had gone into the Committee, and made some progress, he supposed some other noble Lord would, on a future occasion, come down and renew the discussion of the principle of the measure, renew the debate, renew the opposition to the Bill, and with precisely the same result. He knew not where this sort of proceeding was to end—he knew not when the discussion was to terminate—if this plan were adopted; because he who was defeated one night, might, after three debates, come forward and raise a fourth debate; another noble Lord might raise, in the same manner, a fifth debate, and thus create an immensity of delay. They might still go on thus debating the principle of the Bill (after it had been decided on), day after day, and that too on one stage of the measure. This, he thought, a most extraordinary mode of meeting a question. He never knew it to have been adopted in the greatest heats that had prevailed in either House of Parliament. He had never known such a system to have been acted on in the House of Commons, amidst the fiercest debates, for the purpose of carrying any point. Such a course had not been pursued even on that great question, the Reform Bill, although the greatest disposition to oppose and to obstruct it prevailed. On that occasion, the course of opposition which noble Lords now adopted had not been brought forward in either House of Parliament. He judged, from some of his noble and learned friend's objections, that he had misunderstood, because he had certainly misrepresented, the details of this Bill. His noble and learned friend complained that it was an experiment. In one sense he would claim the expression, he had made use of it himself, but certainly not in the sense in which his noble and learned friend used it, nor in the sense in which it had been used by his noble and learned friend the late Chief
1110
Justice of the Common Pleas, from similar inadvertence. There was no one that ever mooted the question of local courts for the last fifteen years—and he followed several who had done so—who was not convinced that the establishment of those courts was expedient—that such courts were necessary—that the lime had come when this great and salutary improvement of the law should be carried into effect—that the Legislature was called on to grant this mighty blessing—this act of common justice to his Majesty's subjects. It was no experiment therefore on this point—namely, whether these courts were expedient or necessary, or ought to be established. If any noble Lord doubted this, and much less if he denied it—if he thought this was an experiment in the sense of the noble and learned Lords to whom he had alluded—he certainly would have no right to expect that noble Lord's support on this occasion. But the Bill proceeded on a principle which was firmly established—namely, that such courts ought to be established. That point was settled. But thus far it was an experiment—it was deemed necessary to ascertain how the principle worked, in order that they might know how to construct the machinery for carrying it into effect; and render its details perfect; and, therefore, it was proposed to establish two or three of these courts in different places before they were spread over the whole country. They would thus have the advantage of knowing how far the details answered—how far the machinery of the Court was effective—how far the minuter parts of the system were adapted to answer the proposed end, which it was impossible for them to know till they had had the benefit of experience. They would thus be enabled to avoid evils, and introduce that which would be advantageous according to the information which the trial might afford. There was, however, no question whatever as to the expediency of establishing those Courts; that was decided, and in that there was nothing of experiment. All that was aimed at in taking this course was to give a fair trial to the working of the details and machinery of the measure, in order that they might see what they would do. To show how unfairly men, actuated by strong feelings, and anxious to advance, even at hazard, strong objections against a measure, were apt to conduct themselves, he

1111
would just advert to what had been alleged against this measure and the introducers of it. If he had at once said, Let those Courts be immediately estabilished over all England—let Local Courts be fixed in every county or every part of a county, where it may seem desirable, "would not his noble and learned friend have exclaimed—" What! are you going to establish twenty or twenty-five Courts, before any mortal man can possibly know whether the machinery of those Courts is adapted to your purpose? I recommend you, in the first instance, to try three or four Courts; you will then see how the machinery of the proposed Bill is likely to answer, and you will know how to proceed. Improvements may be suggested, and then, and then only, you may spread those Courts all over the country." His noble and learned friend objected to the machinery of the Court of Reconcilement, and spoke of the inexpediency of making the Judge of the Local Courts also a Judge in cases of reconcilement, inasmuch as if he failed in reconciling the parties, he would not be able with any degree of propriety to try the cause. His noble and learned friend complained, that this difficulty was not provided for, but it certainly was, and the only thing necessary was to take two contiguous districts and unite the Courts to this extent, that reconcilement cases which failed in the one Court should be taken as actions to the other. His noble and learned friend had alluded to him as attacking the profession of the law to which he had the honour to belong (a profession to which, and to the members of which, he felt as sincerely attached as his noble and learned friend), and his noble and learned friend appeared to blame him for having described some of the members of that profession as being hostile to changes and improvements in the law, and liable to the general charge of illiberality. Now he certainly had stated, and was ready to repeat the statement, that it was not unnatural, but the very contrary (though much to be regretted), that from their character and habits lawyers were much averse from change in any part of the system under which many of them had lived long, in which they had grown old, and to which they were attached; that they were, beyond all bounds of reason or justice, averse, not so much on account of their own interest, in many cases (such as that of his noble and learned friend), as in consequence
1112
of irresistible prejudice, from any material alteration in the law; and, further, that in a great number of cases they were influenced in their opposition to change by views connected with their own interest, by which they could not help being swayed, and for being swayed by which he did not blame, but, on the contrary, commended them. Under such circumstances, it was perfectly natural that persons in the legal profession should be extremely set against improvements in the law, and should oppose them with all their might. He said nothing against that; it was quite natural and unavoidable; but that was no reason why he should yield to the opposition, and above all it was no reason why their Lordships should yield to it. It might be the interest of the legal profession to resist such bills as the present; but it was not the interest of the country or of suitors that they should be successfully resisted; and their Lordships would bear in mind also, that the interest of members of the profession of the law constituted no reason for the Legislature turning a deaf ear to the cases of those who were the prey of the profession, or, more properly speaking, of the abuses and faults of the existing system. He would go further, and say, that the system itself might be to a considerable extent good—its foundation might be solid, and the bulk of the superstructure pure—the benefits connected with it might outweigh its defects; all this might be perfectly true of our legal system, but did it follow that we were not to introduce all the improvements which it required, and of which it was susceptible? He asked their Lordships, or any other men living who had no sinister motives or private interests to warp their judgments, whether beneficial alterations ought to be impeded because there was a reluctance in the profession to admit them? He appealed from the narrow prejudices of a few individuals, and from the interested views of more, and from the sinister motives of others, to the good sense of their Lordships and of all mankind—he appealed from those whose prejudices, quite apart from, and independent of, any possible private interest or personal motive, leagued them (as in the case of his noble and learned friend) with the interested members of the profession, and induced them to lend their powerful co-operation to those who were stedfastly set against all

1113
improvement—he appealed from such individuals to the country. This system of local jurisdiction, which had been described as all but a revolution, which was characterized as unsettling the foundations of property and tearing up law by the roots, had been in a considerable degree the law of Ireland for the last half century. In that country a similar system, extending like the present to sums of 20 l, had long existed without causing society to be disorganized, the country to be laid waste, or the foundations of property and all rights to be destroyed. Not one of the speculators and theorists who had of late years discussed Irish affairs ascribed the mischiefs of which they complained to the jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers under the civil Bill process, yet, as he had already stated, to the extent of 20 l. the Local Courts of the Assistant Barristers, possessed jurisdiction all over that part of the kingdom. When Lord Clare first established that system, he was charged, pretty much, as another Chancellor had lately been charged, with an unnatural hatred of his own profession, with a neglect of their interests, if not with a disposition to destroy the profession. Lord Clare despised these charges; he went on; the Legislature adopted his plan in –1794 or 1795, about the period of the French revolutionary war, when there existed a morbid hatred of all improvements, provided they were to be effected by any change in existing institutions; notwithstanding that, the Legislature adopted the measure which had been since to the unspeakable benefit of that part of the kingdom, the law of the land. His noble and learned friend had made some remarks on the subject of the bankruptcy system, and he confessed he did feel a little surprised at the course of his noble and learned friend's observations. His noble and learned friend said so much in praise of the existing system, and lauded all persons connected with its administration so highly, more particularly the country Commissioners, that he could hardly believe his own ears when he heard such an eulogium fall from the noble and learned Lord's lips. Either the Court of Chancery, he thought had produced a marvellous effect on his noble friend, or else his noble friend's retirement from that office which he now so unworthily filled had worked a mighty change in his noble friend's sentiments; for it did so happen, that the first or second
1114
day of his noble and learned friend's taking his seat in Court was signalized by an opinion on the operation of the bankruptcy system, his representation of which he (the Lord Chancellor) scarcely flattered himself he could persuade their Lordships to be true, unless he quoted the actual words made use of upon that occasion. The Lord Chancellor took the first opportunity to express his strong feeling of indignation at the frauds committed under cover of the bankruptcy laws, and to declare his determination to do all in his power to repress them. His Lordship added with considerable warmth, that the cause of the Bankruptcy Law was a disgrace to the country, and that it would be better at once to repeal all the existing statutes on the subject, than to go on as at present." [The Earl of Eldon: Yes, but I did not come to Parliament.] That was true; his noble and learned friend did not come to Parliament, but he thought it safer to come to Parliament and ask it to decide on the subject, than, sitting as Judge in a Court without appeal, to pronounce his own opinion. Surely this latter would be a far more questionable course than coming, as he did with all humility, to ask their Lordships to amend a law which admitted of so many abuses. Their Lordships recollected what had been said about security of property, and the general advantages and good of all persons under the existing system. Let them see how that system worked, according to his noble and learned friend, who went on to say, There is no mercy shown to the estate; nothing is less thought of than the objects of the Commissions. Commissions, as they are frequently conducted in the country, are little more than so much stock-in-trade for the Assignees, the Solicitors, and (whom did their Lordships think?) the Commissioners." Here, then, according to his noble and learned friend, was a most unholy alliance amongst the very parties whom he now commended—an alliance formed for the flagitious purpose of pillaging the bankrupt's estate. His noble friend proceeded to state, that instead of solicitors attending to their duty in a proper manner, as Ministers of the Court in Commissions of Bankruptcy, Commissions were treated as matters of private and personal interest—in fact, as so much stock in trade." His noble and learned friend added, that unless a tight hand

1115
were held upon Commissions, they would become as great a nuisance as any in the land. "Such were his noble friend's sentiments in 1801. Now he did not mean to say, that in the present day things were not greatly better than at the time when they called forth these animadversions of his noble and learned friend; it might be that they were; but any one who had practised in a Court of Law or Equity—any one who had lived in the profession half as long as he had done must know, that though there might not be now the same grounds for this excess, or, perhaps, not excess, but bulk of vituperation, as in 1801, yet, nevertheless, thirty-one years had not so entirely purified this branch of practice as not to leave any cause of blame—any reason for these or other changes and improvements nor any paramount necessity for making them. He must again remind their Lordships, that he had proceeded with caution in this matter; for his noble friend must remember that when a Bill had been introduced two years ago—a bill which, he must say, was as beneficial as any that had been introduced into Parliament in our times; (and in saying so he was only speaking on the authority of all those commercial men in the city with whom he had had any communication—he meant the Bankruptcy Court Bill) when that Bill, was introduced he had announced his intention of introducing the present measure after the other should have been tried in London—after its good effects, which he fully expected, had been felt in the metropolis, that then, with the improvements to which experience might suggest, the plan might, according to the preamble of this very Bill, be extended to the rest of the community with all the benefit of those improvements. The former Bill had succeeded, not past all expectation, but so as fully to realise all the most sanguine hopes entertained of it; and now was the time, in compliance with the wish, not of the Bar of the provinces—not of the solicitors of the country towns—not of their clerks and dependants, who might be supposed to have an interest—not as profitable an interest as it had been, but still an interest in the matter—but in compliance with the wish of the merchants, manufacturers, and tradesmen, to establish a similar measure in the country; and now the time was most favourable, when the establishment
1116
of the Local Courts would enable them to execute the plan with even still greater effect. Last of all, as to this being a hurried legislation. His noble and learned friend, in making this accusation, must have forgotten the course which had been pursued. He had first brought this Bill into the other House three years ago; it then underwent great discussion. He had no sooner been placed in the situation he now occupied, than he brought the Bill into this House. It was propounded by him to the consideration of their Lordships, and after going at length into the nature of the measure, he brought in the Bill. That was in the year 1830, at the close of the year. It stood over for a few months for further consideration, and he renewed it in the ensuing Session. At the suggestion of a noble and learned friend, it was referred to the Commissioners of Inquiry into the state of the Common-law; they reported in its favour; and how it could now be said, after all this, that the measure had been introduced in a hurry, he was at a loss to imagine. If he had been charged with proceeding too slowly, or pursuing, according to a fashionable phrase of the day, a vacillating line of conduct; or if he had been charged, as the Government were sometimes charged, with infirmity of purpose, he should have felt more difficulty in meeting that charge, than he did in meeting the charge of having proceeded with too little deliberation. He thought that three years might, by dispassionate men—three years so occupied in that and the other House of Parliament, and by investigations before Commissioners—be deemed proceeding too slowly; but that hurry, impetuosity, and want of due deliberation, should be made a charge against him, was the last thing he could have expected, or against which he should find the slightest difficulty in defending himself. He ought to apologise for addressing their Lordships three times upon the principle of this Bill; but as long as the course was adopted of debating that principle piecemeal, he was left without a choice, and was obliged to meet the objections as they were made.
The Earl of Eldonadmitted having complained of the working of the bankruptcy system in 1801, but he endeavoured to repress the evil in his judicial capacity, and did not come to Parliament for assistance.
The House divided on the Question

1117
that the Bill be recommitted—Content 52; Not-content 38: Majority 14.
The House went into a Committee.
Upon the first Clause being proposed,
Lord Wynfordobjected to the increased patronage which the Bill would confer upon Government. With a view to try the experiment fairly, and upon a moderate scale, he should move, by way of amendment, to omit the words "for any one or more county or counties, riding or ridings, and insert in their place for the counties of Lancaster and Kent." He named those two counties, in order to see the working of the system in a manufacturing and agricultural district.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the amendment of his noble and learned friend would have an effect the very reverse of that which he proposed. As to the allegation, that this Bill would increase the patronage of the Crown, he at once admitted the fact, and he regretted it; but he did not see how it could be avoided. He once thought, that he saw a way of disposing of the patronage without vesting it in the Crown, it having been suggested that it would be a good way to vest it in the Lords-lieutenant of counties; but, on consideration, it was thought that this would be a very bad way of disposing of it. It was next suggested, that it would be well to vest the appointments in the Sheriffs of counties; but this also was abandoned as not being likely to lead to any satisfactory result. The Judges were next mentioned as proper depositories of this patronage, but he thought that those were still more objectionable as dispensers of patronage than either of the others, for, in his opinion, those learned personages could not be kept too free from any contact with matters of patronage; and, indeed, he regretted that, even that of the appointment of the revising barristers had been vested in them. On looking at every mode of disposing of this patronage which had been suggested, he thought that the least objectionable would be that of vesting it in the responsible advisers of the Crown, acting as they would in the face of the public. It was well known, that when he first introduced this measure in the House of Commons, he bad proposed that the patronage should be vested in the Crown, and that, it would be remembered, was at a time when neither he, nor any of those friends with whom he acted, could have had any idea, that they would be the dispensers
1118
of that patronage. He would now say one word as to the salaries to be given to the judges to be appointed under the Bill; and he must observe, that if Parliament should give only small salaries, the Bill would fail. The wisest plan would be, to make it well worth the while of men of talents and ability to accept the appointment. Referring to this subject, a noble Baron had made a wild calculation as to the expense which the measure would occasion to the country, which he estimated at the enormous sum of 300,000 l. That was, however, far beyond the actual amount, for if the whole number of Judges suggested by the Commissioners were to be appointed, it would not exceed 50,000 l.; and if twenty-five such Judges were to be named, the whole expense would not exceed 60,000 l. a-year. He should greatly regret the necessity of having any part of this paid out of the fees in Court; and he thought that if a fund were provided for the purpose from any other source, it would be so much the better; but if the payment by fees, even in part, should be resorted to, it would not alter his opinion as to the impolicy of that mode of payment.
Lord Wynfordconcurred with his noble and learned friend, that the patronage which would accrue under the Bill should be vested in the responsible advisers of the Crown. He admitted, that giving it to Lords-lieutenant or to Sheriffs, would be bad policy, and that it would be still worse to vest it in the Judges of Assize; for though he had had the honour of sitting as a Judge himself for many years, and though he had the highest opinion of the integrity of the learned Judges—and no men could be more entitled to the highest respect—he thought that the less they were mixed up with questions of patronage the better.
Lord Lyndhurstadmitted, that if the experiment were made only in two counties, it would be unsatisfactory and inconclusive. What he objected to was, that the Crown should have the power to name the number of the Judges and the extent of the districts in which they were to preside. This, he believed, was altogether unprecedented in legislating on matters of judicature; what he was anxious to learn from Ministers was, the amount of salary which they would propose for the learned Judges to be appointed under the Bill?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the question was not quite regular, considering that the amount of salary was to be decided

1119
in another place; but he had no objection to state to his noble and learned friend his own individual opinion of what those salaries ought to be, and it was, that it ought not to be less than 1,500 l. a-year for each Judge; but, in saying this, it was to be subject to future discussion. He thought that the salary ought not to be less than the amount he had said at the least.
Lord Lyndhurstread the clause in the Bill, which stated that the salary should not be less than 1,500 l. a-year, with such additions from the amount of fees as his Majesty might direct, so that the whole income of any such Judge should not exceed 2,000 l. a-year. He would not offer any further objection; he felt that it was disheartening, and of no use to enter into objections against the details of a measure in which it appeared that so few of their Lordships took any interest
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the system of the assistant Barristers who presided in the Civil Bill Court, in Ireland, had given great satisfaction, and in one respect particularly—that the Barristers were not resident in the county. They were generally practising Barristers, who attended the Courts above, and went down to hold these Courts with fresh knowledge and experience each Session, and, what was more, free from those local prejudices and impressions which were inseparable from a Judge who was constantly resident in the county.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the system of Assistant Barristers in Ireland was so different from that which was proposed under this Bill, that it would be impossible to assimilate them. One objection to the attempt would be, that if the same system were adopted under this Bill as in the system of Assistant Barristers in Ireland, they must necessarily get a very inferior set of men as the Judges, because necessarily they must have men at much lower salaries. One great advantage of the proposed plan in this Bill would be, that the small local jurisdictions, the Courts of Request, and other Small Debt Courts, which in general at present did not administer justice either for the advantage of the debtor or creditor, or of the community at large, would gradually merge in the jurisdiction of the new Courts. In this respect, he thought there would be a great advantage in having a resident Judge.
Lord Lyndhurstwould mention one instance
1120
of a learned Judge, who in integrity and intelligence was not surpassed by any individual on the bench, yet that most learned person had given great dissatisfaction, by constantly choosing one circuit (the northern) for a great number of year: and if such an objection was raised in his case, it would, of course, be still stronger in the case of one of a Judge of inferior standing and acquirements.
The Amendment negatived, and the clause agreed to.
The 2nd and 3rd Clauses were then agreed to.
On the 4th clause being read,
Lord Lyndhurstsuggested that three or four Judges, travelling circuits three times a-year like the Commissioners of the Insolvent Court, would be a much more useful machinery than the twenty-five Commissioners to be appointed under this Bill. That was the system which he would oppose to the system of his noble and learned friend, and for this reason, that it would not detach these Courts so entirely from Westminster-hall.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that there was nothing which you might not prove, provided you were permitted to assume the whole matter in debate. With all respect to the Commissioners of the Insolvent Court, against whom he did not mean to say a word, and whom he readily admitted to be most excellent men in their profession, he did not think that three or four Judges, even with abilities equal to theirs, would be able to perform the labour which it would be the duty of these twenty-five Commissioners to go through. Besides, these three or four Judges would be a sort of perambulatory Court; whereas, the object of this measure was to have a Court upon the spot always open.
Clause agreed to.
On the 6th Clause, which proposes that the Judges and registrars shall not be removable except by address of the two Houses of Parliament,"
Lord Wynfordsaid, it was rather too much to have the Registrars of these Courts—who were merely Ministerial Officers—only removable by address from the two Houses of Parliament. In every other Court in the country the Ministerial Officers were removable without the necessity of such an address. A Judge must be impeached if he were guilty of misconduct; but that was not the case with any subordinate officer of his Court.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, if you give a man an office so long as he shall behave himself therein, how are you to remove him from it if he behave himself ill, except after convicting of such ill behaviour? The Registrar in the Court of Chancery, and the Prothonotaries in the Courts of Common Law, held their offices during good behaviour; and that proviso gave the two Houses of Parliament the power of removing them by an address to the Crown. He thought, at any rate, that his noble and learned friend would not object to placing the Judges of these Courts on the same footing as the Judges of Westminster-hall. To place them on an inferior footing would be,pro tanto, to degrade them.
Lord Wynfordagreed that these Judges ought not to be in any respect degraded; but, with regard to Registrars, he would only observe, that Clerks of the Peace were officers quite as high as these Registrars, and they could be removed from their offices without an address, if they were convicted of misconduct in the performance of their duties.
The Lord Chancellorcontended, that the power given in this clause ought to exist in Parliament; for in case a Registrar was prevented by age or other infirmity from performing the duties of his office, and yet did not, legally speaking, behave himself ill, he could not be removed except by an address from Parliament to the Crown.
Lord Lyndhurst: Why should the Registrars of this Court be placed in a different situation from that of the Registrars of the other Courts? His noble and learned friend had not given even a plausible answer to that question, and he should, therefore, suggest to him to give way upon this point, otherwise it would show the spirit in which his noble and learned friend was desirous of discussing this Bill.
The Lord Chancellorthought the last remark of his noble and learned friend might as well have been spared, as he had all through these discussions declared himself anxious to adopt any real Amendments which might be suggested to him. He could assure his noble and learned friend that these Registrars had higher functions to perform than he seemed to be aware of; for instance, in the bankruptcy business their names must, in some cases, be inserted in the fiat directed to
1122
the Judges in ordinary. In other cases, where the Chief Judge was absent, they would be empowered, for certain proceedings to act as Local Judges. The Registrar's name must, therefore, be inserted in the Commission along with that of the Judge. If his noble and learned friends could point out to him any mode (save that given by this clause) of removing a Registrar rendered incompetent by age or infirmity, before that Registrar misde-meaned himself, he (the Lord Chancellor) would agree to strike out the clause. He had known instances of officers—ay, and of Judges too—who, being too old for the performance of their duties, and yet not long enough in possession of their situations to entitle them to their retiring pensions, could not be induced to resign until they received a pretty strong hint that Parliament had the power to remove them.
Lord Wynfordcontended, that the moment these officers became unable, either from age or other infirmity, to perform the duties of their situations, they could not be said to behave themselves well therein. They might, therefore, be removed by the Court of which they were the ministerial servants. So strong was his impression upon this point, that he should move that the words the Registrars be struck out of the clause.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that if the Bill really turned these Registrars into Judges, the objection which his noble friend had made to this clause fell to the ground; but he did not think that the Bill went that length. If the Registrar were, as he contended, that the Registrar was, a mere Ministerial Officer, why was he to be made an exception to the law which applied to the Registrars of the Court of Chancery, and of the Court of Exchequer? Why was a slight to be cast upon those very respectable officers by exalting this new officer above their heads? If the law were as his noble and learned friend stated, that these officers were not removable without an address to the Crown, why not amend the law in this respect altogether?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he really could not see the weight of these objections, nor did he think that his noble and learned friend would have attached any importance to them, had he not come down to the House as the political opponent of the Law Reform Bills introduced by the present Government. He should

1123
be sorry if the Registrars of the old Courts, whom he admitted to be most excellent and valuable public functionaries, should feel it as a slight upon themselves to have the Registrars of these new Courts placed above them. To prevent that feeling from being generated in their minds, he would agree to leave the words the Registrars "out of this clause; but he must insist on retaining the Judges."
Lord Wynfordhad no objection to the words the Judges being retained in the clause.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he was not the political opponent of the Law Reforms of the present Government. He thought that his noble and learned friend, in making that charge against him, had acted towards him both unjustly and ungratefully. His noble and learned friend must recollect that when he first showed him (Lord Lyndhurst) the batch of bills respecting Law Reform now on the Table of that and the other House of Parliament, he told his noble and learned friend that of those bills there were some which he highly approved of. The Limitation of Actions Bill, for instance, and, as a proof of it, he had offered his noble and learned friend to conduct it through the House. On what grounds his noble and learned friend represented him as sitting on the Opposition Benches as the political opponent of the Law Reform Bills of the present Government he could not conceive. First of all, he did not sit upon the Opposition Bench at all; and, in the next place, he had chosen his present seat in the House for the purpose of showing that in opposing this Bill he was standing by himself, and not acting as the agent of a party.
The Lord Chancellorreminded his noble and learned friend that the five Bills, to which he had alluded, as the Government batch of Bills, were not, in point of fact, Government Bills. They were brought into Parliament in consequence of the recommendation of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the law affecting real property. Having, however, been so introduced, they would undoubtedly have the best support of his Majesty's Ministers. In point of fact, this Bill was the only Government Bill now upon the Table.
Lord Lyndhurstthought that his noble and learned friend had just been guilty of a great error. He did not often forget what fell from the lips of his noble and
1124
learned friend, and in regard to this Bill, he recollected well that in introducing it originally to their notice, his noble and learned friend had distinctly said, I introduce it, not as a Government measure, but as a measure resting upon my individual responsibility. "In giving his opposition, therefore, to this Bill, he was not acting as the political opponent of the Law Reforms proposed by his Majesty's Ministers. Now, let their Lordships mark the different way in which the other Law Reform Bills carne at present before their Lordships. They arose out of the recommendation of a Commission appointed by the Crown to revise the law respecting real property; and when a Government authorized a Commission to revise the law, he held that Government to be bound to bring into and carry through Parliament the Bills which the Commissioners recommended. In point of fact, the Government was doing this at the present moment.
The Lord Chancellorwas happy to inform their Lordships, that if his noble and learned friend continued to act upon the principles which he had just laid down, he should put an end, by what he was about to say, to his noble and learned friend's opposition to this measure, which was now, in the strictest sense of the words, a Government measure. His noble and learned friend had said, that he (the Lord Chancellor) had originally proposed it as his own individual measure. True, he did so propose it in April, 1830, in the House of Commons, and again in December, 1830, in that House. On that latter occasion he had stated distinctly that it was his own individual measure, brought in on his own responsibility, and without any concert with any of his colleagues in the Administration. Mark the difference now. Formerly he had stated, that he had not communicated his Bill to his colleagues. Now, he stated that he had communicated it to them, and that it had obtained their concurrence. But their Lordships would, perhaps, recollect, that there was a wide difference between his former Bill and his present. His former Bill was much more extensive, and he would freely confess that if he had had to bring in a Bill of his own, it would have gone much further than this Bill was intended to go. He had formerly proposed to give to these Local Courts a jurisdiction over all suits where the cause of action did not exceed 100 l.,

1125
and also to give a different right of appeal. Alterations had been suggested upon these points by the Common Law Commissioners, to whom his original Bill had been referred for consideration and revision. When it was so altered as to meet, not only with their support, but also with the unanimous support of his colleagues in the Administration, he had brought it forward as a Government measure. As such it was proposed last year—as such it had been known for the last four or five months, and as nothing else. He trusted, that he had now removed all the doubts of his noble and learned friend as to the Bill being a Government measure, and having removed them, he trusted, that as neither his noble and learned friend nor any of the noble Lords by whom he was surrounded could be influenced by any party feelings against the Government, he should have their support. He was certain of having his noble and learned friend's support to this, which was, strictly speaking, a Government measure
The Duke of Cumberlandsaid, that the noble and learned Lord said, that this Bill was argued as if it were a party question; and though he did not mean to deny that he was an opponent of the present Government, he should be ashamed of himself, and he felt that he should be degrading his character, if he could allow party spirit to direct his vote on a measure of great general and national importance. He protested against this measure being discussed as a party measure.
Lord Lyndhurstassured the House that if his noble and learned friend could only satisfy him that this was a proper measure, it should have his support without any regard to the quarter from whence it emanated; but it certainly would not have his support otherwise. He assured their Lordships, that neither he nor any of his friends had treated this Bill as a party measure. It was true that at a meeting held previously to the second reading of it, they had determined not to divide against the principle of it, and to that determination they had come upon this principle, that the Bill was recommended to the House by a Commission acting under the authority of his Majesty. If he and others had considered it as a party measure, he could assure their Lordships, that the result of a division would not have been such as would have given his Majesty's Ministers any satisfaction, and of
1126
that no persons were more aware than his Majesty's Ministers themselves.
The Lord Chancellor.—These things escaping from the lips of noble Lords tend, I suppose, to sustain the high character of this House in the estimation of the country. I have never yet been accused of showing any want of respect to this House—I have never yet been accused of attempting to lower its dignity. I have heard of such charges being made against his Majesty's Ministers, but nothing can have so great a tendency to produce that effect as words such as those which have fallen from my noble and learned friend within the last few minutes. Whether they will produce that effect I cannot tell; but certainly they must have that tendency.
Lord Lyndhurst: I have been strangely misunderstood, if anything I have said deserves the reproof which I have just received from my noble and learned friend. Are such things as party feelings unknown to this House? I ask whether the noble Lords who come here nightly, and range themselves on the opposite benches, do not act upon party motives?
Lord Holland: I speak to order; and in so doing I am compelled myself to commit a breach of order; for I must request your Lordships to let me address you sitting, as my infirmities prevent me from addressing you standing. Speaking, then, to the point of order, I must say, that a more disorderly, a more irregular, and a more unparliamentary conversation than that which has taken place during the last ten minutes, I have never heard since I had the honour of a seat in this House. I have heard of party and of party motives in this House, where, if we act as honest men by our country, we are bound to consider the public interests only. It is irregular to allude to any motives, and certainly most irregular to allude to party motives in this place. The noble and learned Lord says, that he never considered this as a party measure. He tells us, that for certain reasons he and his friends determined not to divide against the second reading of the Bill; he adds, that if they had divided against it, and had acted together as a party, he knows what the result would have been in that case. Now, it is most irregular to describe a measure, brought in avowedly upon public grounds, as a party measure; and to say, how the House would have dealt with

1127
it had they considered it to be a party measure or not a party measure, is to use language which I am sure would not have been listened to fifteen years ago in this place. A more certain mode of disparaging the character of this House in the estimation of the public cannot be found than by our describing the Bills introduced for the public benefit as party measures. The speech of the noble Lord, which I rose—I beg pardon—which I speak to interrupt, appealed to the existence of party motives in this House. Is that parliamentary language, or is it not? Is it even consistent with the question which we are now pretending to discuss? The question before the House at present is, whether the registrars shall be removable from their office by address from the two Houses of Parliament, or whether an Act of Parliament shall be passed to enable the Judges who preside in the Courts of which they are ministerial officers to remove them, whenever they become incompetent to discharge the duties of them from age or other infirmity—for as yet we have had no answer to that point.
Lord Lyndhurstagreed with the noble Baron who had just sat down, that the sooner an end was put to this irregular conversation the better it would be for all parties. He would only remind their Lordships, in his own justification, how this discussion had originated. His noble and learned friend had charged him with opposing this Bill as the political opponent of the Law Reforms of the Government. His noble and learned friend said, that he opposed the Bill on party principles; that he denied, and in his denial he had defended himself to the best of his ability. He appealed to the speech which he had made against the committal of the Bill to prove, that he was not influenced, and he had then said, that he was not influenced, in his opposition to it by party principles, but by general considerations of state policy and expediency.
Lord Wynfordwould only say, that from what had just passed in the House it must be quite clear that party had nothing whatever to do with its discussions.
The Amendment agreed to, and clause agreed to.
On the 12th Clause, which defines who are to be the practitioners in the Courts of Judges in ordinary, being read,
Lord Lyndhurstasked whether in these Courts barristers were to be opposed by
1128
attornies? If so, it would lead to great confusion, as he had seen in his own experience at the Quarter Sessions. His Lordship, who had never practised in the minor Courts of the country, might not be aware of this circumstance. He therefore requested him to consider this point, and perhaps upon consideration he would see the propriety of striking out that part of the clause which gave to attornies the power of practising as advocates in these Courts.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that perhaps the clause was liable to this objection; but he had no doubt that wherever barristers were opposed to attornies, barristers would soon obtain the command of the Court.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he knew a Court in which the barristers refused to wear their gowns and wigs, so long as attornies were allowed to plead there. The Magistrates excluded the attornies, and the consequence was, that at the next sitting all the barristers appeared in their gowns and wigs. He also objected to the power given to the Judges of fining attornies to any amount for improper conduct, without the intervention of a Jury.
The Lord Chancelloradmitted, that the power given to the Judges was very large, but it was deemed necessary, in order to repress improper practices on the part of a certain class of practitioners who might resort to these new Courts, as well as to prevent parties, from a spirit of hostility to the present measure, throwing obstacles and impediments in the way of its execution. He had had himself an opportunity of knowing the virulence and violence with which the first Bill on this subject had been attacked by certain individuals, who had gone the length of sending circular letters to attornies in all parts of the country, with the object of depriving him of business at the bar, his only crime being that he was the author of a measure which, among other regulations, empowered the Judge in ordinary to suspend an attorney, guilty of improper conduct, from practising. He had, however, gone on unmoved by these attacks, and the alteration which appeared in the present Bill had been made, not from any yielding on the subject, but because it was thought that a more effectual control would be exercised over these parties by giving the Judge the power of fining, instead of suspending.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses to the 28th, inclusive, were

1129
agreed to, with the exception of the 15th, 18th, and 25th postponed.
The House resumed, the Committee to sit again.