Sitting of 28 April 1836

STIRLING CANAL BILL.
Mr. Walter Campbellrose, pursuant to a notice which he had given, to move, that the promoters of the Stirling Canal Bill be allowed to proceed therewith. He would briefly state the case on which he grounded his motion, and then leave to the House to decide upon its merits. A petition had been presented to the House, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to enable certain parties to construct the Stirling Canal, for the purpose of joining the Forth and Clyde navigation. The Bill had been intrusted to him (Mr. Walter Campbell), and on strict examination of the Standing Orders, be found, as he thought, that they had all been complied with. Four Gentlemen, however, subsequently petitioned against the Bill, on the ground that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. The petition was referred to the Standing Order Committee, and, after considerable discussion they decided, upon a division of 7 against 6, that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. The decision of the Standing Orders Committee was grounded upon their fifth resolution, which required that where any canal, being intended to be a continuation of another canal or, navigation,
428
was intended to be constructed, it was necessary to give notice to all parties who were interested in brooks, streams, or watercourses running into the original canal. He contended, that this was too strict an interpretation of the meaning of the fifth resolution. It was impossible to give a plan of all waters, brooks, and streams, without minutely describing all waters running into the original canal; and after even all this had been done, it would still be competent for the owner of a water meadow, the brook running through which had not been properly described, to come forward and say, that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. His (Mr. Walter Campbell's) opinion of the meaning of the fifth resolution was, that no person should be taken by surprise, or injured in his property without his knowledge. He contended, that there could be no surprise in this case, as the plan had been properly lodged with the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Stirling. He trusted, notwithstanding the decision to which the Standing Orders Committee had come, that the House would permit the Bill to go to a Select Committee upon its own merits. In the case of the Edinburgh Bridewell Bill in 1827; the Liverpool Dock Bill in 1828; and the Dorchester and Selby Road Bills, though the Standing Orders had not been complied with, the House had interposed, and permitted the Bills to proceed. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that notwithstanding the Standing Order, the promoters of the Stirling Canal Bill be allowed to proceed therewith.
Sir George Clerkwas anxious, as a Member of the Standing Orders Committee, to state to the House the reasons which would induce him to call on them to support the decision of the Standing Orders Committee. He believed that there never was a case in which the House had interfered with the Standing Orders Committee, unless upon the ground of preventing great public inconvenience. In the case of the Edinburgh Bridewell, the House had not suspended the Standing Order upon the application of any promoter of the Bill, but had been called on to do so by a Member of the then Government, who stated that it was most important that no time should be lost in proceeding with the Bill. He was not aware of the reason that influenced the House to interfere in the other cases that had been mentioned; but he was sure that they had been influenced

429
by some public considerations, and had been anxious that those cases should not be drawn into a precedent for similar interference. He was willing to admit that some inconvenience might arise from too strict an interpretation of Standing Order No. 5, and there might hereafter be some modification of it; but if that Order was now referred to, it would be found that no case had been made out for the interference of that House. The present was a canal communicating with an existing! canal, and to be supplied entirely from it. The object of having the plans laid before the Committee was, that full notice should be given to all the owners of the brooks and streams that supplied it. Now any owner might permit a certain portion of his stream to be supplied to a canal, but it would be an act of the greatest injustice if that Canal Company could afterwards, without due notice to the owner, give such an indefinite quantity to other canals as would draw off the entire supply from the owner's mills. He did not think the House was bound to go further than to put a proper interpretation upon the Standing Order which had been referred to. He concurred in the decision of the Standing Orders Committee, and he therefore left it for the decision of the House.
Mr. Lochsaid, though this was a question of very great importance to the midland counties of England, there were many instances within his own knowledge where such interpretation had not been put upon the Standing Order. There was the Liverpool and White Church canal, in which it was within his own knowledge the plans were not considered requisite. He thought the interpretation attempted to be put on the Standing Order was extraordinary, and, therefore, he would support the motion of the hon. Member (Mr. W. Campbell).
Mr. Palmer, as one of the Standing Orders Committee, was very desirous to have the opinion of the Chair as to whether that Committee had properly done its duty or not.
Sir George Stricklandsaid, that by the Standing Orders parties were bound to deposit a plan and description of the county through which the canal proceeded, and this he believed had not been done in the present case. But there was another question before the House, viz., whether the party did show such a case of hardship as that the indulgence of the House and of the Standing Orders Committee
430
might be expected? On that point he would not dwell; but he thought that the hon. Member who brought forward the case, was defective in one part of his speech, inasmuch as he did not show a case of public inconvenience of such a magnitude as to induce the House to dissent from the regular order. It was the duty of the House to adhere to the Standing Orders as a regular rule, but where a case was shown of strong necessity, or of great public inconvenience, he would be the first to allow a departure from them, and to show indulgence to the parties.
Sir James Grahamwished to state the reasons which induced him to concur with the majority of the Standing Orders Committee. Before the House reversed this decision, he begged to state that two Committees had concurred in the opinion that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. This, therefore, was an appeal from the concurrent decisions of two Committees, and was in itself a question of great importance. He admitted to the fullest extent that an adherence to the Standing Orders must lead to considerable inconvenience in the midland counties in the formation of any canal, but notwithstanding this he was bound to state that the Standing Orders, although, undoubtedly, they would lead to inconvenience, were consistent with the rights of property and the principles of justice. The Standing Orders, as now framed, whatever might be the inconvenience arising from it, was strictly in conformity with the sacred rights of property in the original proprietor. Now this was the case:—A party came, and, by a legislative enactment, procured a certain control over the property of another; but the Legislature distinctly said to the parties, that this control was given for a specific purpose, and to a limited extent. The Legislature tells the proprietor of the stream or watercourse, that for the public good it is necessary that he should surrender to a certain extent his control over the stream, but certainly after the supply of the canal the surplus water both in law and in equity belonged to the original proprietor, and no party had a right to dispose of that surplus to another. Should a miller have a right to agree with a party for the supply of water for his mill, and then go to another party and dispose of the surplus water after his own mill was supplied? In like way the lord of a manor makes an enclosure. He gives

431
the right of burning lime to those commoners who concur with him, but surely he does not thereby entitle the commoners to burn lime for sale. The cases were quite analogous to that under the consideration of the House. Whatever inconvenience might result from the standing Order it was in strict conformity with the rights of property and the rights of the original owners which the House was bound to protect.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonwas surprised that his hon. Friend, the Member for Yorkshire, should suppose the Standing Order was so clear that nobody could doubt the meaning of it, when, in fact, in the Committee upon the Standing Orders a considerable difference arose, and a division took place upon that very Standing Order. He thought that in the case of this canal the Standing Order had been distinctly complied with, and he believed that in the Committee he had moved a resolution to that effect. All that was required by the Standing Orders was that a direct line should be drawn upon those points from which the water was to be taken, and that had been done. This canal would enter the other at its highest level, and could not interfere with the rights of any person, as it would be supplied by the waste water, that would otherwise run over; and as it was waste water, which would flow when the canal was at its highest level; it could not be said that it was drawn from the springs which supplied the original canal. He conceived the projectors of the measure had done all which could be expected from them in giving notice to the parties interested in it.
Mr. Denis O'Connor, as one of the majority who voted in the Committee of Standing Orders, wished to state his perfect concurrence in the view taken by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland. It appeared to him the parties had not complied with the rules of the House, and that it should be regarded as the extension of the original line of canal.
Mr. Walter Campbellreplied: The complaining parties were all aware of the source from whence the canal was to be supplied. He had not entered into the merits of the Bill, but he would now take the liberty of stating that the canal had not one lock from one end to the other— that it was literally waste water by which it was supplied, and that no injury would result to these parties, as the whole water of these streams was given to that canal.
432
There was a vulgar Scotch proverb which he should mention, as it was very trite and applicable: it had been said, that these parties had been injured; yes, and a pig might fly, but it was a very unlikely bird.
The Speakersaid, that as his opinion had been appealed to, he considered that property in water was as much deserving protection from that House as property in land. It seemed that the question was considered so important that the matter was referred back to the Committee on the Bill. That Committee was of opinion that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, and the Standing Orders Committee, to which the question had been referred, were of the same opinion, then the question came before the House, had the Standing Orders been complied with? He thought that this canal was an extension of the original canal, a proportion of the water of which already belongs to the original proprietor of the brooks or streams, and being an extension of the original canal, he thought the decision of the Committee correct. If that Committee had decided on what he understood to be the nature of the Standing Order No. 5, would the House by a different construction set aside the standing order. He called upon the House to sustain and confirm the decision of the Standing Order Committee.—Motion withdrawn.

EDINBURGH POOR RATES.
The Attorney General The Attorney General moved, that the Report on the Edinburgh Poor-Rates Bill be brought up.
Mr. A. Johnstonsaid, that he should oppose the bringing up the Report on this Bill, which went to take away from the members of the College of Justice in Edinburgh privileges which had been confirmed to them by many Acts of Parliament, both Scotch and British, during the last 300 years, and which had been solemnly sanctioned by a decision of the courts of law in 1790. The law incorporations of Edinburgh were ready to wave their privileges on the condition that the whole subject was brought fully before the House, instead of being thus introduced in detail, and that the question of the annuity tax was finally determined. The Faculty of Advocates had, in 1834, proposed to abandon their exemption from taxation on condition that the tax should be extended to all persons paying a rental of 10 l. or upwards. The rental which this measure would affect was about

433
40,000 l. He was convinced a less partial measure must be brought forward for the consideration of the House. He should be extremely sorry to see it interfere with those peculiar and vested privileges which it was proposed by this Bill to destroy, and feeling in the strongest manner the great injustice that was contemplated by it, he would move that the Report be brought up that day six months.
The Attorney Generalprotested against the grounds upon which this Bill was opposed. About the year 1698 a Bill was passed for the purpose of raising poor-rates in the city of Edinburgh, which were then very inconsiderable, and the members of the College of Justice, consisting of the judges, the advocates, the attornies, the solicitors, all the clerks, and all the officers connected with the courts— certainly a most honourable body—contrived to have a clause introduced exempting them from contributing to the support of the poor. Several successive Bills had been passed for the relief of the poor in Edinburgh, in each of which they contrived to have the same clause inserted. He imputed nothing to the Faculty of Advocates, and notwithstanding the zeal of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's, he could inform him that a very large portion of them were favourable to this Bill; they thought, in fact, that they were placed in a disgraceful position, and were anxious to be removed from it. There were 600 persons in Edinburgh, who called themselves members of the College of Justice, who would not contribute one shilling, although their servants and domestics were frequently supported out of that fund. The exemption, therefore, was entirely one of a personal nature. It was said, wait until every thing could be settled together. But what, he would ask, had the collecting of an annuity-tax for the maintenance of the clergy to do with the relief of the poor? In his opinion nothing. Under these circumstances, he hoped the motion of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's would meet with no sympathy from that House.
Sir George Clerkconceived, although this was a private Bill, that it involved a great public principle, and ought to receive the deliberate attention of the House. They were called upon to consider, as had been yesterday gravely asserted, whether, in these enlightened days, a measure of general utility was to supersede one of vested interests; but he at
434
least would hope, that that House was not prepared to set aside, without due compensation, the vested rights of any body of men, or even of any individuals, merely upon the ground of general expediency. He was not there to argue the polity of the grounds upon which the privileges in question were granted in 1698. The question hen arose, when poor-rates were for the first time to be imposed in Edinburgh, whether the College of Justice should be exempt or not, and it was maintained successfully that it should, and in all subsequent Bills proposing local assessment no charge had been made upon the members of that college, unless voluntarily on their part; but he could state, that in no instance where any great public improvement was about to be made had this body urged their privilege of exemption; on the contrary, they had always evinced a readiness to bear their share of any assessment to be levied for such a purpose; and in the next place, they generally made use of the powers they possessed for the advantage of the community at large. But the most important point was, that they were ready to wave their privilege on the condition that the question which had yesterday been under the consideration of the House (that of the annuity-tax) should be fairly settled, and religious instruction to a sufficient extent secured to persons of the Established Church in Edinburgh, together with the settlement of the Poor-rates question. The Attorney-General himself objected in the Committee, of which he was Chairman, to have the two Bills separated. When the Municipal Bill for Scotland was presented, the Faculty of Advocates stated their willingness to give up their privileges, if these two objects were kept together, but that if separated, they would not consent to do so. Was the House to deprive them of their vested rights, and of that power which they exercised upon any great question relating to Edinburgh, in securing the introduction of a clause for the benefit of the community at large? Their privileges would have been withdrawn last year, upon securing to the clergy a proper maintenance, and making a provision for the poor. It was, therefore, upon these considerations they justified the continuance of their privileges, at the same time that they were willing to give them up upon a settlement of these two questions.
Mr. Robert Steuarthad heard with surprise the arguments of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's in support of his amendment, and the only one he had used in favour of exemption was the very expensive education which those persons who were exempt had to receive. The House, however, should not infer there from, that any portion of that expense went for the support of the clergy, or for the support of the poor, but went to establish a fund for their own benefit. He really thought it exceedingly unjust that the most influential body in the city of Edinburgh should be totally exempt from contributing to the relief of the poor and the support of the clergy. If the annuity-tax, which bore so hardly upon some, were divided amongst all classes of the community, those on whom it now pressed would be relieved one-fifth. Even supposing there was some ground of objection to the annuity-tax, what reason could they have for continuing their exemption to poor-rates? That he conceived to be one of the strongest parts of the case, and all the present Bill proposed doing, was, to remove abuses, which the hon. Baronet called vested rights.
Mr. Pringlecalled the attention of the House to the fact, that the College of Justice had not been dealt quite fairly by, as the Lord-Advocate had not brought forward his promised measure respecting the annuity-tax, while the exemption from payment to the poor only was attacked. If both were introduced, the members of the College of Justice were quite ready to relinquish any advantage they at present enjoyed, for the benefit of their fellow-citizens, and without any pecuniary compensation.
The Lord Advocatestated, that, as a member of the College of Justice, whose privileges were the subject of discussion, he begged to say a few words. If those privileges could be defended on any just or equitable principle, no Member of the House would be more zealous, and he believed few more interested than he was to defend them. The question relative to those privileges was, whether the Judges, Advocates, Writers to the Signet, Solicitors, and Officers of Court, should be exempted from contributing towards the support of the poor, along with the other citizens of Edinburgh, who were taxed for that purpose. He had not been able to discover any fair or reasonable ground on
436
which they could desire to possess such an exemption. He was bound, therefore, not to oppose, but to support, the Bill. The Faculty of Advocates, to which he belonged, appeared to feel that there were no grounds on which they could directly oppose the Bill; but they stated, that they wished another arrangement with regard to the clergy—a matter of great complexity and difficulty—and that, therefore, they should not be called upon to contribute to the poor, until that separate question was finally arranged. The obvious answer to that argument was, that these were two totally distinct questions, and it was no reason because the matter as to the clergy might remain unsettled, that a Bill should not be passed to regulate the support of the poor. The hon. Member for Midlothian had referred to what passed in Committee last year, but he (the Lord Advocate) had then stated, as he did now, that the questions as to the clergy and as to the poor were separate subjects; and while he then stated his intention of bringing forward this Session a Bill with reference to the annuity tax for the clergy, he had expressly said, that the provisions for the poor would not be included in that Bill, and that that was a subject which he was not called upon, officially, to take any charge of, although he then had a most decided opinion that no such exemption should be continued in favour of the members of the College of Justice. He might shortly state why he had not hitherto introduced such a Bill. He had hoped that the Report of the Municipal Commission for Scotland would have afforded him the means of framing it, but the business was undertaken by his right hon. Friend near him, who went to Scotland, and framed a plan preferable in a great many respects to any other that had been devised. That was unfortunately rejected by the creditors of the city of Edinburgh; and until some other proposal could be brought forward, he was not in a situation to introduce any Bill on the subject of the clergy. That circumstance, however, afforded no ground for delaying for one hour, this measure with regard to the poor. The sooner it was fixed and settled the better; but it was a very extraordinary view indeed that the other measure would be promoted by delaying this Bill, which had no bearings toward it. The Writers to the Signet had

437
taken a most direct and intelligible view of the subject. They did not attempt to mix it up with provisions relating to the clergy, with which it had no connexion, but they maintained, that all existing members of the College of Justice should be exempted during their lives, and that those only who might in future become members, should be compelled to contribute towards the poor. He believed that the House would be of opinion with him, that so far from the exemption being allowed to continue, it had already subsisted too long, and that he was not unduly surrendering the privileges of the body to which he belonged, when he voted that they ought, along with the rest of the citizens of Edinburgh, to contribute to the support of the poor of that city.
The House divided on the original question. Ayes 108; Noes 77:—Majority 31.

List of the AYES.

Astley, Sir J.

Hutt, W.

Baines, Edward

Jephson, C. D. O.

Barnard, E. G.

Jervis, John

Barry, G. S.

Labouchere, Henry

Berkeley, hon. F.

Leader, J. T.

Bernal, Ralph

Lefevre, C. S.

Bewes, T.

Lennard, Thomas B.

Bish, T.

Lennox, Lord G.

Bridgman, Hewitt

Lennox, Lord A.

Brotherton, J.

Lister, E. C.

Buckingham, J. S.

Loch, James

Buller, E.

Lynch, A. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M. bt.

Mackenzie, S.

Butler, hon. P.

M'Taggart, J.

Chalmers, P.

Mangles, J.

Chapman, M. L.

Marsland, Henry

Codrington, Sir E.

Maule, hon. Fox

Crawford, W. S.

Maxwell, John

Crawford, W.

Morpeth, Lord

Divett, E.

Morrison, J.

Duncombe, T. S.

Mostyn, E.

Dundas, J. D.

Mullins, F. W.

Evans, George

Murray, John Arch.

Ewart, W.

North, Frederick

Fazakerley, N.

O'Connell, D.

Ferguson, Robert

O'Connell, J.

Gillon, W. D.

O'Connell, M. J.

Gisborne, T.

O'Connell, Morgan

Grote, G.

O'Conor, Don

Hall, B.

O'Ferrall, M.

Harvey, D. W.

Oliphant, Lawrence

Hastie, A.

O'Loghlen, M.

Heathcoat, J.

Oswald, J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Palmer, General C.

Hector, C. J.

Pattison, J.

Horsman, E.

Philips, G. R.

Howard, hon. E.

Potter, R.

Howard, P. H.

Poulter, John Sayer

Howick, Viscount

Price, Sir R.

Hoy, James Barlow

Pryme, George

Hume, J.

Russell, Lord John

438

Scholefield, Joshua

Tulk, C. A.

Scott, J. W.

Villiers, C.

Seale, Colonel

Wakley, T.

Sharpe, General

Wallace, R.

Stanley, E. J.

Ward, Henry George

Stewart, P. M.

Wemyss, Captain

Strickland, Sir G.

Wilkins, W.

Stuart, Lord J.

Williams W. A.

Stuart, V.

Wood, C.

Thomson, C. P.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Thompson, Paul B.

Young, G. F.

Thompson, Colonel

Thorneley, T.

TELLERS.

Tooke, W.

Campbell, Sir J.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A., bart.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Archdall, M.

Hay, Sir J., bart.

Bailey, J.

Hayes, Sir E. S., bart.

Baillie, Colonel H.

Jackson, Sergeant

Barclay, C.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Baring, F.

Johnston, Andrew

Baring, H. Bingham

Kearsley, J. H.

Baring, Thomas

Knight, H. G.

Barneby, John

Lewis, David

Beckett, Sir J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Boldero, Henry G.

Lucas, Edward

Bolling, Wm.

Lushington, S. R.

Bradshaw, J.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Mahon, Lord

Calcraft, J. H.

Meynell, Henry

Campbell, Sir J.

Peel, Sir R.

Canning, Sir S.

Plumptre, J. P.

Chandos, Marq,

Rae, Sir Wm. bart.

Chichester, A.

Reid, Sir J. Rae

Cole, Lord

Richards, J.

Conolly, E. M.

Ross, Charles

Cripps, Joseph

Rushbrooke, R.

Darlington, Earl of

Shaw, F.

Eastnor, Viscount

Sheppard, Thomas

Egerton, Sir P.

Sinclair, Sir George

Elwes, J.

Smyth, Sir G. H. bart.

Entwisle, John

Somerset, Lord G.

Estcourt, Thos. G. B.

Stanley, Edward

Ferguson, G.

Tennent, J. E.

Finch, George

Thomas, Colonel

Foley, Edw. Thomas

Trevor, hon. Arthur

Forbes, Wm.

Vere, Sir C. B., bart.

Fremantle, Sir T. W.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Wall, C. B.

Gladstone, Thomas

Young, J.

Gladstone, Wm. E.

Young, Sir L. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

TELLERS.

Graham, Sir J.

Clerk, Sir G., bart.

Hale, Robert B.

Pringle, A.

FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.
Mr. Wakley Mr. Wakley moved for "Copies of the Evidence and Verdicts of the Juries at the Inquests lately held at Woolwich on the bodies of two Marines, who had been subjected to the punishment of Flogging." He deeply regretted that this motion was to be opposed by the Ministers of the Crown. It appeared to him to be a matter of great im-

439
portance that the evidence of an initiatory court, like that of a Coroner's inquest, should always be laid before this House, in order that an opportunity might be afforded of knowing the circumstances of any case or subject with reference to which the House might be called upon to legislate. The House ought not to be left without the means of knowing whether the proceedings and the verdicts in these cases were consistent with the proper administration of justice. He did not mean to go into these cases, because it would be invidious in him to make any observations on the conduct of any person in the absence of the evidence. This he would say, that there were several hon. Members in that House who required the information which he sought. There was a Bill before the House to regulate the remuneration of medical witnesses for attendance at coroners' inquests, and there might be circumstances in the cases alluded to which would assist the House in coming to a decision on that measure.
Lord John Russellcertainly could imagine peculiar circumstances in which that House would feel it to be their duty, in an extreme case, to call upon the Coroner to produce his notes of the proceedings; but he submitted that, without some very grievous case of this kind, it was inexpedient for the House to call a Coroner before them to give up his notes of evidence, in order that the House might read such evidence taken before a legal tribunal. He presumed that the evidence which had been given on the occasions to which this motion had reference had been fairly given, for the hon. Gentleman had said nothing to the contrary; and perhaps he was the only Member in the House who could, from a knowledge of the subject, say that the evidence, as it affected the medical practitioners, was unsatisfactory. He thought it would be very imprudent if the House were to interfere with the administration of ordinary justice so far as to call for evidence. Now, supposing that the evidence of the medical men (although the hon. Member had certainly not said so) had not been given with a sufficient knowledge of the principles of surgery, still the Coroner's Jury's verdict was not conclusive; and supposing the case of a Coroner's verdict of wilful murder, or no murder, or accidental death, it was always competent for persons to bring it before the tribunals of this country. He trusted that the House would refuse to accede to the motion.
Mr. Wakleyhad no personal motive in
440
asking for this evidence; he thought it a very proper motion; but after what had fallen from the noble Lord he should not press the question.—Motion withdrawn.

COPYRIGHT ACT.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, I rise, Sir, in pursuance of the notice which has been some time before the House, to ask its leave to introduce a Bill, for the repeal of so much of the 54th of George the 3rd, commonly called the Copyright Act, as enjoins the gratuitous delivery of eleven copies of every published work, to eleven of the public institutions, colleges, and libraries of different towns in the kingdom. In doing this, I shall endeavour to lay before the House, as briefly as I can, the facts on which I shall chiefly ground my arguments for this repeal: and if these facts shall prove, that the gratuitous delivery of these eleven copies, as now enjoined by law, is injurious to the cause of literature, and to the general interests of the great majority of those engaged in its pursuit, I doubt not that the House will readily accord me the introduction of the Bill proposed. We have heard of late, within the walls of Parliament, many and repeated denunciations of what are called the taxes on knowledge, and while one party has sought the remission of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers, another party has put forward the prior claim for a reduction of the duty on paper generally—as this affects books as well as newspapers, and is, therefore, more emphatically a tax upon every description of knowledge, while the stamps operate as a hindrance to the diffusion of political information only. With the views of both of these parties, I entirely concur; and I should wish to see them both successful in their pleadings before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, Sir, the same principle which would lead me to vote for the remission of the Stamp Duty on newspapers and the reduction of the excise duty on paper generally, will carry me a step further, where those hon. Members on both sides of the House will, I hope, be ready to follow me, in demanding a repeal of the tax upon books, to the full as injurious as either of the two preceding ones, because it affects all books that are printed, whether political or otherwise, and operates most injuriously to the spread of knowledge, without adding any thing whatever to his Majesty's Exchequer in the shape of revenue. For the other taxes on knowledge, there is at least this apology or excuse: that they add to the public fund in the national treasury, a large portion of what they take from the consumer—though this would, be no reason

441
with me for defending them—for I have voted for their repeal on all occasions, and shall do so again, whenever the opportunity presents itself. But for this particular tax upon knowledge, which it is the special object of my motion to repeal, there is not even that feeble excuse: since it yields nothing whatever to the King's exchequer, and no portion of what is lost by authors and publishers, in consequence of this tax, ever finds its way back again to the coffers of the public.
That a tax upon the materials which enter into the composition of printed books —thus rendering the information they are designed to convey more difficult of access to the public—is unsound in principle and pernicious in policy, no friend of education can, I think, for a moment deny. But if it be wrong to tax the materials of which books are composed, what shall we say to the injustice of again taxing the books themselves when they are completed—and that, too, to such an extent as materially to limit the profits and consumption of books in general, by enhancing their price, and presenting other hindrances to their sale; operating, in some instances, as a positive prohibition, and preventing the appearance by strangling them in their birth, of very valuable works, which cannot be published at all, and are, therefore, lost to the world entirely, in consequence of this most heavy and obnoxious impost? The Act, commonly called the "Copyright Act," is entitled an Act for the Encouragement of Learning; though it must strike all who read its provisions, that it is a strange way indeed of encouraging learning, to subject all its cultivators, who desire to make their researches public for the benefit of others, to a heavy tax, by compelling them, before they can sell a single copy for their own benefit, to give away eleven copies of their works to eleven public libraries and institutions, from which they receive no benefit whatever in return, but by which they absolutely injure the sale of their own remaining copies to a far greater extent than the loss of the eleven copies at first abstracted. If this heavy tax be really favourable to the encouragement of learning, then, on the same principle, tithes should be regarded as an encouragement to agriculture —the timber duties an encouragement to shipping — stamps an encouragement to newspapers — and taxes in general an encouragement to industry. There may have been periods in our history when such doctrines would find advocates, as in those days when men were called upon to
442
believe that the National Debt was a blessing, as all the interest of it was spent in the country, and that taxes of all kinds were beneficial, as the money raised in this way was again distributed over the community; but those days are passed away; and even the poetical imagery of Edmund Burke, who compared the operations of taxation to the ascending of the vapours from the surface of the earth, from whence they were again poured down in refreshing showers and fertilizing dews, would find no admirers in the present age, when men have learnt to discover, that though taxes must be paid to support the legitimate expenses of the state, all that is drawn from the people beyond that necessary amount, is to that extent a hindrance to their prosperity.
If it could be shown, indeed, that the interests of learning required the gratuitous delivery of the eleven copies of every work now published, to the eleven favoured institutions that receive them, and that the repeal of this privilege would cause learning to wane and decay, I should hesitate before I pressed such a motion as this on the attention of the House, because I believe that the encouragement of learning, and the promotion of knowledge, is one of the first and most important duties of a civilized nation; and I believe also, that all classes participate, directly or indirectly, in a nearer or in a more remote degree, in the benefits conferred on a nation by the increase of intelligence, and, above all, by its general diffusion among all classes of the community. But, if I shall be able to show that this tax is as impolitic and injurious in practice, as it is unjust and indefensible in theory,—that it tends to the discouragement instead of the encouragement of learning—that it is not necessary to the institutions for whose uses it is exacted,— that it brings nothing to the public revenue, but on the contrary abstracts from it,—and that it is highly injurious to the interests of authors, printers, artists, publishers, and readers of books in general, I cannot but feel assured that the House will go along with me in my endeavours to rectify an evil which has been too long suffered to continue.
As I stated, however, that my arguments would be founded on the facts that I should be able to adduce in support of my proposition, I beg leave to lay before the House a very brief statement of the history of this subject, which is collected from a very able Report laid before Parliament in the Session of 1818, and founded on the evi-

443
dence obtained by order of the House of Commons.
The earliest foundation for a claim from any public library for a gratuitous delivery of any book, was a deed, by which, in 1610, at the request of Sir Thomas Bodley, the Stationers' Company engaged to deliver a free copy of every book printed by them as a corporation, to the University of Oxford. In 1662, an Act was passed to prevent abuses in printing seditious and treasonable books, by which, three copies of every printed book were ordered to be deposited by every printer with the Master of the Stationers' Company, who was to send one of these to the King's Library, and one to each of the Vice-Chancellors of the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, for the two libraries there. This Act, however, expired in 1695. Up to that period, the property of authors, in what is called the copyright of their original works, was held to be perpetual, and to rest in common law, according to the decisions of nine to three of the judges of the land. In 1710, the Act of the 8th of Queen Anne, enacted that nine copies of each printed book should be delivered by the printer to the Company of Stationers, to be thus disposed of:—one to the Royal Library, two to the Libraries of Oxford and Cambridge, four to the four Universities of Scotland, one to the Library of Sion College, London, and one to the Library of Advocates in Edinburgh. By this Act it was always held, however, that unless the books were entered at Stationers'-hall, they could claim no protection against invasion of copyright, and unless entered there, the delivery of the nine copies was not binding. It was upon this construction of the Act, that the 41st of George 3rd expressly entitles the Libraries of Trinity College and King's Inn, Dublin, to two copies also, of all books entered at Stationers'-hall, making the present number of eleven copies, instead of the former number of nine. In two trials that took place on this subject in 1812 in the King's Bench, it was ruled, however, that whether the books were entered at Stationers'-hall or not, the copyright would be defended from violation, and the eleven copies for the libraries would be claimed. By the last decision also, the burthen of the delivery was put on the publishers, instead of the claim being left to be made, as it formerly was, by the libraries.
In 1813, this tax was felt so grievously by authors and publishers, that many petitions were presented against it, and a Select Committee of the House of Com-
444
mons was appointed to take evidence on the subject. Instead of any improement beign made in the law, however, by this effort on the part of the petitioners, it was in reality made worse; for in 1814, when the last Act was passed on the subject—namely, the 54th of George 3rd, c. 156, the eleven copies were continued to be exacted from the publishers, and that for the British Museum was directed to be of the largest size and best edition, however costly that might be, or however few the numbers of such fine copies that might be printed.
This, then, is the state of the law upon the subject at the present moment; and what renders it the more obnoxious is, that England is the only country in which an Act of Parliament has been passed nominally for the encouragement of learning, but in reality for increasing its difficulties, by such an exorbitant demand on its productions. In America, in Prussia, in Saxony, and in Bavaria, one copy only of each published book is required to be furnished to the State: in France and Austria only two; and in these only when exclusive copyright is claimed and protected:—while in England, eleven copies are exacted, not for the State—for of all these libraries, the British Museum alone can be considered as a National or State establishment, the other ten being exclusive corporations—and this too, applying to all works, from the "Penny Magazine" to the "Edinburgh Review," among periodicals; and from the "Child's First Lesson Book" to Newton's "Principia," among separate publications.
In 1818, five years after the first inquiry, the subject was again taken up by the booksellers, and a Select Committee was again appointed, which sat for a considerable period, and examined not less than thirty witnesses, including men of the first eminence connected with the business of publishing. The facts contained in this evidence are so remarkable, and, as it appears to me, so convincing, that I have taken the pains to select some of the more striking portions to lay before the House; and though this may be less agreeable to myself and others, than offering the substance of the evidence in general terms, I believe it will on the whole be better to present the questions and answers in the form in which they are published by order of Parliament, that there may be no possible misconstruction, or even suspicion of misconception, as to the strict and literal fidelity of the statements themselves. I will, therefore, with permission of the House, submit these portions of the evidence seriatim, as I have

445
extracted them from the Parliamentary Report.
Mr. Owen Reescalled in, and examined.
"Have the goodness to inform the Committee what sum has the delivery of the eleven copies under the Copyright Act cost your House since July 1811?—I presume you mean from the date of the passing of the Act in 1814: From the nearest calculation we are enabled to make, the actual cost of the books delivered upon the whole since the passing of the Act, is about 3,000 l.
"Is that the sale price, or the actual cost to you?—The actual cost to us, and the incidental expenses.
Do you in this include the expense of books in which you have shares, and are managed by others, or do you mean those published by yourselves?—Only those published by ourselves.
"Have you in consequence of the burthen of this delivery declined printing any works which you would otherwise have undertaken? — Yes; we have declined printing some works, particularly a work of Nondescript Plants, by Baron Humboldt, from South America; being obliged to deliver the eleven copies has always weighed very strongly with us in declining other works.
"Have any books been returned to you from the libraries?—None whatever.
"Have they demanded all books promiscuously printed, or have they made any selection?—Every book entered at Stationers' Hall has been sent to them. No selection has ever been made; nine copies of all books have been demanded, and eleven of all, with the exception of Novels and Music, which have not been demanded by two of the libraries.
"What duty do you pay upon paper?— The duty upon paper used for printing is from twenty to twenty-five per cent on the value of the paper.
"Are the English Universities exempted from the duties on paper?—They are exempted from that duty on all books printed in Latin, Greek, the Oriental, and in the Northern Languages, as well as Bibles, Testaments, and Common Prayers, printed by themselves at the Universities.
"Can they therefore undersell you?—They have it in their power by not paying the duty on paper in those instances.
"Have you any list of what the delivery of the eleven copies amounts to of any particular work?—I have the list of a few works.

1

Rees' Cyclopedia, royal

£145

16

0

10

Rees' demy

810

0

0

11

Daniell's Coast Views

346

10

0

"Do you require any protection of Copyright for high-priced books?—That is hardly
446
necessary, but in a very few instances; generally speaking, there are very few expensive books of which the Copyright is of any value after the publication.
"Was it not usual before the passing of this Act for the public libraries to subscribe to, and frequently to purchase, learned and very expensive works; and did not authors calculate on the Universities as probable purchasers of the work they were about to bring forward?—They certainly have looked to the Universities as subscribers or purchasers of these books; and upon examination, I find it was the custom of some of the libraries who now claim books under the Act, to subscribe to expensive works, and that within fourteen years after the passing of the Act of Anne.
"Have not some valuable books been discontinued from want of sufficient subscribers? —Yes, there have been important works which have been abandoned for want of sufficient encouragement:—among others, Rev. Mr. Boucher's Dictionary of Obsolete and Provincial Words; Dr. Murray's (the Editor of Bruce's Travels) History of Languages; Translations of Matthew Paris and other Latin Historians. (William of Malmesbury only published. One more has been translated, but not published.) An extensive British Biography, arranged in periods. A considerable portion of this work has been written by some of the first writers of the present day. The collected works of Sir Isaac Newton; Hearne's (the Antiquary) Works; Collections of the Irish Historians; Bowden's Translation of the Doomsday-Book, after the Translation was finished, and one volume and a-half printed.
"Would you have preferred abandoning the Copyright to giving the eleven copies?— In most instances of expensive books we would do it, particularly in books of limited numbers.
"At the time the Copyright Act of 1814 passed, did you understand it would include a demand for the reprints of old books?—We certainly did not expect it.
"In point of fact, according to the Act in 1814 having been passed, have you not been obliged to deliver some very expensive works of old English Literature, which otherwise would not have been demandable?—We have.
"Has not that demand had an effect, among other reasons, of inducing you not to embark in other reprints of the same nature? —It has.
"Are not many of those prints verbatim reprints of works already in the respectable libraries, or some of them?—They are.
"Can you state the peculiar injury to you in that series of publications, in consequence of the delivery of the eleven copies?—I believe not above one of that series of Chronicles was published after the passing of the Act; it would have been very heavy had they been, published subsequently to the Act.
"Do you consider the tax of the eleven

447
copies a great prevention to future undertakings of such series of ancient English Historians?—I certainly do.
"You were concerned in the reprint of Holinshed and other Chronicles of English History?—I had the direction of that publication."
Mr. Richard Taylorcalled in, and examined.
"What would be the price of press-work and paper for eleven copies of an 8vo. work of thirty sheets, or 480 pages?—Eleven copies of an 8vo. work of thirty sheets, the press-work and paper only, not including the composition, would cost from 7l. 2s. 6d. to 27 l., according to the quality of the paper and of the press-work.
"What would be the price of press-work and paper for eleven copies of a 4to. volume of eighty sheets, and what would it sell for, supposing the volume to contain from 500 to 600 pages?—The price of press-work and paper for eleven copies of such a volume, which would contain 640 pages, would be about 36 l.
"Would not the public libraries be the subscribers upon whom you would most naturally depend, if the Act of 1814 had not passed?— Certainly, works of that kind, and such other works as I have mentioned, must depend principally upon the public libraries for their sale.
"Had you not an ancestor eminent for Biblical learning?—Dr. John Taylor, author of the Hebrew Concordance, and I was about to mention, with the leave of the Committee, that to that work, which I believe was published about 1750, almost all these libraries subscribed. I see, among the list of subscribers for that work, the College of Christ Church, Oxford; Exeter College; Caius College; St. John's College; the University Library; St. Peter's; Queen's; Corpus Christi, and Trinity. The very Rev., the Principal of the University of Edinburgh; the Bursar of Trinity College, Dublin; and the University of Glasgow, who subscribed to it for the use of their libraries; The University of Glasgow not only did not take a copy of this book without payment, but also sent him the degree of Doctor of Divinity, by the hands of the Divinity Professor, who was going to England.
"Do you think, that the knowledge on the part of the public libraries of the different Colleges of Cambridge and Oxford, that each of them are entitled to a copy of every work; and that, therefore, such works must appear as soon as published, has a tendency in the first instance to prevent the libraries in private Colleges from purchasing these works, knowing that they would be deposited in the University library by the compulsory operation of the law?—I think it has that tendency; and I know a very strong case in point,
448
which was the case of some Tables for determining the value of life annuities, and securities, composed by Mr. George Barrett, who had employed himself for many years in calculating them, and for whom we printed the prospectus. The work was considered as very valuable by persons acquainted with the subject, and it was thought advisable to have it printed, but the expense was so considerable, as scarcely to make it worth while. It would have made two quarto volumes of table-work, which is very expensive work, as I have already mentioned. It was a work to which he thought it probable he should easily get subscriptions from the University Libraries; because the Colleges having considerable landed property, and having to grant leases for lives, these tables would be very useful to them, and to the agents of all those who had great landed property, which they let on lease. He applied through some friend to those connected with the University Library at Oxford for a subscription; and the answer he received was, 'that the University had a right to a copy gratis; and as it was only a book of reference, this one would serve all the colleges.'"
Mr. John Clarkcalled in, and examined.
"Have you lately declined the publication of any law books, with the improvement of notes?—I have.
"What are they?—One of them was Mr. Anstruther's Reports.
"Any others?—Not immediately that I recollect. I have made reprints of law books, without the addition of notes or improvements.
"Why did you decline the publication of them with improvements?—Because, if I had added the notes, I should have been necessarily obliged to deliver the eleven copies to the public libraries.
"If you merely published the reprint of any book, without additions or improvements, you would not be liable to deliver the copies to the Universities?—I should not, having delivered them before.
"Should you decline republishing a book with notes for that reason?—I should, in some instances.
"Would this be the only ground upon which you would decline the addition of the notes?—Certainly, in small impressions.
"Are there any other law books, which the delivery of the eleven copies would deter you from publishing?—Yes, there are others; but I should wish to decline naming them, for being only in embryo, something may turn up at a future period.
"But they are works that you should conceive would be injured by the delivery of the eleven copies?—Yes.
"How does the delivery of the eleven copies operate upon the smaller editions of your law

449
books?—In a great measure in preventing the reprint of them.
"What effect had the delivery of the eleven copies upon the printing of Mr. Hatsell's Parliamentary Precedents?—After deducting the expenses attaching to the publication, and if all sold, the balance of 52 l. 6s. 8d. would be left: the universities have demanded eleven copies, which came to 44 l. 18 s. 8d., and that leaves the small profit of 7l. 12 s. 0d. on the impression.
"You mean on the whole impression?—Yes.
"Supposing the whole impression sold, the whole impression would have produced 52 l. 6s. 8l. profit to the proprietor of the work, and the eleven copies to the public libraries would be 44 l. 18 s. 8d. and, the difference would be 7l. 12 s.; which would be the net profit resulting to the proprietor upon the whole work?—Yes.
"What is the price of paper in France?— The printing demy of a thick quality, sells in France at seventeen francs and a half, or 14 s. 6d. English money per ream, but the price may vary from 11 s. to 14 s. 6d.
"What is the price of a similar paper in England?—From 32 s. to 36 s. per ream."
Mr. Robert Baldwincalled in, and examined.
"What is the value of books delivered by your house, since the passing of the Act?— The amount of the books delivered by us to the public libraries exceeds 1,000 l. at the lowest trade price.
"In the demand made by the public libraries to the bookseller, has any regard been paid either to the utility of the respective books demanded, or to the books previously delivered by the publisher?—None at all; they have been taken indiscriminately. I should suppose, that if a sum of money was allotted to the universities to purchase books, they would not purchase one in ten of what are published, perhaps not one in twenty.
"Do you think the depositing of the eleven copies in these public libraries has any tendency to take away private purchasers?—Certainly, I think it must.
"Does it not, in your opinion, supply gratuitously many people who would otherwise be purchasers?—I should think it would.
"Do you conceive the evil is to be at all counteracted by any supposed notoriety given to those publications by the depositing of such copies in the public libraries?—Not by any means.
"Do you conceive, that your publications acquire any advantage by any such supposed notoriety?—We do not consider the supposition of notoriety arising from the depositing of the books to be well founded, or productive of any advantage; if we did, we should send the books to the public libraries without any compulsion.
Mr. John Murraycalled in, and examined.
"Did you not publish" The Costumes of various Countries?—Yes.
"Was that an expensive work?—It was very expensive.
"Should you now hesitate in the publication of such a work, knowing that you would be compelled to deliver eleven copies to the eleven public libraries?—Certainly I would.
"The wholesale price of these eleven copies would amount to a very large sum?— It would be a very serious object.
"What may be the amount of the books which you may have delivered at Stationers' Hall, since the passing of the Act of 1814?— The amount of the sale price to the public is about 1,700 l.; and as those books had a very swift sale, I consider that I am the loser of that sum, deducting twenty-five per cent., which would be the sum at which the greatest part of those works would have been sold; I would deduct about 420 l.; the whole loss would be then about 1,275 l.
"Do you not consider the compulsory delivery of eleven copies of every book that is published as a very heavy tax on those who speculate in the publication of books, in addition to the very high duty on paper and advertisements?—Very much indeed."
Mr. William Danielcalled in, and examined.
"Has the Act, directing the delivery of eleven copies to the public libraries, had any effect upon any publications which you have made, or which you had intended to make?— Checking many.
"Will you be so good as to state what effect it had upon you individually?—It has prevented the continuation of a large folio work, entitled 'Oriental Scenery.' It has prevented also a reduced edition of an African work; another of Ceylon. 'A series of Scenes and Figures illustrative of the Customs of India, and of Persons and Animals peculiar to that Country.' I believe those are the chief works which the Act has checked me in proceeding with.
"What do you apprehend to be the actual expense of the eleven copies which you have delivered to the public libraries?—There are two publications which have been published since the Act of 1814, the one entitled ' The Coast of Great Britain,' of which the cost of the eleven copies amounted to seventy-seven guineas; the other a reduced edition from the large 'Oriental Scenery,' the cost of the eleven copies amounted to 218 l.; those are the two chief works that I have published since the Act, of which the eleven copies have been demanded.
"Previous to the passing of the Act, it answered your purpose to go on with the publication, but since you have discontinued it?—Yes, I have.

451
"Each copy, after the paper and the plate have been prepared, before it is in that state which the public libraries would have required of you upon each volume, would come to a great deal of money?—It would come to from 10 l. to 15 l."
Mr. William Bernard Cookecalled in and examined.
"The Committee understand you are an engraver and publisher?—I am.
"Are you not publishing a work upon the Ruins of Pompeii?—I am.
"What would be the price of a complete copy of that work?—A complete copy would be sixteen guineas, and the price of the copies, upon India paper, thirty-two guineas.
"Is that the retail price?—Yes; the retail price to the public.
"Then what will be the amount of eleven copies at the retail price?—201 l. 12 s.; because the finest copies are claimed by the British Museum.
"What would be the amount of eleven copies at the trade price?—161 l. 4s.
"Which of those prices would you lose by delivery of the eleven copies?—As publisher, I should lose the 201 l. 12 s., the full price.
"If the Act of 1814 had not passed, should you have expected any of the libraries to have been subscribers to the work?—I certainly should; because the British Museum had purchased the first edition of the 'Thames,' and have discontinued purchasing any other works since.
"What other works of this sort do you mean to publish?—I am also publishing a work called the 'Thames,' and a work of 'The Southern Coast of England,' from drawings by Turner.
"How will the delivery affect you upon them?—The loss sustained by delivering the 'Thames' will be 88 l. 4s.; that of the ' Southern Coast,' 134 l.
"Has the delivery of the eleven copies, in your opinion, operated to discourage such publications?—Most certainly.
"Had you any hesitation in undertaking the work of Pompeii?—I certainly had, in consequence of those eleven copies.
"The liability of the demand of the eleven copies seriously entered into your mind, when you made the calculation, whether you should or should not undertake that work?—It certainly did.
"Do you think that the delivery of eleven copies of a very expensive work, of which a small number will be printed, would operate as a prohibition to the undertaking such a work?—That is my decided opinion; I have perfected two great works, which are now put by on that account, having even engraved a few of the plates, which is a great loss to me.
Mr. Joseph Hardingcalled in, and examined,
452
"Are you at present engaged in the publication of any works of considerable expense?. —Yes.
"What works are you publishing of that description?—We are publishing an edition of Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum, in four or five folio volumes; Dugdale's History of St. Paul's Cathedral; Portraits of Illustrious Personages of Great Britain, in two folio volumes, with 120 Portraits and Memoirs; Ormerod's History of Cheshire; Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses, in six volumes, quarto; they are the principal works we are publishing at this time.
"What will the delivery of eleven copies of these works amount to?—The delivery of eleven copies of these works will amount to 2,198 l. 14 s.
"Have you a list of them, stating the amount of each separately?—Eleven copies of Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum will be an absolute loss of 819 l.; the loss upon Dugdale's History of St. Paul's Cathedral, will be 189 l.; the loss upon the Portraits of the Illustrious Personages of Great Britain, will be 630 l.; the loss upon Ormerod's History of Cheshire, will be 283 l. 10 s. These four sums amount to 1,921 l. 10 s.; and the loss upon Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses will be 277 l. 4s.
"What loss was sustained by the delivery of eleven extra copies of Mr. Ruding's 'History of Coinage'?—The loss upon eleven copies of Ruding's 'History of Coinage,' amounted to 154 l.; it was an actual loss of that sum, because within six months after the publication of the book, every copy was sold at 14 l. a copy; and if I had had those eleven copies to sell, I should have had 154 l. more to receive.
"Can you state the comparative prices of English books printed in London, and the same works printed abroad?—I have the prices of some English books printed on the Continent, which may throw light upon that question:—Gibbon's Miscellaneous Works, with his Memoirs, printed at Basle, in seven volumes, octavo, are sold retail for twenty-five francs, which in English money amounts to about a guinea; the price of the London edition of the same book, in five volumes, octavo, is 3/. 5s. Pope's Works, with notes, by Wharton, published in nine octavo volumes, are sold for twenty-five francs, about a guinea; the London price, in ten volumes, octavo, is five guineas. The price of Johnson and Stevens's Shakespeare, published in twenty-three volumes, octavo, with sixty plates, is sixty francs, about 2l. 10 s.; the London edition, published in twenty-one volumes, octavo, without any plates at all, is sold at twelve guineas on small paper, and on large paper for eighteen guineas.
"What is the price of Lord Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, taking with you that the book belongs to the University of Oxford, and cannot be printed by any other than the

453
university printer?—The London price of the only edition which the Clarendon Press has printed for the market amounts to 7l. 17 s.. 6d. small, and fifteen guineas large. There is not a small edition of the work to sell, though greatly demanded. The price of an octavo edition, consisting of twelve volumes, printed on the Continent, sells abroad for thirty-six francs, or about 1l. 10 s.
"Have you declined publishing any works from the pressure of delivering eleven copies, besides Mr. Ruding's 'History of the Coinage?'—Yes, we have.
"Is there any inconvenience in stating what they are?—We have declined republishing Alexander Barclay's 'Ship of Fools,' a folio volume of great rarity and high price. Our probable demand would not have been more than for 100 copies, at the price of twelve guineas each. The delivery of eleven copies to the public libraries decided us against entering into the speculation. There is another work which we have declined printing, materially from the pressure of the eleven copies, which is a work of great value: it is 'A Series of Views relating to the Architectural Antiquities of Normandy,' by Mr. Cotman of Yarmouth; it is a work peculiarly interesting to antiquaries and to architects, but to few other classes of society; it relates to the Architectural Antiquities of Normandy.
"The Committee understand that you were the undertakers of the reprint of that very important old work of English poetry, called, "The Mirror for Magistrates," which was printed in three volumes quarto?—Yes, we were.
"Was not the loss of eleven copies upon that work a very considerable loss?—It was a loss of 110 guineas; and we should not have been able to have supplied the copies to the public libraries if the work had not been five or six years printing, in consequence of which some of the subscribers had declined."
Mr. John Martincalled in, and examined.
"Are you not engaged in the publication of Mr. Dodwell's Scenes and Monuments of Greece?—We are.
"What would be the price of a complete copy of that work?—About thirty guineas.
"What will the engraving of the plates and the colouring of them cost you?—About 3,000 l.
"What would be the amount of the eleven copies of that work to be supplied to the public libraries at the selling prices?—The selling price would be 330 guineas.
"And what would be the trade price?—The trade price will be about 275 l."
Mr. Charles Stothardcalled in and examined.
"You are publishing the Monumental Effigies of Great Britain?—Yes.
"The price is twenty-eight guineas the large paper, and twenty guineas the small?—Yes.
"Do you publish the work on your own account?—Certainly,
454
"Do you conceive that the delivery of the eleven copies to the public libraries is a great grievance?—A very great one indeed; for I believe, that if I had known it when I commenced the work, I should not have begun it."
Samuel Lysons, Esq.,called in, and examined.
"For twenty-five years I have been preparing for publication an extensive work on. the Roman Antiquities of England, entitled, "Reliquiæ Britannicæ-Romanæ," consisting of more than one hundred and sixty plates in folio, many of them forty inches by twenty-three, on which work I have already expended 6,000 l. From the nature of this work, which requires that the greater part of the plates should be coloured, to render them intelligible, it is not probable that more than a hundred copies will ever be completed; and if the whole of that number should be sold, at fifty guineas a copy, I should not be reimbursed my expenses. In the two first volumes of this work already published, I have given a short letter-press description of the plates; but finding that under the last Act of Parliament for the encouragement of learning, my continuing to give such printed explanations would subject me to the heavy tax of eleven copies of my work for the public libraries, and deprive me of several of my purchasers, some of those libraries having bought my two first volumes, I have deter-mined to omit any letter-press, and have engraved my title-pages and list of plates. I am convinced that few books of antiquities or natural history, consisting chiefly of plates, which are attended with a very heavy expense, and especially those which require to be coloured, can be published in this country with letter-press, if the editors are thereby liable to be taxed with the delivery of the eleven copies for the public libraries, and that the publishers will be under the necessity either of omitting any printed description, or having them printed on the Continent, where much would be saved in the article of paper alone, the price of the larger sorts of which in this country is extremely high in consequence of the heavy duty on them. I give twelve guineas per ream for the smallest paper which I use for this work, and seventeen guineas for the larger, which I am obliged to employ on account of the size of some of the plates;
"The discovery of these Roman Antiquities has cost you many years labour and attention? —A period of twenty-five years.
"The Committee would presume that you feel it to be impossible that anything like the same interest would attach to these plates without the explanation of letter-press to each plate?—Certainly not; I intend hereafter to print some letter-press, probably on the Continent, and import it.
"Which letter-press you would otherwise have printed in this country?—Yes, with the work. "
Thomas Platt, Esq.called in, and examined.
"Are you one of the trustees under Dr. Sibthorp's will?—One of the executors.
"Are there any instructions in his will relative to the publication of the Flora Græca?— There are as to the mode in which the work was to be published. He devised an estate to the University of Oxford, upon trust, that the rents should be applied, first, in the publication of two works, to be intituled 'Flora Græca,' and 'Prodomus Flora Græcia' the Flora Græca to consist of ten folio volumes, each volume to consist of 100 coloured plates, to be coloured from a collection of drawings which he had caused to be made for the purpose, and which he afterwards gives to the University of Oxford; and, these two works being completed and published, he directs the rents to be applied in the establishment of a Professorship of Rural Economy, 200 l. of the rents to be paid annually to the professor for his salary, and the remainder to purchase books for the professor's library.
"As the estate has hitherto produced not more than 200 l. a year, the expense of eleven copies of the work would amount to sixteen years' rent of the estate; and of course the giving eleven copies be an insurmountable difficulty?—I could not, as executor pursue it; I should throw it upon the hands of the University.
"According to your experience in the publication of this work of Dr. Sibthorp, do you not conceive that the gratuitous delivery of eleven copies would render any work of that magnitude entirely impossible to be published by any individual, with expectation of covering his expenses?—Yes, I do verily believe it; a work of half that value I should consider it impossible to publish; the right of exacting eleven copies appears to me an extinguisher upon splendid and expensive works."
Mr. Thomas Fishercalled in, and examined.
"You have a work in hand, of which a certain limited number were subscribed for, concerning some ancient paintings and charters at Stratford-upon-Avon?—I have.
"The price being twelve and eight guineas? —Yes.
"You have been seven years employed in the execution of that work?—The drawings were made in the year 1804; they were executed in polyautographic (a mode of printing from tablets of stone), between that and in 1807, when the first part was published, consisting of a title, and eight coloured prints from ancient paintings; the second part came out above two years afterwards, consisting of seven prints from paintings, and two copper-plates; the third part was published in 1812, consisting of one double plate of a painting, and other plates (copper) to the amount of fourteen, with one sheet of letter-press. The
456
whole of the paintings were coloured by my own hand, excepting a few impressions of one in which I endeavoured to avail myself of the assistance of colourers; but I found their work unsatisfactory to me, and discontinued the employment of them.
"Was this work so commenced by you, discontinued in consequence of the decision subjecting you to the delivery of eleven copies?— Yes; printing any work of the polyautographic press; conceiving that mode of printing to be but little understood, may I be at liberty to explain it to the honourable Committee. Instead of copper-plates or types, a tablet of stone is produced by the polyautographic printer, with steel pens and a prepared ink; a drawing is made upon the stone which he takes away, and has a method of fixing the drawing, so as to produce or strike off any number of copies. The number upon which I determined for my work was 120; the stone was then cleaned and brought again, and I proceeded with the second, and so on through the series of plates; my fixed number was 120 impressions.
"You were, therefore, unable to continue your work to your subscribers, in consequence of being liable to this demand?—In consequence of but having 120 copies of each polyautographic print, when I found by a decision in the Court of King's Bench that I was liable to eleven actions at law for the recovery of eleven copies by eleven privileged libraries, I conceived it would be impossible for me to comply with that demand, and I discontinued the work."
Mr. Brookecalled in, and examined.
"What is your line of business?—Printing and publishing.
"In what peculiar line?—Peculiarly in the law line.
"Have you experienced any inconvenience or injury from the provisions of the Copyright Act?—I am very much aggrieved by the necessity of delivering eleven copies of the works which I publish, principally law works, on which it falls very hard.
"In what manner do you conceive law works are particularly affected by the delivery of the eleven copies?—The temporary nature of their matter makes it necessary to confine their editions to a comparatively small number of copies, and the expenses of printing and editing are so great, that the deduction of eleven copies is a very serious evil, as attaching to every new edition."
Mr. Robert Harding Evanscalled in, and examined.
"In very expensive works, particularly of scientific illustration, can you speak to the operation of the Act of 1814?—I conceive it to be a very heavy and very grievous imposition upon the bookseller, and such as is not levied by any other country in Europe.
"Have you found from your own experience,

457
that that Act has operated to the discouragement of any literary production of the description to which you refer?—Certainly.
"But can you specify any instance in which this Act has effected this discouragement of which you are speaking; has it in your opinion, operated to prevent the publication of any literary work which would be useful to the public?—Certainly, it has prevented the printing and publishing of several editions of the Classics, which were about to be printed at the time the Act passed, but which were laid aside by the booksellers in consequence.
"Is it not the Copyright in that work so annotated upon; and can any body reprint that book with these notes?—No; but still we are obliged to give the eleven copies to the public libraries, where an old book is reprinted, even though there be no addition in the shape of notes or observations; suppose, for instance, I were to reprint the Universal History, although, I believe, that every one of the persons now entitled to claim it, have a copy in their possession, yet, though I might print it without an iota of addition, I must give eleven copies to the public libraries, notwithstanding they were, in fact, only duplicates of those already in their possession. With the exception of one of the Scotch Universities, the public libraries have universally exacted even novels; that university, to which I allude, certainly does not take novels.
"In those reprints, had the law stood as it now does, would you have conceived the demanded eleven copies as a great grievance?— Certainly; I myself printed a copy of Hackluyt's Voyages, and we only printed 250 copies, and I certainly conceived, that the public libraries were likely to be purchasers of that, and I had been asked before I went to press with the work, whether I should have printed it if I had the eleven copies to deliver; most probably I should not have printed it, nor published it.
"What is the price of that book?—Fifteen guineas; and the eleven copies were demanded just prior to the Act.
"What was the price of the 250 copies?— 3,750 l.
"What was the price of the eleven copies? —The price of the eleven copies was 165 guineas."
Upon this evidence it must be quite unnecessary to offer a word of comment. The character and experience of the witnesses, the clearness of their statements, and the irresistible force of their conclusions, must carry conviction to every mind. It did so, indeed, to the Members of the Committee, who drew up a Report, bearing date the 5th of June, 1818, in which they approach very nearly, in their recommendation, to the measure that I now venture to propose. This Committee,
458
satisfied of the injustice of this tax, in its principle and in its details, were desirous of ascertaining its amount within a given period; and having directed a statement to be prepared by one of the witnesses, an experienced bookseller, of the retail price of one copy of every book entered at Stationers' Hall, between the 30th of July, 1814, and the 1st of April, 1817, they found that such prices of one copy of each book only amounted in the whole to 1,419 l. The prices of the books received by this gratuitous delivery into the University of Cambridge alone, within the period named, amounted to 1,145 l.; and taking the gratuitous deliveries to the other ten libraries to be of the same value, the whole amount would be 13,095 l., as a tax paid by authors, or publishers, or both—not to the poor and needy, or to those who are unable to supply themselves —not to Mechanics' Institutions, or Parish Libraries, or National Schools, or Public Reading Rooms for the use of all classes —but to ten at least out of the eleven, of exclusive Corporations, the greater number, if not all, of whom are perfectly able, though they may not be willing, to pay for their own supplies of books, as they are by law compelled to do for food and raiment, and every other necessary or luxury which they require.
The Select Committee of 1818, therefore, reported this resolution to the House.
"Resolved—That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is desirable that so much of the Copyright Act as requires the gratuitous delivery of every work should be repealed, except in so far as relates to the British Museum, and that it is desirable that a fixed allowance, in lieu thereof, should be granted to such of the other libraries as may be thought expedient."
This, Sir, was the Report of the Committee of 1818. Why it has never been acted upon up to this period, it is for others rather than myself to say. But as it was one of the first subjects to which I ventured to direct my attention, as soon as I had the honour of a seat in this House—and as it has been postponed from time to time, not from any wish of my own, but from the perpetual difficulties that present themselves in the way of independent Members bringing forward their motions, from the pressure of Government business, and the constant interruptions and irregularities in the proceedings of the House—so I

459
have steadily kept to my determination of pressing it forward on the first available opportunity, and I do sincerely hope, that His Majesty's Ministers, and the House in general, will accord to my motion their ready and cheerful support.
I am bound to add, however, that consistently with my own principles, I am for the entire repeal of the delivery of the whole number of the eleven copies, because I cannot perceive, even in the proposed exception of the British Museum, why authors and publishers should be specially taxed for its support, in the exaction of their books, any more than botanists, or mineralogists, or zoologists, or painters, or sculptors, or antiquaries, or collectors of any kind should be taxed, by being obliged to contribute from their stores or productions to swell the treasures of the British Museum. Whatever is requisite or desirable for that institution—to make it, as I wish it to be, the first museum in the world—let it by all means have. But the nation is rich enough to buy the books it requires, as well as to pay for the building in which they are lodged; and as the librarians, and servants, and messengers are not called upon to give their labour gratuitously for the public service, I can see no reason, whatever, why authors and publishers should do so. The labourer is worthy of his hire in each case, and we have no more right to demand that the author shall give the productions of his mind without reward, than we have to command the sentry to guard the treasures that are within the edifice, at whose gates he is posted, without pay. At the same time, I am free to say, that as in the last petition of the Booksellers themselves, which was presented to the House of Commons on the 22nd of March, 1819, while they prayed to be relieved from the gratuitous delivery of ten of the eleven copies of every published work, now demanded of them by law, they were willing to continue the grant of one copy of each work to the British Museum; if any hon. Member who may be associated with me in bringing in the Bill, shall introduce a clause of exception in favour of that National Institution, and it should be the general feeling of the House that it should be still so supplied,—I shall not oppose that single concession. In the same spirit of conciliation, I will also add, that if the Ten Libraries to whom this
460
privilege is to be no longer continued, shall be thought entitled to an annual grant, for the encouragement of learning, from the Consolidated Fund, to be applied to the purchase of such Books as may be required, which sum must then come from the funds of the people at large, and not be exclusively drawn, as at present, from authors and publishers of books only, I shall be prepared to give such a proposition my assent and support. But I do trust that no consideration of vested interests will prevent the House from at least allowing me to introduce this measure, on the understanding that it shall be submitted to a full and fair discussion in all its bearings on the second reading. In this hope, Sir, I therefore beg leave to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Copyright Act as enjoins the gratuitous delivery of eleven copies of every published work, to eleven of the public libraries, colleges, and other institutions of the kingdom."
Dr. Bowringseconded the motion. He expressed his regret, that no steps had been taken before this to form an arrangement between the Governments of England and France for an interchange of literary works.
Mr. Arthur Trevorsaid, though it might be injurious to both author and publisher to abstract from them eleven copies of very expensive works, which might not yet be standard works, still it would be an advantage to literature to have copies of standard works given to the great public literary institutions of the country, which parties could consult without the expense of purchasing them; and, if they were meritorious works, certain readers would have an opportunity of recommending them to the country through the reviews. He would oppose the motion.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that though it appeared the hon. Gentleman's motion would not only deprive the colleges and other institutions of the right to get copies, but even of any conpensation for this deprivation, he should not oppose the first introduction of the Bill, and would wait to see, at a subsequent step whether any funds were to be provided by the country for the purchase of these works. It was nonsense to say that the present law operated as a discouragement to literature. The undoubted fact was, that it was a great stimulus to the literature of the country to place in the public institutions copies of new works, which all might read and know the value of; and, by knowing their value,

461
circulate their opinions. Much of the argument of the hon. Member was upset by the simple fact that, so far as Cambridge was concerned, the gratuity of copies was not an invasion, but a compromise very advantageous to the author and publisher. Formerly, that was before the statute of Anne, the universities had the privilege of publishing for the use of the students copies of every new work, if they chose, but this right was resigned for the getting of a single copy. Cambridge, so far from availing itself of the right to get a copy of each new work, and stopping these, had, in many cases, advertised a good work, and purchased many copies, as in the case of Sibthorp's "Flora Græca" (as we understood), which was published at 50 l. a volume. He did not mean to say that this was the work of his gallant Friend beside him. It was an advantage to authors to have their works placed in the libraries, for they became more known to literary men; and by reading works of merit in libraries, men were enabled to become authors themselves. He would reserve his opposition to a future stage of the Bill.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, it was necessary to have more evidence of the nature of the Bill before they decided upon it. He considered that if any alteration were made in the present system, that the universities would be entitled to receive some pecuniary compensation in lieu of the books to which they were now entitled, and that pecuniary compensation might be very beneficially expended in the purchase of new and useful works; and that arrangement would, he conceived, materially conduce to the benefit of those learned institutions, for then they would have the advantage of selecting books of standard merit; and he believed that when the Universities first received the privilege it was limited to certain great works, and was not meant to embrace all the books published. He felt, however, that the House had no right to withdraw from the universities the privileges which they now enjoyed, because it would in a great measure tend to destroy the utility of their libraries. On the other hand, however, he considered that it would be a great tax upon authors of expensive works, and publishers of reprinted books, such, for instance, as "Hatsell's Precedents," which Members must have, or "Dugdale's Monasticon," that they should be claimed by the Universities. At the same time he felt as strongly as any man the impropriety and injustice of interfering with vested rights without
462
adequate compensation being awarded, and, therefore, he hoped that if the proposed measure should be sanctioned by the Government, his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would take the subject into his consideration, with a view to the principle of compensation. He did not think that it would be too much to award each of the universities 500 l. a-year in lieu of the privilege they at present claimed, and that arrangement he considered would tend, not only to the advantage of the universities, but to that of literature in general.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerfelt called upon to say a few words upon this subject, which was extremely important, not only as regarded the rights of the universities, but the interests of authors, and, he might add, the welfare of literature. The principle of compensation, alluded to by his right hon. Friend who had just sat down had been admitted in the case of the University of Aberdeen, in the year 1833, when a Bill was passed on the subject; but he was not at present prepared to say how far it might be expedient to extend the principle of that Bill to the other universities. He certainty was most anxious that the interests of literature should be protected, and he was of opinion, that it would be better, and more convenient for the universities, that they should each have at their disposal a sum of money for the purchase of really useful works, than that they should have thrown upon them an indiscriminate mass of publications, many of which were worse than useless. At the same time he considered that there should be some place of deposit for every work published, in order that future generations might be enabled to judge of the state of our literature, and the manners, habits, and customs of the time in which we lived. The Universities, however, ought not to be deprived of their privileges without compensation, and he should object to any measure which would go to that extent. He should be glad to see the proposed Bill introduced, and when the House went into Committee upon it, hon. Gentlemen would then have the opportunity of examining its details, and considering how far, consistently with public and private interests, the measure ought to be supported.
Mr. Lefroywas satisfied that he should best consult the interest of the university he had the honour to represent, by stating that whatever plan would most conduce to the benefit of literature in general would

463
be at once agreed to by the University of Dublin. At the same time he was bound to observe on behalf of his Constituents, that they had a peculiar claim to the privilege which the other universities enjoyed, for the law relating to English Copyright was not extended to Ireland until after the passing of the Union, nor was it till then that the University of Dublin came in for its share of the privilege which had been conceded to the other learned bodies, so that the claim of Trinity College was at least as strong as those of the universities in this country; and, therefore, without offering any opposition at present to the proposed Bill, he should decidedly object to any measure which had a tendency to deprive the University of Dublin of any of those rights and privileges which it now enjoyed.
Sir Robert Inglisobserved, that the course which he should pursue would be guided in a great measure by the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the principle of compensation. The House of Commons had already recognised that principle in the case of the Aberdeen University, and he supposed that equal justice would be done as regarded the vested rights of the other universities. He was, therefore, not disposed to object to the proposed Bill, providing that it was accompanied by the principle of compensation, reserving to himself, however, the right of opposing such portions of it, when its details were fairly before the House, as he should consider injurious to the interests of his constituents.
Mr. Arthur Trevorstated, that after hearing what had been said upon the subject, he would withdraw his opposition to the introduction of the measure.
Mr. Prymewas in favour of the motion. Having held an office connected with the library of the University of Cambridge, he could speak with some authority upon the question, as far as it related to that particular place. He had been assured by the librarian of that University, they had a great many books transmitted to them which were not worth a place in the library, and that many works of great value never reached them until a very long period after the time of their publication.
Colonel Sibthorpwas disposed to give his support to the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield.
Mr. Humewas of opinion, that as a former Parliament first conceded the privi-
464
lege to the Universities, so any future Parliament might take it away, if its continuance should be found to injure the interests of literature.
Mr. Baineshoped the time would never arrive when this country could afford no general depository for literary works; and, he was, therefore, most anxious that some plan should be appointed for that purpose. He was convinced, however, that if the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was attended to, every end would be answered.
Motion agreed to.

GRAND JURY LAWS (IRELAND).
Viscount Morpeth Viscount Morpeth moved for leave to bring in a Bill to Consolidate and Amend the Grand Jury Laws in Ireland. He did not think it necessary, upon the present occasion, to go into any full statement of the provisions contemplated by his Bill, but thought it batter to leave them for the consideration of hon. Gentlemen when the measure should be brought more fully under the notice of the House.
Mr. William S. O'Brienhoped, which he feared would not be the case, that the noble Viscount would introduce into the Grand Jury system of Ireland something of the principle of representation. He trusted the hon. Member for Middlesex would, when the question should again be brought forward, apply his attention to the consideration of the propriety of letting the people have a voice in the appointment of Irish Grand Juries.
Leave was given.

TIPPLING ACT (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Gillonsaid, that in an Act passed in the 42nd year of George 2nd, a clause had been introduced which prevented the recovery of debts contracted for spirituous liquors, when the sum did not amount, at one time, to 20s. sterling. The object of this clause had been, no doubt, to protect the health and morals of the people. However this clause might have been suited to the time in which it was passed, it was found in the present day totally inefficient in preventing drunkenness, while it had anything rather than a beneficial tendency on the morals of the people. In fact, to the crime of drunkenness, its tendency was to add fraud and dishonesty. It had also an effect which had never been contemplated by its framers upon the spirit merchants, a class of persons who pursued an honest calling, and were fully as much entitled to protection as any class of his Ma-

465
jesty's subjects. In Scotland, especially, where grocers carried on also the trade of spirit dealers, they were in the habit of supplying families with small quantities from time to time. The purchaser had it in his power to plead the Tippling Act, and to set the honest trader at defiance. He (Mr. Gillon) had in his hand various instances of the most gross frauds committed in this way. He rested his case also on the recommendation of the Commission of Excise Inquiry, who in the second part of the 7th Report observed, "that no benefit can result from the continuance of the Tippling Act to outweigh the strong objections which may be urged against it, from its direct tendency to encourage dishonest dealing, and to interfere with the just rights of the honest trader. We therefore recommend that an early opportunity should be taken to repeal this Act." The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the 42nd George 2nd, cap. 20, and 6th George 4th, cap. 48, as prevents the recovery of debts for spirituous liquors, when the debt contracted at one time shall not amount to the sum of 20 s. sterling.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

SPIRIT LICENCES (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Gillon, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Act, 9th George 4th, cap. 58, observed, that according to the present law, persons wishing to carry on the trade of retailers of exciseable liquors in Scotland, were obliged to come annually to the Justices to obtain a fresh certificate. This, especially in country places, was found to be unnecessarily vexatious. He proposed to remedy this defect, and to enact that the holder of a licence, as long as he maintained a good character and remained in the same premises, should be entitled to have it renewed by the Excise, without the recurring annually to the Justices for a fresh certificate. Another reason for this change was the gross partiality frequently exhibited by the Justices in administering the law, and he would point especially to a case which occurred last year in the county of Fife, where an individual named Hugh Beveridge, to whose character the Justices bore the most ample testimony, and yet they deprived him of his licence and his means of living, for no reason but that they said, there were too many public houses in the village in which he resided. The Justices had on this occasion acted in defiance of the spirit,
466
if not the letter of Mr. Home Drummond's Act. The man had been compelled to quit his native place and take up his abode in Cupar. He proposed also to distinguish between beer and spirit licences. At present the holder of a beer licence was entitled to demand from the Excise a licence for the sale of spirits also. He proposed to give to the Magistrates a discretionary power of granting certificates for the sale of ale and beer only; and that in case it was their intention to grant a certificate for the sale of spirits also, the fact of this intention should be specially notified.
Sir George Clerkopposed the motion. He had great doubts whether a change in the present system of licensing public houses in Scotland would either be useful or advantageous to the people of that country.
Mr. Wallacesupported the motion. He said, that the system of licensing in Scotland required not alone revision but alteration, inasmuch as licences were generally granted not for good character but for political partizanship. The hon. Member instanced a case in which an individual was refused a licence by the Magistrates in his (Mr. Wallace's) county, not because he was not a good character, for that point was satisfactorily settled by the certificate of Sir John Maxwell to that effect, but because he was of a liberal way of thinking in political matters.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersuggested, that as the whole system of licensing would shortly come under the consideration of the House, it would be better to defer discussion on the subject until then.
Leave given.

EXECUTION OF MURDERERS.
Mr. Aglionby, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Statutes, 9th George 4th, cap. 31, and 10th George 4th, cap. 34, as relates to the period of the Execution of Persons convicted of Murder, and the Prison Regulations as to Murderers under sentence, observed, that although the subject was one upon which great public interest prevailed, he should best consult the wishes of the House in its present state, by not trespassing upon its attention in enforcing the principle of the measure, which he understood was not to be opposed. The discussion on the Bill, therefore, might well be deferred until the second reading, when he should be prepared to enter into detail on the evils of the present system, and the objects he had in view. He should be enabled to prove from facts

467
and Returns, that the criminal code of this country was not based upon the best principles, and that the severity of the law had failed of the effects which it had been intended to produce. On the contrary, he should show that where the Criminal-law had received some mitigation, the number of commitments and convictions had declined, thereby showing that it was advisable to mitigate still further the severity of the penal code. He must state the course which he had pursued, and which he intended to take with respect to this measure. He had applied to the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department to know when it was likely that the Commissioners at this time inquiring into the state of the Criminal-law would make their Report. The noble Lord had informed him that the Commissioners were now in possession of all the facts necessary to enable them to make up their Report, but that they desired time until after the present term, about the middle of next month, to do so. The House he did not suppose would wish to hasten that Report, and therefore it was, that he asked for leave to bring in this Bill, which was merely to repeal that part of the Statutes which made it obligatory on the Judges to order execution to be done upon persons convicted of murder on the day next but one following the conviction and sentence. He proposed to give instead a period between sentence and execution of not less than fourteen or fifteen days (as in Scotland), nor exceeding twenty-seven days. If he succeeded in accomplishing this object, it would then be necessary to follow up the second part of his notice of motion with a view to alter that part of the Statute which provided, that persons convicted of murder should be kept on bread and water alone, and that no person but the gaoler, except on special order, should be admitted to them. His object was to afford time for further inquiry before the full powers of the law were carried into effect, which under the present system was impossible. In proof of this he need only mention that the learned Judges adopted the practice of trying murder cases on Fridays, by which another day was afforded for that inquiry before the execution of the sentence. With this short explanation, and reserving all discussion till the second reading, he hoped to be allowed to bring in this Bill.
Mr. Ewartseconded the motion. The law, as at present, was contrary to the dictates of justice and humanity. No time
468
was allowed for an application on behalf of unhappy individuals convicted of murder for mercy, though cases might be stated where reprieves had arrived after the sentence of the law had been carried into effect.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonexpressed a hope that the hon. and learned Member would extend the provisions of his Bill to Ireland, where the practice was precisely the same as that which prevailed under the law in this country. He for one felt deeply grateful to the hon. and learned Member for having brought forward a measure which he was satisfied both the interests of justice and humanity demanded. The fact that, even if a conviction took place on erroneous grounds, it was impossible, from the shortness of the time, to appeal for mercy, was in his judgment alone decisive, and ought to induce the House to concur in the motion.
Mr. Aglionbywould willingly extend the provisions of the Bill to Ireland.
Mr. Brothertonsupported the motion, and expressed a hope, that at no very distant period, the capital punishments would be abolished altogether. He was convinced that capital punishments did not tend to prevent crime—that they were not consistent with sound policy, and he was satisfied in his own mind that they were contrary to the law of God.
Mr. Humeadverted to some facts which, he had stated on a former evening, to show that the mitigation and the severity of punishments, and especially capital punishments, had been attended by a reduction in the extent of crime. The hon. Member instanced the case of horse-stealing, for which offence it appeared from the Returns, that, in the five years ending 1829, thirty-seven persons had been executed, out of 990 persons committed, the average number of committals being 198 for each year. For the five years ending 1834, there had been 966 committals, and not one executed, and for the last year, 1835, the number of individuals committed for that offence was 163, being thirty less than the average number of any of the preceding years. Now, the House would be surprised to learn, that in the three years ending 1st December, 1829, no less than 4,622 persons had been committed for trial on charges of burglary, coining, forgery, horse, sheep, and cattle stealing, and larcenies in dwelling-houses, and that of these ninety-six were executed; while for the last three years, ending 1st December, 1835, 4,292

469
(being 400 less than the former Return) were committed for those offences, and only two persons executed. The other nations of Europe were abolishing capital punishments except in cases of murder, and he thought this country ought not to be the last in the cause of humanity, and in the abolition of exhibitions which tended rather to brutalize than to improve the habits and the feelings of the people. With respect to the motion now before the House, it had his most cordial support.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought the House generally was agreed upon the principle of the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend, and it might be convenient that he should now state that it had the entire acquiescence of his Majesty's Government. He thought it was hard to deprive persons convicted of murder of an opportunity for that appeal to the Crown which was allowed in all other cases. The proposition of his hon. and learned Friend embodied, as he understood, the adoption of the practice in Scotland—a practice which, since the Porteustrials, had been productive of no mischief. With respect to the mitigation of capital punishments in other cases, though that had been the principle of legislation since the inquiries under his late Friend Sir James Macintosh, he must say, that he could not attribute the diminution of crime entirely to that system of legislation, but rather to the existing state of the country. He would not at present say more, than that he entirely concurred in the motion for the introduction of this Bill.
Mr. Lennardsaid, that, in addition to the evidence which the Returns, quoted by the hon. Member for Middlesex, afforded of the happy effects resulting from a mitigation of the criminal law, he held in his hand Returns showing a similar diminution of crime in the metropolitan district. He would, however, first refer to the Returns from England and Wales, excluding London and Middlesex. By these it appeared that upon the eight circuits there were, for the three years ending 1829, 3,950 committed, and fifty-four executed. For the three years ending 1835, 3,643 were committed, and only one was executed. Thus showing, under a relaxed criminal code, a diminution of 307 committals and fifty-three executions. In London and Middlesex, for the three years ending 1829? there were committed for coining, forgery, horse-stealing, sheep-stealing, and larcenies above 5l. in dwelling-houses, 672 persons, and of those forty-two were executed; while, in the
470
subsequent years, when those crimes were no longer capital, but secondary punishments substituted, the actual number of these offences fell to 649; it showed, therefore, that though the law had been mitigated, still it had been rendered more efficacious. He tendered his best thanks to the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth for the introduction of this Bill.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

RAILWAYS.
Sir Harry Verner Sir Harry Verner moved that an Address he presented to his Majesty, praying his Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission, to whose consideration should be submitted every proposal to construct a railway in any part of Great Britain and Ireland before the introduction of a Bill for the purpose into Parliament. He proposed that the duty of the Commission should be, to report whether every proposed project for making a railroad could be carried into effect. He would also have it distinguished between the bona fide projects and mere stock-exchange bubbles. On the whole his object was to favour, not obstruct the construction of railways.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if he felt it his duty to object to the proposition at the present moment, it was not from any indifference to the importance of the question itself, but because this was not the fit time at which to submit it to the House. A Select Committee had been appointed, to whom all these matters had been referred, and it would be better to have the evidence taken before them, as well as their observations upon it, before any decisive course was taken. The question was one of importance, and not to be dealt with lightly. The present proposition would give to the Government greater power over the capital of the country, than he at present thought the House would or ought to confer. He was as anxious as any man to separate the interests of the stock-broker from those of the engineer, and the work from the jobbing; but at present he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Stafford Disfranchisement; Witnesses Indemnity.
Petitions presented. By several NOBLE LORDS, from various Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of BURLINGTON, from various Places, for the Alteration of the Factories' Act.—By Lord HOLLAND, from Mansfield and Hitchen, against the Punishment of Death for any Crime but Murder.—By the Earl of CLARE, from Bombay, for an Equalization and Reduction of the Duty on East India Produce.

CHANCERY REFORM.
Lord Chancellorthe following passage in the King's Speech was read:—
"The speedy and satisfactory administration of justice is the first and most sacred duty of a Sovereign; and I earnestly recommend you to consider whether better provision may not be made for this great purpose in some of the departments of the law, and more particularly in the Court of Chancery."
The Lord Chancellor: It becomes now my duty to call your Lordships' attention to this very important subject, for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects referred to in his Majesty's most gracious speech. In doing this I have to bespeak some portion of your Lordships' indulgence. Not that it is my intention to address you for a considerable length of time, but because this subject, however important, did not; in another place, attract the attention of a large portion of that House when I addressed the Members respecting it. It is not easy to make the Court of Chancery an attractive topic, and yet there cannot be a subject more important to the country at large. There cannot be one of more importance to each individual Member of this House. The Court of Chancery, by degrees, has become the Court in which the property of the greater part of the country is subjected to litigation, and ultimately disposed of. The changes in

403
the nature of property, the complex processes resorted to to secure the better enjoyment of property, and a variety of other causes, have brought a large portion of the property of the country into that Court. It must continue to be so as long as the present laws exist, and it is more likely to increase. Property must be under the administration and control of the Court of Chancery. To provide then for the due administration of that Court— to improve and amend a Court where nearly all questions concerning the property of the country is decided upon— this, my Lords, is the subject which demands your Lordships' attention. I am satisfied, then, that you will bear with me, while I, as shortly as I can, enter into this case, show you what are the abuses that exist, and the evils that have grown up, and state to you what it is I propose in the present Bill, by which I hope to redress the evils that I point out, and the remedies that I suggest to meet those evils, and where there are inconveniences, how I mean to obviate those inconveniences. The business that is now transacted in the Court of Chancery can be ascertained by the returns laid upon your Lordships' table. I have had returns made from the earliest period I possibly could collect, of the quantity of business transacted in the Court of Chancery. It may appear to your Lordships that these returns go to an earlier period than is necessary, or than the case requires. I was anxious to have laid before your Lordships a history of the progress and increase of business in the Court of Chancery, from that period, particularly, which is considered the golden age of the Court—the period when Lord Hardwicke was Chancellor. I endeavoured to do so, because there is the most extraordinary misconception entertained by some persons, that the business of the Court of Chancery has not materially increased since the time of Lord Hardwicke. Why, that would be a most extraordinary fact indeed if it could be proved, that notwithstanding the increase of opulence and wealth in this country, that a Court which must vary in its business with the increase of property, the functions of which must be adapted to the exigencies of the time, and the state of society, that it should not be resorted to in a greater degree than at the time when Lord Hardwicke presided in that Court. This would be a most extraordinary fact if true, and it was with some
404
surprise that, in referring to the debates of the House of Commons in 1813, when a proposal was made to appoint a Vice-Chancellor's Court, that I find so distinguished an individual—one, too, so likely to be correct, and so little likely to state any thing hastily, Sir Samuel Romilly— who said that he believed that the business of the Court of Chancery in the time of Lord Hardwicke was equal to what it is now. It was computed that the business now done in the court of Chancery, is not more than that done by Lord Hardwicke. If, then, such a man as Lord Hardwicke disposed of so many cases, and such difficulty is now found in disposing of the same number, we should see whether the evil is in the system, or in those who administer it. For those reasons I was anxious to have the means of ascertaining the fact one way or another—to know whether the inconveniences and delay in the Court of Chancery arise from the increase of business, or are to be attributed to other causes. For these reasons I have procured these returns; and I was anxious to procure them from the period of Lord Hardwicke. Unfortunately, it appears by the returns that there is no book, no such book or copy, to enable the officers of the Court to make a return such as I called for from the time of Lord Hardwicke in 1750. I can then only direct your Lordships' attention to an imperfect return, as some of the books are missing, so that I cannot state what is the number of cases and hearings at that period. I am, then, under the necessity of referring to returns from the earliest period that they appear complete. They appear to be complete from the year 1761; and now I have to state to your Lordships what I believe to be the accurate result, as it appears to me, from these returns. It appears that the average number of cases set down to be heard in the then two branches of the Court, before the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, from 1761 to 1765, was 411. The annual average is 411. I compare this with what appears from the returns to be the annual average for the last five years, from 1831 to 1835. The number at the former periods is 411; the number from 1831 to 1835 is 1,283. The number of petitions for a period of ten years, from the year 1750 to the year 1760, was, on the average, 379; the number of petitions from 1831 to 1835, was, on the average, 2,813. I will now refer

405
to one other branch of the business of the Court of Chancery, in order to see what was the pressure on the time of the Lord Chancellor occasioned by hearing appeals from the Master of the Rolls. The average number of appeals from the year 1761 to 1765, was twelve; and the average number from 1831 to 1835 was fifty-five. Now, most of those appeals are all matters which occupy a considerable time; those appeals can none of them be matters of course. Of others it may be said that many of them occupy scarcely any time, being matters of course, merely; but I think it unnecessary to separate those that may be considered as occupying no time— it appears to me immaterial to endeavour to separate them from the motions, the time consumed by which is great, inasmuch as what I propose to submit to your Lordships is a comparison between the two periods, and the two descriptions of motions probably bear the same proportion to each other in the one period as in the other. I have now, I hope—and I trust for ever—put an end to that imputation which has been cast upon the present course of business in the Court of Chancery, as compared with the course of business in that Court to the time of Lord Hardwicke. I have shown that there being now a greater pressure of business, a greater amount of assistance is required in that Court at present than was necessary in Lord Hardwicke's time. And here let me say, that no man is disposed to speak more highly than I am of the character of that eminent individual as a judge; no man feels more sensibly than I do that he is entitled to the highest rank for his administration of justice in the Court of Equity. Few, indeed, had a better opportunity of judging of his great merits than myself; for having from an early period been trusted by Lord Hardwicke with his manuscript notes made in his capacity of Lord Chancellor, I was enabled to watch and ascertain the diligence with which that great lawyer performed the heavy and important duties that devolved on him. Notwithstanding, then, that, as compared with the present time, it appears there was but a small portion of business committed to his consideration, yet what he did despatch is proved, by the documents to which I have referred, to have received his unremitting attention. I find from his manuscripts, not only that he took copious
406
notes, and made innumerable private illustrations; but that, in many cases, he did that which I am satisfied affords the best security possible that a judge has properly attended to the case before him— his judgments were not delivered at the time the case was heard, nor were they delivered at a subsequent period upon what might be recollected of the circumstances, or upon what might be recalled to the mind by a casual reference to the case, but they were written by his own hand, and delivered by him from what he had so written. This mode, which was much practised by him, and which, in my opinion, must have tended materially to raise the great name that belongs to his memory, I consider it always adviseable, where practicable, for judges to pursue. I do not say that in every case a judge should write his judgment; but, when the matter is complicated, and requires a minute attention to the facts, there is no course a judge can adopt more likely to lead to right conclusions, than the habit of writing his judgments, and delivering them from the paper he has so written. In drawing a comparison, then, between the time of Lord Hardwicke, and the time of which I am now speaking, I cannot be supposed to detract in any way from the character of that highly-eminent judge. My object has been to rescue the Court of Chancery from the reproach of being unable now to perform the duties which were so much more easy to perform in the time of Lord Hardwicke. When we find the difference in the business which I have stated, your Lordships will not be much surprised to learn that the same machinery, that the same power, is not now able to carry into effect all that ought to be done in the Court of Chancery, though it was effectual for the accomplishment of all that was necessary in the year 1750. The other period to which I am anxious to call the attention of your Lordships is the year 1813, inasmuch as that was the period in which it was found indispensable to afford assistance to the Court of Chancery. There are, indeed, two other periods to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention; and I shall now state the result of the return for those two periods, and the reasons why I selected them. The year 1813 I selected for the reason I have already given. I also selected the year 1823, because in that year there was a report made by a Committee of this House,

407
to whom was referred the inquiry, what was the best course to be adopted for the purpose of despatching the business of the appeals then pending? With reference to the year 1813, I take the average of the causes set down for hearing in the years 1810,1811, and 1812, to ascertain by the average of those three years what was the state of the business at that time which created the necessity of appointing the Court of Vice-Chancery. I find that the average number of causes set down was 540. Then I take the average of the three years, 1823, 1824, and 1825. I take these three years—beginning with 1823—that they may fall in with the three years of the subsequent period—viz., 1833, 1834, and 1835. The average number of causes set down for hearing, during the three years of the former period was 945; the average number set down during; the last three years was 1,301. The averages stand thus, then:—541 for the first period; 945 for the second period; and 1,301 for the present time. Referring again to the same source of information, as regards petitions, I find the average number during the three years 1821, 1822, and 1823, to have been 1,487; and in 1833, 1834, and 1835, it was 2,817. The appeals to the Court of Chancery in the years 1810, 1811, and 1812, were on the average 16; in 1821, 1822, and 1823 they were 42; and in 1833, 1834, and 1835 they were 55. There is another most important branch of business, which has occupied so much time, which has interfered so much with the business of the Court as to have been the subject of great complaint—I mean the motions, with respect to which I have not thought it necessary to call for any returns, and for this reason—because, in the first place, the labour of ascertaining the number of the motions would be such that I thought to impose it would be to impose too severe a tax on the officers of the Court, whose time is the time of the public; and, secondly, because a large portion of the motions are mere motions of course, and they ought to be separated in such a return from the others; but some alteration having taken place in the practice of the Court by which motions of course are distinguished, the result would not be one to which much consequence could be attached, inasmuch as it would not appear what proportion of the mere motions of course had been taken into the calculation, or what proportion had been
408
omitted. As my object is to bring under the consideration of the House the relative importance of the business, and as I have shown the time occupied by the causes, the petitions, and appeals, it cannot be doubted that the other most important part has increased at least in the same proportion as that to which I have alluded. The probability is that it has increased in a greater proportion, because experience has proved, that when there is a great number of causes depending there is a considerable increase in the number of motions. If a cause is heard and disposed of, whatever may become of it a new application can be made. But the mere fact of such a cause being in Court, not only gives the opportunity of applying by way of motion, but often creates the necessity for a motion. No doubt, therefore, the motions have increased in the same proportion with the other business. There is another branch, and I shall refer to it not only to show to what a degree the business of the Court of Chancery has increased, but to show to your Lordships how important that machinery is to which I am endeavouring to call your attention; I mean the state of the funds in the hands of the Accomptant-general. The return to which I am about to advert I have from the Accomptant-general's office. The money in his hands in the year 1812, the year before the Vice-Chancery Bill was passed, amounted to 28,137,000 l., and was standing to the account of 6,266 causes; the sum in the month of October last year was 39,780,000 l. standing to the account of 10,229 causes. Your Lordships will feel, therefore, that it is of no trifling importance that a Court having such a wide jurisdiction, such a control over immense masses of property, should be administered in a way to secure to the subject not only the due, but a prompt administration of justice. My Lords, it is my belief, great as is the business of the Court of Chancery, mighty as are the functions which it has to perform, and immense as is the property under its jurisdiction, that if it were possible—as I hope it will be—to remove the causes of the delay which occur in the administration of justice in that Court, it would be resorted to infinitely more than it has been. The public require the interposition of such a Court; but they make great sacrifices to keep out of it, because they well know that the pressure of business prevents it from

409
performing its functions speedily. That, my Lords, I say is evidenced by the return to which I will now ask your Lordships' attention. Previous to the year 1813, there was a great pressure of business in the Court; there was considerable difficulty experienced in getting causes heard; and of course very serious impediments were thrown in the way of parties obtaining that which it was their object to obtain when they applied to it. In the appointment of the Vice-Chancery Court, however, the public had held out to them the prospect of a more speedy administration; and the consequence was, that there was almost immediately a rush of suitors to that court. Now there was nothing at that time to induce such an influx of business, except that, by the appointment of a new judge, there was presented the prospect to parties of obtaining a speedy decision upon their causes. That appears the necessary conclusion, from a comparison of the number of causes and the number of bills filed immediately before, with the number of causes and the number of bills filed immediately after the passing of the Bill for the establishment of the Vice-Chancery Court. During the three years before the passing of that Act, the average number of causes set down for hearing was 540; during the three years after the passing of the Act the average number of causes set down for hearing was 717. The average number of the causes set down for hearing during the five years before that period was 1,830; the average number during the five years after was 2,236. What the number is now I am not aware, but it greatly exceeds what I have stated. Now here is a sudden increase—we see the pressure of business taken off, and the probability presented of obtaining speedy justice, and suddenly there is the very great increase which I have described—when I say suddenly, I mean that there is an in-crease from 1,830 bills filed to 2,236. Having called your Lordships' attention to the proportion of the business found to exist in the Court of Chancery at these several periods, I will next advert to certain proceedings in this House, which are immediately connected with the present subject. I need not tell your Lordships that great difficulty has always been felt—in modern times at least—as to how the attention of the Lord Chancellor was to be divided between his duties in the Court of Chancery and his duties in this House. In the Court of
410
Chancery he has, as your Lordships know' a most important duty to perform; your Lordships are also aware of the nature of the duties he has to perform here. There appears to have commenced, from the year 1813, owing to the great pressure of the business in this House and in the Court of Chancery, a sort of contest between the two jurisdictions as to which should have the services of the Lord Chancellor for the time being. Accordingly, in the year 1813 —whereas it had been the practice for the Lord Chancellor to sit each morning in the Court of Chancery, and to come to this House not long before the public business commenced, for the purpose of proceeding with the appeals—in 1813, it being found, that devoting so small a portion of the day to the hearing of appeals not only occasioned great expense to the parties, as it undoubtedly did, but also interfered with the due administration of justice, it was determined that the Lord Chancellor should sit in this House the whole of the days that were devoted to the hearing of appeals, and it was fixed, that on three days in the week the Lord Chancellor should so sit in this House. That arrangement greatly interfered with the business of the Court of Chancery in various ways. It interfered by taking him out of the Court of Chancery during the Session of Parliament for three days out of the six; it interfered also by breaking into the discussion. Almost all the cases which came before the Lord Chancellor are cases requiring a solemn inquiry, are complicated in their details, and give rise to more than one day's discussion. Now, nothing can be more inconvenient— and it is an inconvenience which exists at the present time—than for any regulation to exist, which makes it necessary for the judge in the Court of Chancery almost invariably to break off in the middle of the cause. It hardly ever happened, either in this House or in the Court of Chancery, that the hearing of the cause was finished in one day, and the consequence has been that it has scarcely ever happened that a cause could be proceeded with to the end uninterruptedly. If the hearing of a cause was commenced in the Court of Chancery, it had to be broken off that the Lord Chancellor might give his attendance in this House, here to begin the hearing of a cause which had to be broken off for public business, and the next day the hearing of the unfinished cause in the Court of Chancery was resumed. It is obvious, that where great attention is required to a detail of the facts,

411
where the case is important and so complicated as to require that the whole mind he devoted to it in order to master the subject in its various hearings, nothing can he more inconvenient than for the individual to be withdrawn from its consideration till it is concluded, and he withdrawn from its consideration in order to give attention to the cause of some other parties, a cause, perhaps, of equal difficulties, and demanding, no less than the other, undivided attention. These observations, my Lords, must show I will not say the necessity, because the history of the past proceedings of the Court of Chancery and of this House proves that there is no absolute necessity, but the advantage of a change—it establishes at least this, that when a man has commenced a difficult task, he should be permitted to go on with it to the end. As I shall have more particularly to apply these observations hereafter, I will leave the subject for the present, requesting your Lordships not to lose sight of the principle for which I contend, that according to the natural constitution of the mind, it must he most inconvenient to have the mind of the judge diverted from the business in which he has engaged, before he has brought it to a close. It so went on from 1813, for the next ten years; and in the year 1823 a Committee of this House made a Report, one passage of which I will take the liberty of reading to your Lordships. At that time there was a great arrear of appeals. There were 225 appeals waiting unheard in this House; there were five years of arrears; that is, the parties who appealed, according to the then state of business, had to wait five years before there was any prospect of their appeal being heard. The Report contains this passage; it is near the commencement and on that Report, and on the opinions so stated, all the subsequent recommendations of this Report proceed:—"There is now a manifest impossibility that any person holding the Great Seal can find the time that is required for the business of the Court of Chancery and the House of Lords, and all the other great and arduous duties that devolve on him." As a remedy for this, it was proposed that there shall be appointed certain distinguished individuals, lawyers, for the purpose of assisting in hearing appeals and writs of error in this House. It was proposed, that certain persons should be appointed especially to preside over the hearing of appeals; that such an individual might not be a Member of this House, but that the individual who shall
412
be so appointed to preside at the hearing of appeals, shall have power to declare his opinion, as judges and privy councillors do when required. A Return is on your Lordships' Table, showing what was the course adopted in pursuance of that recommendation of the Committee of this House, and commencing with the year 1824. Your Lordships will find that the sittings of this House were divided between the Lord Chancellor and those other persons who were appointed to preside over the hearing of appeals. Lord Gilford appears to have been the first person who presided in that character. Lord Gifford was a peer. Then there was the Lord Chief Baron; then there was the Master of the Rolls, who was not a peer. —he presided for a considerable time as Speaker of the House to hear appeals. At the same time there was a considerable number of days on which it appears the Lord Chancellor sat. There was then, as I have stated to your Lordships, an arrear of five years of appeals; there was a necessity, therefore, for sitting on every day but Saturday, and five days in the week this House did sit. The necessity of the case justified that arrangement. There being an arrear of five years' duration, and an impossibility of a suitor being heard without waiting for five years, some special remedy was called for—some departure from previous practice—some course which would enable this House to hear the appeals that were before it. But was that a course which anything but necessity would justify? Your Lordships' court constitutes the highest court of jurisdiction—it gives jurisdiction to all other courts—it is that from which there is no appeal—-whose decisions of law are to be taken as law in all other courts; and is not that jurisdiction the jurisdiction which is entitled not only to the assistance of the individual who holds the highest judicial office, but is it not expedient that every other jurisdiction where they clash should give way, to give a precedence to this House, and limit the course of appeal? I do not say that others may not be competent, but whoever holds the highest judicial office in this country, he is the individual who ought to preside in the highest judicial court of this kingdom. I will here suggest another inconvenience. In all courts of law there is a great advantage derived from the same individual presiding, that there may not be a judge of one way of thinking at one time, and at another time another judge perhaps equally

413
eminent, equally competent, but possibly Dot exactly of the same way of thinking. It has been found that those judges have had their decisions most revered, and have been most successful, who have the longest presided over their respective courts. They have an opportunity of seeing the effects of their different decisions, and of varying them according to the varying state of society. Thus it is, that Lord Hardwicke is said to have "built up a system of equity." The necessity of the case justified the course which was taken, and the result was, that after a certain number of years, by the assistance of individuals, the great arrear was very much subdued. Though, however, it was much subdued, yet it required constant exertion to keep it down; if the exertions were to be relaxed only for a time, it would inevitably rise up again. It is not, therefore, for the interest of the subject—it cannot be just for the suitor, that any accumulation should be permitted in this House. I take it to be an admitted principle, that there should be found the means of speedily hearing the appeals that are presented, and the individuals whose duty it should be to hear those appeals, are not only the highest judicial officers of the Crown, but persons who should sit permanently, and not be taken, as chance may direct, from their duties. Having called your Lordships' attention to the state of the business of this House, and to the various periods to which I have adverted, I will now state to your Lordships what is the present state of the business of the Court of Chancery. It has been said—and inaccurately said—that the present arrears of the two courts—I mean the Court of Chancery and the Vice-Chancery, though, properly speaking, they are, perhaps, but one—it has been said, that the present arrears are 800 causes; they are not so much, it appears they are not quite 700. They are more than 600, but they are not 700. The average number of causes which have been disposed of in the last three years is 1,202; the average number set down for hearing is 1,301. Therefore, there is, according to the present state of business in the Court of Chancery, not only a large arrear where there ought not to be any; but, comparing the average number of causes set down for hearing with the average number of causes heard, there is an increase, which must make a considerable annual addition. It follows of necessity, that the present ma-
414
chinery of the Court of Chancery is not adequate to perform the duties required of it. My Lords, it would be most astonishing to me if it were; for when I call your attention to the increase which has taken place in the average, from the year 1823 down to the present time; it would indeed be most extraordinary, if that which was considered only adequate to the business when it was so much less, were adequate to it now, when it was so very much extended. I have stated, my Lords, what is the business of the original hearing of causes which comes before those branches of the courts whose duty it is to hear and dispose of them in the first instance. I will next describe the state of the appellate jurisdiction. It appears that the average number of appeals in the Court of Chancery from 1818—I mean the average number of appeals standing for hearing— the average number from 1818 to 1831 varies from 80 to 130. I do not give this as an accurate average, but as a general result from the figures. The average for some time before 1831 was 441 in each year. In 1831 there was a most extraordinary exertion made. A noble Lord, whom I am proud to call my friend, and whose absence, on account of ill-health, every individual who hears me, I am sure, deeply laments—that noble Lord made, in the year I have named, a most miraculous exertion, and the result was, that in 1831 no less than 147 appeals were heard. Those efforts, added to the other extraordinary exertions of my noble Friend, as is proved by the present state of his health, went beyond human power. Certain it is, however, that the public had the benefit of my noble Friend's exertions.
The 147 appeals were disposed of in one year. The arrears of the Court of Chancery were for the time annihilated — there were no arrears of which any suitor could complain—still it was evident the slightest interruption would produce a fresh accumulation. At the present moment, I may say, there is no arrear. It has been my fate to see—what I believe has not been seen before for a century past—a paper for the causes of the day containing two appeals, with a note at the bottom announcing, "There are no further appeals ready for hearing." That I attribute to no exertions of my own, for I have not the lime, if I had the ability, to subdue that arrear of business. I do not attribute it, then, to any exertions of my own, but to the exertions of those who have gone before me. Since

415
I had the honour of being appointed the First Commissioner of the Great Seal, it was not in the power of myself or my brother Commissioners—consistently with the performance of our other duties—to devote a large portion of time to the hearing of appeals in the Court of Chancery. In fact, there were but two days in each week devoted to that purpose. Before I accepted that appointment, I thought it my duty to consider whether I could perform the duties of it without neglecting the other duties which it would be incumbent on me to perform, and the arrangement I made was with the Vice-Chancellor, that neither one nor the other should be less devoted to their Courts than if the appointment of Commissioners of the Great Seal were not to take place; but that arrangement left only two days in the week on which it was possible to sit, with the addition of some days that were borrowed from the vacations to make up the time. It is a mistake to say that the appeal business of the Court of Chancery cannot be kept under; it is down now, and may be kept down without devoting a large amount of time to that Court. Two days a week from the month of April till January were sufficient for that purpose. When I come to another part of the subject I beg your Lordships to recollect what I am now stating, because I think it proves that the Lord Chancellor may not only get through all the appeal business of the Court of Chancery, but will have a considerable proportion of time which he may devote to other business. I have now brought down to the present time the state of the Court of Chancery, and in a few words I will call the attention of your Lordships to the state of the appeal business in this House. The last year was one most favourable to the despatch of business of that description. There was my noble and learned Friend to whom I have alluded, and my noble and learned Friend the noble Baron, whom I see in his place, who devoted much of their time to the despatch of the business of this House, and a large number of appeals were disposed of, in addition to that most heavy cause, Small v. Attwood, which occupied the time of this House during a considerable portion of the last Session, and which, I am sorry to say, must occupy a very large portion of the time of this House whenever we think it our duty to resume the consideration of it. It is obvious, then, that the appeal causes in this House cannot be kept down without a constant and vigilant atten-
416
tion to the interest of the suitors. They may, however, be kept down by devoting that portion of time to them which was given to them during the last Session. The case to which I have referred is an illustration of the necessity of having a powerful machinery in this House to keep down the arrears. According to the calculations made by the parties in that cause, if the hearing of it were to commence immediately, and proceeded at the rate of three days in the week, it would scarcely be completed within the probable duration of this Session. If that be the state of things, what is to become of the other suitors? That involves a serious question for this House to decide. Is the attention of the House to be denied to this particular cause, or is this cause to be heard, and is a hearing to be denied to the multitude? That question, I say, must be decided by the Committee of Appeals. But let me now say, that great inconvenience arose from this House not having the power of exercising throughout the year the jurisdiction which belongs to it as the ultimate Court of Appeal of this kingdom. There is another part of the jurisdiction of this country which is nearly connected with the appellate jurisdiction of this House, and to which I wish to call the attention of your Lordships—I mean the jurisdiction of the Privy Council in matters of appeal. Not only has the Privy Council to discharge all that business which peculiarly belongs to it, arising from the colonies, but by a modern Act of Parliament, all the important functions of the House of Delegates. Various other duties are also imposed on it by modern Acts of Parliament. It appears to me that, by some modification of the existing system, it might be made as good a tribunal for discharging these important functions as could be devised. The Bill establishing the judicial Committee of the Privy Council had this defect—it did not make it the duty of any one individual to superintend and watch over the judicial business of that Court. There were numerous individuals who constituted the Members of the judicial Committee, and there was no one whose duty it was to attend to it, or who was answerable for the proper performance of the duties. The consequence was, that that high tribunal has been open to the great inconvenience of a change from time to time, even from day to day, of the officers who attended to administer justice there. Such are the inconveniences that exist at present in these three great tribunals—the House of Lords,

417
the Privy Council, and the Court of Chancery. It is now my duty to endeavour to find some remedy by which those inconveniences can be remedied. My Lords, in applying ourselves to the consideration of that question, it behoves us to consider it well. In the Court of Chancery, the great, the crying evil is, the want of an individual who might be at the head of that court to perform the important duties belonging to it, and who could devote himself to those duties without having his attention directed to other matters—without being called away to other duties. As in the case of other legal tribunals, he should be able to devote his whole time, his whole talents, and his whole industry to the high duties of the court intrusted to him. Why should the Court of Chancery be placed on a different footing from other courts? Is its business less important, or has he who presides over it less important functions to perform? I think I have stated enough to show, that whether we regard its functions or the amount of property under its control, it far exceeds in importance any other court, or, I may say, all the other courts put together. The first measure, then, which I have to propose is to provide for the Court of Chancery a permanent judge, able to devote himself to the business of the court, and whose attention should not be called away to other subjects. The great evil which exists at the present moment in the appellate jurisdiction of this House is, that during the greater portion of the year it is shut from the suitor. It can only, as at present constituted, administer justice during the period of the Session; for six months therefore—for one-half of the year, those who are suitors to this House, who are appellants or respondents, have no tribunal to apply to. They have no means of bringing their cases on for decision during that time, and if they cannot accomplish their object of having their appeal heard during the Session, there is an end of the appeal for six months to come. The case which I before referred to exemplifies this strongly. It proceeded for nineteen days, and then, from the length of the argument, a question arose as to what probability there was that it would be concluded during that Session. If it was not to be finished in that time, it was obviously unjust to press one party to complete his case, inasmuch as, during the recess, the facts might escape the recollection of those who would have to decide upon it, and then to allow the other party to commence
418
his case at the commencement of the next Session. The only just course, therefore, which could be taken was to prevent the case from proceeding further, the parties having permission to resume it next Session. Unfortunately it happens, that it is impossible to resume the discussion before the same individuals who heard it before. What course then can be adopted? This evil arises from this House not being able to continue hearing appeals after the close of the Session. The very case which I have just described may occur again. The argument may be once more commenced: from its great length no man can prophesy, with any certainty, when it will be concluded. Suppose it were commenced, and suppose, owing to the length of the discussion, or to the Session being speedily terminated, the parties are left in the same predicament as before. Could anything be more injurious—could anything be more destructive to their interests? The expense is perfectly enormous—it is frightful. What remedy, I say, can be applied to the evil? As this House constitutes the highest tribunal for appeals in this country, and as the suitor may sue where he pleases, in my opinion he ought never to have this court of justice shut to him. Close it, if you please, so far as it concerns its legislative powers; prorogue it or adjourn it according to the old constitutional form, but allow it to continue to sit for strictly judicial purposes. It is then said, that connected with any scheme for the improvement of the judicial system, something ought to be done with regard to the Court of Review. When I speak of that, I must call to your Lordships' recollection the period when it was established, and the purpose it was intended to answer. I believe these were the circumstances. I have lived long enough in the Court of Chancery to know that there was not a grievance more pressing than the necessity of attending to the business of bankruptcy. The subject being brought before the House of Commons in 1823, Sir Samuel Romilly stated, that of all the suggestions he had heard for redressing the inconveniences of the Court of Chancery, none were so likely to be beneficial as the removal of the bankruptcy business of that court. I believe that was the universal feeling—beyond all question it was my own, and when the proposal came into the House of Commons, I thought it my duty to support it. The complaint is, that the Court in question has not sufficient business to

419
do; the principal grievance is, that the machinery is too large. The object in instituting the Court of Review, was to substitute for a body of not fewer than seventy bankruptcy commissioners a limited number of competent individuals, who should devote their whole time and talents to the business of bankruptcy, and all points connected with it; and I must, injustice to the noble and learned originator of the measure, state to your Lordships, that so far from its having proved a failure, there is not a single trader or merchant in London who has had anything to do with matters connected with bankruptcy since it came into operation who does not confess himself deeply sensible of the great advantages he has derived from the institution of this Court. It is no doubt true, that the business before the Court of Review has become considerably less than it was at one time, but this is precisely owing to the efficiency of the system, the labours of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy and the appointment of official assignees, whose services have been found of very great advantage. It is, in fact, as I have said, the very success of the measure which has rendered its machinery too extensive for its present requirement; one part of the system has operated so successfully, that the other part has become almost superfluous. For, my Lords, I will not disguise from you, that at the present moment the Court of Review has not adequate duties to perform; and I am also ready, quite ready, to admit, that it is the duty of Government not only to direct attention to the existing evils in the system of law, as in every other department of the state, but to see and consider how these evils may be remedied. In reference to the Court of Review, however, though the fact of its greatly lessened extent of business be as I have admitted, yet I cannot say, that I think any change in it can, at the present moment, be safely or satisfactorily made; and I will, in one word, give your Lordships my reason. My Lords, a measure was last year sent up to this House from the House of Commons, which your Lordships had not time to attend to at the late period of the Session at which it came before you. I allude to the Bill for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt. My Lords, it is my intention at the earliest possible moment, after I have found time to consider the details of that measure, to bring it under your Lordships' consideration. By the machinery of that Bill, if it
420
be carried, a good deal of additional work will be thrown upon the Court of Review, and I therefore conceive that your Lordships will agree with me in thinking that, at least until the fate of this Bill is finally decided—and as I intend to bring it forward as soon as possible, that period cannot be far distant—it would not be wise to precipitate at the present moment, any alteration in the existing establishment of the Court of Review. My Lords, there is another suggestion which has been made, which I am disposed to view very favourably, and which I trust, will also meet with the approval of my noble and learned Friend near me. My Lords, it has been suggested, that very great inconvenience continually arises from having the equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer existing as a separate system. That it is not only inconvenient in itself, but that it necessarily interferes with the other departments of the Court, since that Court has become a Court doing so much business, and invested with so much importance as a Court of Law. My Lords, it is necessary on this point that we should inquire what is the extent of the business done by this Court as a Court of Equity. I have already stated the progress of business in the Court of Chancery; the returns from which this statement was derived contain also a statement of the number of bills filed in the equity side of the Court of Exchequer. As I have stated, the average number of cases before the Court of Chancery, for the last three years, has been 1,300, there having been a gradual increase in the business before that Court for a number of years past. The returns from the Court of Exchequer are from the year 1820 to the present time; and, unlike those from the Court of Chancery, exhibit no increase, but, on the contrary, a slight decrease. The average number of cases before the equity side of the Court of Exchequer, in the period I have mentioned, appears to be but 120 a-year, while that before the Court of Chancery is 1,300. My Lords, what has been suggested on this subject is, that the equity jurisdiction now performed by the Court of Exchequer should be transferred to the Court of Chancery, to which it more properly belongs, but, as your Lordships will at once see, this cannot be done in the present state of the latter Court, unless some further judicial aid be given to it. Here, however, it is suggested, that the machinery now in existence for the purposes of equity in the Court of Exchequer, which

421
is now kept in operation for transacting the business of 120 cases a-year, will, if the proposed change be made, cease to be required at that Court; and the question is, therefore, whether it cannot be made available for the despatch of the thus increased business of the Court of Chancery? This is a point which well merits consideration. My Lords, if what I am now about to submit to your consideration should meet with your assent, and that of the other branches of the Legislature, its beneficial effect will be to make a great alteration in the Court of Chancery, by furnishing it with the means of carrying into effect its duties with more facility than it has hitherto had the power of doing, by leaving it in exclusive possession of Us head, whose undivided attention will thenceforth be applied to the business before the Court; and I cannot but think, that until we have had full opportunity of seeing how the additional facilities thus afforded will enable the Court of Chancery to get rid of the arrears of business before it, and to despatch new cases, it will be hardly advisable or expedient for us to make any of the further alterations which have been suggested. With this feeling, in what I shall have the honour to recommend to your Lordships, much of that which has occupied the attention of the public, and much of that which many distinguished and learned individuals have suggested as expedient, has been omitted. At the same time, my Lords, those parties who think that more ought to be done upon this subject, who conceive that the plan suggested is not equal to what they look upon as the necessity of the case, will, I think and hope, agree with me, that at least as far as it goes, it is a decided improvement on the existing system, and is a considerable advance towards promoting the final result which their view of the case leads them to desire. Your Lordships will admit, that it is, at any rate, safe not to do too much in the first instance; and that having once set on foot an improvement, which it is anticipated will be satisfactory and efficient, not to take additional steps until it is found that the first attempt has failed in producing the desired object. My Lords, I am sanguine as to the entire success of the measure I am about to propose, for I conceive that when we have decided that there shall be a judge at the head of the Court of Chancery, whose time and talents shall be solely applied to the business of that Court, there can be little or no doubt but that in a short time he will succeed in keeping down
422
the Appeal List, and will effectively despatch all the original business of the Court.
My Lords, if this hope be realised, and if the person at the head of the Court of Chancery shall succeed in keeping down the business of that court, as far as that court is concerned, the object is attained. Upon the course to be pursued in the despatch of appeals in this House, I will repeat, that if your Lordships shall sanction the proposition for keeping open this House throughout the year, as a court of appellate jurisdiction, the evils which are so severely felt will be speedily and satisfactorily remedied. With respect to the Privy Council, no objection exists, except it be the want of a permanent head to the Council; which objection may be obviated in the way I have already suggested. The general result would be this, that the Lord Chancellor for the time being would be at the head of all the ultimate appellate jurisdiction of the country, by presiding at appeals in error before the House of Lords, and at appeals before the Privy Council. By these means, by providing for the Court of Chancery a Judge whose sole duty it shall be to attend to its important duties, and by the House of Lords sitting in its appellate judicial character, notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of Parliament, in order, like all other courts of justice, to be always accessible to suitors, all the objects which I have stated in the opening of my observations will be amply fulfilled. My Lords, for the important purposes I have mentioned, two Bills have been prepared, an outline of which I will now proceed to lay before your Lordships. The first of these Bills is relative to the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery. It provides, in the first place, that after the appointment of a Judge to be at the head of that Court, to be appointed according to the provisions of the Bill, the Lord Chancellor shall cease to exercise the jurisdiction in that Court. It then gives power to his Majesty to appoint the said Judge for that Court, under the style and title of Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Chancery; and that all forms and appeals heretofore addressed to the Lord Chancellor, shall, for the future, be addressed to the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Chancery. The Bill then provides as to the precedency and salary of that Judge. The Bill is now in blank as to both the one and the other of these points, but I apprehend that your Lordships will conceive that the head of a Court

423
so important as the Court of Chancery ought to be put as nearly as possible on a footing with the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench. The Bill then proceeds to provide—and the difficulty we have had in satisfactorily arranging this point has been the sole cause of my delay in bringing forward the measure—the Bill then provides for the separation of the processes of the Court of Chancery from those under the Great Seal. The provision is, that all writs in respect to processes from the Court of Chancery shall be passed under a seal, to be called the Court of Chancery Seal, instead of under the Great Seal as heretofore, but that all others shall continue, as now, to be passed under the Great Seal. The Bill then proposes an apportionment of the officers now attached to the Great Seal between the Court of Chancery and the Lord Chancellor, and makes regulations as to fees and emoluments. Some of the officers must necessarily be attached to the Lord Chancellor, and the others can remain attached to the Court of Chancery. The Bill further provides, that the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Chancery shall be appointed during life and good behaviour, and shall be removable upon an address from the two Houses of Parliament. This, my Lords, is the outline of the provisions of the first Bill. The second Bill relates to the appellate jurisdiction of this House, and provides, that in order to facilitate the despatch of appeals before your Lordships, that your Lordships shall sit for the purpose of hearing appeals in error, notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of Parliament. It further provides, that the Equity Judges shall be subject to summons before your Lordships, in the same manner that the Common Law Judges now are; and that the same power of summoning shall remain in your Lordships, notwithstanding any such prorogation or dissolution of Parliament. It further provides that the Lord Chancellor shall be present at all sittings of the Privy Council to hear appeals, with the proviso, however, that in the Lord Chancellor's necessary absence the Lord President shall have power to appoint any other member of the Judicial Committee to take his place. My Lords, I have now put you in possession of the extreme grievances arising from the overgrown state of the Court of Chancery, and of the inconveniences arising from the present mode of proceeding before the House of Lords in its appellate-judicial capacity, and before the Privy Council, and I have
424
also stated to you the nature of the proposed remedy for those inconveniences. Your Lordships have now before you the very important question to consider, whether the suggested plan does not appear efficient to improve to a satisfactory extent the administration of justice, and the two ultimate appellate jurisdictions of the country, and of that Court by which questions involving much of the property of the country have to be decided. My Lords, if this measure shall become the law of the land, a very great and just subject of complaint will be entirely removed, and one of the objects stated by his Majesty, in his Address from the Throne "the better administration of justice, especially in the Court of Chancery," will be, I trust, amply fulfilled. I therefore earnestly hope that it will meet with your Lordships' hearty assent. The noble Lord concluded by moving the first reading of a Bill for the better administration of justice in the High Court of Chancery.
Lord Lyndhurstwished to know if an appeal would he from the Vice Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls to the Lord Chief Justice?
The Lord Chancellorreplied, that an appeal would lie, as the Bill he had introduced did not propose to alter the constitution of the Court of Chancery in any respect, except by putting a permanent Judge in place of the Chancellor.
Lord Langdalehad no doubt but that the plan proposed by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would be beneficial. It was, however, liable to objection on two points. He was aware that the present was not a convenient opportunity to discuss the questions arising concerning it, and he did not, therefore, consider it essential to enter at large into the subject; but he begged their Lordships to observe, that the plan which had been detailed to them would leave political and judicial functions, both of the greatest importance, united in the person of the Lord Chancellor, and would leave judicial functions of appellate jurisdiction and original jurisdiction united in that of the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Chancery, leaving an intermediate court of appeals between the original hearing in the Court of Chancery and the final hearing in their Lordships' House. All these subjects were of the most grave importance. He thought it respectful both to the House and his noble and learned.

425
Friend to mention them now, and he begged to apprise their Lordships that he intended to bring them seriously under their consideration in the future stages of the Bill.
Lord Abingerdid not rise for the purpose of going into the merits of the question. He did not see any ground to apprehend that the objects proposed would be attained by the plan brought forward. The difficulties alluded to by his noble Friend who had last spoken, had also crossed his mind. With respect to the observations made by the noble and learned Lord on the Court in which he had the honour to preside, it appeared to him that the great difficulty connected with the Court of Exchequer was not the want of an extensive jurisdiction, but of competent persons to keep the equity division of it in continual activity. Since the period of the separation of the Courts, suitors experienced extreme difficulty in having their business conducted in the Court of Equity, where there were no permanent sittings. There was no reason why those who aimed at the improvement of our judicial establishments should not take the state of that Court into consideration. Its original condition, before the partition of it took place, had been very imperfect, and its functions had been so blended as to make it in many respects impracticable to distinguish between them. But the measure which had been introduced when he was a member of the other House, which opened the Court of Exchequer, and admitted solicitors from all parts of the world to practise in it, had made it answer all the objects of a court of law much more effectually. It was now as competent as any other Court for the purpose of administering law. But with respect to the equity jurisdiction, the Bill introduced by his noble predecessor in the office of Chief Baron (Lord Lyndhurst) had produced inconveniences which he did not seem to have contemplated; for the arrangements made by that Act for the regulation of the sittings of the Court were productive of much delay in the hearing of causes. The obvious remedy for this would be to appoint some competent person under the Lord Chief Baron in the Court of Exchequer to hear the equity causes, and to allow him to sit permanently. The result of such an appointment would be, that great part of the business which now overwhelmed the Court of Chancery would corns imme-
426
diately before the Court of Exchequer. If a person of great legal attainments and experience were appointed to sit in the equity divisions of that Court, it would be completely open, and would possess all the advantages common to those Courts whose sittings were permanent.
Lord Wynfordwas not quite certain that he had understood the observations made by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Langdale). He (Lord Wynford) should certainly object, as his noble and learned Friend had done, to appeals being made from the Vice Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls to the Lord Chief Justice, and he thought that the appeal should be made immediately to the Speaker. He was quite sure, that if the latter course were to be adopted there would be a saving of great expense, and much delay would be prevented. He also understood his noble and learned Friend to object to the Lord Chancellor, who presided in that House, mixing up politics with judicial decisions. He had always wished to see an alteration on this point made in the mode of conducting the judicial business of that House. He wished that the person presiding in it should be a permanent Judge, unconnected with party politics, because it was not fitting that a person attached to any of the great parties in the state should decide on points of order, and other questions that might be raised in that House. With these two exceptions he was ready to give the Bill his support. He had always thought it quite impossible that the same persons could perform the business of that House and the Court of Chancery, and he was therefore glad to see it divided.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad not understood one part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He wished to know what was to become of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords after a prorogation or dissolution of Parliament? Was it intended that the jurisdiction should continue in the absence of the House of Lords, or that the House should sit as a court of judicature in appeal cases, after his Majesty should have thought fit to prorogue or dissolve Parliament?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the House of Lords would sit throughout the year, for the purpose of hearing appeals and writs of error only.
Viscount Melbournebegged leave to say a few words on the Bills which had been

427
laid before the House. He understood his noble Friend on his right (Lord Langdale) to say, that he did not entirely concur in the measures submitted to their Lordships, and in that opinion he also understood the noble and learned Lord on the other side to agree. But the general ground on which they objected to these Bills was, that it was proposed still to leave political and judicial functions united in the person of the Lord Chancellor. Now, he must be allowed to observe, that the measure, as at present proposed, would not at all preclude them from adopting a further reformation in this respect, provided that it seemed good to their Lordships on further consideration. But if they were to agree to that change in the first instance, they could not return to the state of things now existing if the alteration should not be found beneficial, and, therefore, he thought that the Bills were at least cautious measures, not proceeding so fast as many thought necessary, and at the same time not preventing a more thorough reformation if it should be expedient to adopt it.
The Bills were read a first time.