Sitting of 15 August 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Tithe Compositions (Ireland); Municipal Elections; Poor-Law Loans.—Read a second time:—Borough Funds and Borough Boundaries.—Read a first time:—Equity Exchequer Suits; Malt Duties; Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. LENNARD, from the Protestant Dissenters of Maiden, for the Abolition of Church Rates.— By the LORD ADVOCATE, from Peebles, to be exempted from the burthen of alimenting Prisoners after conviction. —By Dr. LUSHINGTON, from the Peace Society and others, Southampton, that all national difficulties may be attempted to be settled by Friendly Interposition.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Morpethsaid, that in order to avoid any difficulty with respect to the Lords' amendments to the Irish Grand Jury Bill, and to satisfy their just pretensions, he should move that the Bill, as sent down from their Lordships' House, be laid aside, and that leave be given to introduce a new Bill, omitting those clauses which had been struck out or altered by their Lordships. The noble Lord then brought in a Bill for consolidating and amending the laws for the regulation of Grand Juries in Ireland, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN BOROUGHS.
The Solicitor-General The Solicitor-General moved the second reading of the Borough Justices Bill.
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, the march of legislation had been lately so rapid that hon. Members did not actually know what they were doing. It would surprise the learned Gentleman and other Members when they were told that the Bill now proposed for a second reading had not been read a first time. Such, however, was the fact. On Saturday, some parchments in the form of Bills were laid on the table, and the titles of them read. As some hon. Members on his side of the House wished to know something of them and their contents, they took up one, and on untying it, were surprised to find it all a blank. The other two were the same. Surely, under such circumstances, it would be impossible for them to suspend the standing orders, in order to pass the Bills that evening.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, the entry upon the journals was, that the Bills were ordered for a second reading; which, of course, implied that they had been read a first time. The journals were conclusive. They were Bills on which no discussion could arise, all the clauses having been agreed to by both Houses.
The Speaker: There can be no doubt that a copy of the Bill on parchment should be on the table of the House when the first reading of it is moved. I was not aware that such was not the case in the present instance. I now understand that the reason of this not being so was this—that the Bills were at that moment sent to the printer, in order to insure their being printed and in the hands of Members as early as possible that morning.
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, hon. Members were prevented from knowing what the Bills were on Saturday, and which were only delivered to them that morning; so that it was impossible any Gentleman could know what he was about.
Mr. Charles Rosshad made inquiries of many Parliamentary agents, and none of them had ever known an instance of the kind.
Mr. Charltondeprecated the course that had been adopted. In his opinion, hon. Members ought to have had an opportunity of seeing what the measures were.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, there Was not one word inserted in the Bill that had not been assented to by the House, and

1229
not a circumstance had occurred that Would place any hon. Member in a different predicament to that in which he was at present placed.
Bill read a second time.

CONFERENCE.—COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS.
The House held a Conference with the Lords on the Prisoners' Counsel Bill, when Mr. Ewart and others, who were the managers, laid before their Lordships the Commons' reasons for disagreeing to the Lords' Amendments in the Prisoners' Counsel Bill.

AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.
Captain Bolderosaid that having complied with the usual rule of courtesy by giving the noble Lord notice, he rose in the exercise of his privilege to put a question to him. He wished to be informed whether Government had received any official intelligence announcing that the National Guard of Madrid had been disembodied, and that the municipality had refused to take up arms, having been ordered to do so? If such were the fact, the noble Lord would, perhaps, add what passing events had led to this proceeding. The present posture of affairs in Spain seemed to require all the noble Lord's judgment. Having put this single question, he should make no further observation, being sure that the answer to it would receive all attention.
Viscount Palmerstonstated, that official information had been received, that an attempt had been made at Madrid to proclaim the Constitution of 1812, by a portion of the National Guard. That attempt was successfully resisted by the Queen's Government; but an order had in consequence been issued for remodelling the National Guard: that force was disembodied for a short time, in order that it might be remodelled and reformed.
Sir George Sinclairinquired whether the British Legion was to be employed in supporting the Constitution of 1812?
Lord Palmerstonreplied, that that force was in the pay, and under the orders, of the Spanish Government. It was not for him to Say on what service it would be employed.
Viscount Stormontsaid, some painful events had occurred at Saragossa, and he begged to know whether the force on board the British squadron was to be employed in support of the Constitution of 1812, then proclaimed?
Viscount Palmerstonremarked, that a
1230
great poet had represented Bohemia as a maritime country, and the noble Lord had converted Saragossa into a sea-port. He did not think it likely that the British naval force was likely to undertake any operations at Saragossa.
Viscount Stormontdid not put the question with reference to the squadron, but to the supernumerary marines on board it. He had said nothing about vessels, but marines, who had been acting on shore, and who had nothing to do with the vessels.
Viscount Palmerstonadded, that the noble Lord was quite mistaken in supposing that the marines had nothing to do with the squadron. They were attached to the squadron, and were under the command of Lord John Hay. Their service was of a character very different to that of marching to Saragossa, and taking part in political affairs there.
Mr. Grove Pricewas by no means satisfied with the answer of the noble Lord. He was about to refer to Corunna, and to the coast of Spain adjacent to where the British squadron was stationed, without wandering to Bohemia. He wished to know whether the British force under Lord John Hay, paid and victualled by this country, was to remain neutral, or to take part for or against the friends of the Constitution of 1812.
Viscount Palmerstonanswered, that the British force would decidedly remain neutral. It was at present acting in pursuance of the engagements of a treaty: that treaty had reference to a civil war between the Queen of Spain and her party, and Don Carlos and his party, but no reference whatever to any internal divisions between the Constitutionalists of 1812 and their opponents.
Sir John Elleyhoped he should not be considered irregular in offering a few words. The situation of General Evans seemed very critical and difficult. It appeared that an order had been sent for three battalions of Spanish troops to quit the British Legion, and to return to Vittoria; and this had been done by order of Cordova. The noble Lord had said that the British Legion was at the disposal of the Spanish Government, which Spanish Government had named Cordova as Commander-in-chief. Having attached the three battalions on a former occasion, Cordova had issued orders to detach them again and on the receipt of the orders, the troops became a deliberative body.
Subject dropped.

PENSIONS DUTIES.
The Pensions Duties Bill was read a third time. On the question that it do pass,
Mr. Warburtonrose to move the omission of that clause in the Bill which exempted the Duke of Marlborough from the payment of the duties it imposed. Those duties were a four-shilling duty, a shilling, and a sixpenny duty. With respect to the first, there could be no doubt whatever that the pension of the Duke of Marlborough was liable to it. It had been constantly paid since the first granting of the pension, with the exception he should explain to the House. It had, indeed, been represented by a paper which had been put into the hands of Members, that by the 5th Ann, it was provided that the pension should be paid without any charges or fees. But he (Mr. Warburton) affirmed that this was not a fair quotation from the Act. The language of the Act was, that the pension should be paid without any fees or charges "to be demanded or taken for paying the same, or any part thereof." And that very Act gave his Grace a remedy in case any deductions were attempted to be made from the amount of his pension, on account of any fees or charges which could not legally be demanded; it provided, that in such case, he might bring his action in a court of law against the persons making the illegal demands. It was clear, therefore, that even admitting the law of the case to be on the side of the Duke, he was not under the necessity of appealing to Parliament: for if either the four-shilling, the one shilling, or the sixpenny duty were illegally imposed upon him, he had his remedy by an action at law. As to the one shilling, and the sixpenny duties, he (Mr. Warburton) admitted, that by the 31st and 32d Geo. 2nd c. 33, his Grace was exempted from the payment of the four-shilling duty, for that Act undoubtedly exempted from the payment of all duties belonging to the crown, any pensions granted by his Majesty's successor, by any Act of Parliament, in fee or fee tail. And as by the 48th Geo. 3rd, any pension was exempted from the payment of the duties then levied, (the sixpenny, the one shilling, and the four-shilling duties) which had been specially exempted from the payments of any or either of such duties, his Grace, in being exempted from the four shilling-duty, was
1232
undoubtedly exempted also from the one shilling, and the sixpenny duties. But by the 49th Geo. 3rd, these Acts were repealed: and therefore, as far as the law of the case went, he (Mr. Warburton) agreed in the opinion expressed by the Attorney and Solicitor General, that his Grace's pension was justly liable to the payment of those duties. But then it was contended, that though, according to the strict law of the case, his Grace might be liable to the payment of those duties, yet such was not the intention of Parliament at the time of granting his pension, he (Mr. Warburton) contended, that the Acts of that Parliament were the only just interpretation of its intentions. And by Parliamentary returns, it would be found that the duties in question had actually been charged immediately after the pension was granted, in 1705. Let it be recollected, that by the resolutions of that House, the Duke of Marlborough was charged with having fraudulently and illegally taken large sums of money, amounting, altogether, to 247,000 l.; and though he was never called upon to refund that money, the recollection of the great services he had rendered the country, having probably prevented Parliament from proceeding to extremities against him, yet, no doubt, Parliament considered those matters in determining upon the amount of his pension. And when the House of Commons of that day had decided that, taking all things into consideration, 5,000 l.; a year, subject to the payment of all aids and taxes, with the magnificent estate of Blenheim, were a sufficient reward for his services to the country, he (Mr. Warburton) asked, what was there in the services rendered by the present Duke to justify the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. G. Harcourt) in calling upon Parliament now to give him an exemption from taxes and charges to which the great Duke, his progenitor was liable. He (Mr. Warburton) should feel himself justified in the course he was now taking, even upon the question of form alone. He objected most strongly to the manner in which the clause in question had been introduced into the Bill. Had it been expected that the Members of the Government would have voted for it, the benches upon his (Mr. Warburton's) side of the House would have been much better filled. A vote obtained from the House, so taken by surprise, could not be considered as expressing the real sense, of the

1233
House; and upon the ground both of merit and of form, he felt it his duty to move, that this clause be omitted from the Bill.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, he should support the motion of the hon. Member for Bridport, and he entirely agreed in the arguments by which that motion had been supported. The House had no reason to suppose that Ministers intended to support the clause brought forward by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, nay, more, when that motion was under discussion, not one Member of the Government had expressed his approval of it: the Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, had said, that he considered it a question of doubt, and that he should give his vote in favour of the doubts; but no other Minister had in any way expressed himself favourable to it. He (Mr. Robinson) contended, that a vote taken when the House was under such a false impression, could not be considered indicative of its real feelings. He did not feel it necessary to argue the merits, but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the first Duke had submitted to the deductions in question, what services had the present Duke rendered the country that entitled him to exemption from those deductions?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad nothing more to say upon the subject than what he stated the other evening, except this, that the hon. Member for Bridport was completely mistaken, when he supposed that the clause in question had been taken up by the Government. It was true that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had supported the clause when it was under consideration on the former occasion, and it was equally true that he should do so again; but in doing so, it must be understood, that he was expressing only his own individual opinion on the merits of the case. Looking at the Acts of Parliament, and at the various circumstances connected with the grant, as originally made to the great Duke of Marlborough, there appeared to him to be a doubt as to whether a tax could possibly be imposed upon it; and having that doubt in his mind, he determined to give the present Duke the benefit of it. As a proof that the clause had not been treated as a Government measure, he need only observe, that three members of the Administration had voted against it.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, he was one of
1234
those three. If a distinct proposition were brought forward, to place the pension of the Duke of Marlborough on the same footing as that of other great military commanders, he was not prepared to say that the House ought to reject it; but understanding that the clause now proposed to be struck out, was founded exclusively upon the supposed construction of the Act by which the grant to the Duke of Marlborough was originally made, he felt bound to oppose it, because, according to his reading of that Act, the pension of the Duke was clearly liable to any tax that Parliament might impose upon it.
Mr. Humethought, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had any doubt upon his mind, ought to give it in favour of the public, not of the Duke of Marlborough, whose ancestor had been sufficiently well paid for the services he performed; and who, moreover, had always been liable to such deductions as that from which now, for the first time, it was proposed to exempt his descendant. He begged to ask, whether at the end of a Session, with no more than fifty Members present, it was fit or proper for the House to overrule that which had been an invariable custom for upwards of 100 years?
Mr. Brothertonfelt that he should not be doing his duty to his constituents if he did not oppose this clause. He felt satisfied, indeed, that this country never could be happy or prosperous till war was discountenanced, and warriors held in less estimation than at present.
Mr. Trevorsaid, it was unjust and un. fair to represent this clause as giving the present Duke of Marlborough any increase of pension. He should not enter into the line of argument which had been taken by the hon. Member for Salford. He deprecated war and warriors. But he (Mr. Trevor) should like to ask him, what would have become of this country at the time of the Duke of Marlborough, had it not been for the splendid victories achieved by that celebrated general. We were fighting then, pro aris et focis, and this pension had been granted to the Duke by the unanimous voice of the Parliament of that day, as a reward for those distinguished national services. True; war was no benefit to any country, but he (Mr. Trevor) contended, that it would be a violation of public faith and national honour, to allow any deductions from the amount of pen-

1235
sion which had been unanimously granted to one of its most eminent military heroes.
Mr. CutlarFergusson agreed with his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that as there was doubt upon the Subject, it ought to be given in favour of the Duke.
Dr. Lushingtonobjected to the form and mode in which the clause had been introduced into the Bill. Such a clause should have been proposed, not on the bringing up of the report, but in a Committee of the whole House. He was decidedly of opinion, that the pension of the Duke of Marlborough Was liable to taxation, in the same manner as other pensions, and for that reason he should now vote with the hon. Member for Bridport for the omission of the clause.
Colonel Sibthorpwould support the clause. The pension of the Duke of Marl-borough, it must be recollected, had been fairly earned; an observation which would not apply to the pension of many a Chancellor of the Exchequer or Secretary of State.
Sir George Grey Sir George Grey, after mature consideration, Was of opinion that it was undesirable to introduce the clause into the present Bill.
The House divided on the question, that the clause Stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 34; Noes 36: Majority 2.

List of the AYES.

Ashley, Lord

Price, S. G.

Attwood, Thomas

Pusey, Philip

Byng, G. S.

Reid, Sir J. Rae

Chandos, Marquess of

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Churchill, Ld. C. S.

Richards, R.

Cockerell, Sir C. bt.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Cooper, E. J.

Sanford, E. A.

Dalmeny, Lord

Sibthorp, Colonel

Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C.

Stanley, E. J.

Gordon, Robert

Steuart, R.

Howard, hon. E.G.

Stormont, Lord

Jones, Theobald

Tancred, H. W.

Lennox, Lord G.

Trevor, hon. A.

Macleod, R.

Tynte, C. K. K.

Maule, hon. F.

Wall, Charles Baring

Morpeth, Viscount

Murray, John Arch.

TELLERS.

Neeld, Joseph

Harcourt, G.

Palmerston, Lord

Young, G. F.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bonham, R. F.

Alsager, Captain

Bowring, Dr.

Baring, F. T.

Brotherton, J.

Baring, Thomas

Callaghan, D.

Bewes, T.

Chalmers, P.

Blamire, W.

Duncombe, T. S.

1236

Gladstone, Thomas

Robinson, G.

Grey, Sir G

Ruthven, Edward

Hawes, B.

Scrope, G. P.

Hindley, C.

Smith, Benjamin

Hotham, Lord

Thompson Col. T. P.

Hume, J.

Thornley. T.

Humphery, John

Tooke, William

Labouchere, Henry

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Leader, J. T.

Wakley, T.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Williams, W.

Pattison, J.

Philips, Mark

TELLERS.

Potter, R.

Ewart, W.

Robarts, Abraham W.

Warburton, H.

Clause excluded, and Bill passed.

JEWISH CIVIL DISABILITIES' BILL,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the third reading of the Bill; for removing the civil disabilities under which the Jews labour.
Mr. Arthur Trevorsaid, I feel it my duty before a Bill, which will finally unchristianize this House, (for if it pass, it will be quite possible for this House to become a Jewish Sanhedrim), I feel it my duty to give it my most strenuous opposition. Some hon. Members may think it immaterial what is the religious creed of the body representing the people in this House. I cannot concur in that feeling. Nor can I—God forbid that I should offer such an insult to any dissenting Christians, as to place their claims with regard to civil disabilities upon a par with those of the Jews, who deny the birth and the existence of the Messiah. I should like to ask, how can the Jews, if admitted into this House, join in the prayers which are offered up to the supreme Being for a blessing upon our undertakings before we proceed to business? Do they not deny not only the divinity, but the very existence of the Being, in whose name they are offered up. And am I not justified in saying, that by admitting the Jews into this House, you unchristianize this House? You do not merely dissever Church and State; you separate between the State and Christianity. I believe I have good ground for asserting, that this measure is looked upon with execration and disgust by a considerable portion of the reflecting community throughout England. I trust I shall find among the Dissenters of my constituents those who will justify me in the course I have taken with regard to it. I do believe, that any man possessing genuine Christian principles, must view this measure with disgust. I speak not thus with any feelings of ill will towards the Jews. I believe them to be a peaceful and

1237
miserly body of people; but so long as the Christian faith is professed in this country, I do say, that by admitting those who deny that faith altogether—not merely to the rights and privileges of a civil nature, but to the right of legislation in all matters affecting the Christian Church as well as the State, we are doing that which is unworthy of our name, and placing our-selves in a very despicable position in the eyes of surrounding Christian nations. I do trust there will be found some in this House to unite with me in recording their opinion against the Bill in this its final stage in this House. I know, indeed, that from the lateness of the Session it is not likely the Bill will pass into a law this year. But that is no reason why a measure of this kind should pass a yet Christian House of Commons unresisted. I am fully aware that my opposition will be unsuccessful; but it is no reason why we should shrink from a contest, that we anticipate defeat; and I feel that, as one of the representatives of a Christian country, I have a solemn duty to discharge—a duty which I will not be deterred from performing. I consider this a truly disgraceful Bill. As I said before, it will be quite possible, if it should ever pass into a law, for this House to be composed entirely of Jews—no very enviable state of things. I consider it my duty to oppose at its last stage its really execrable enactments. I, therefore, move, that this Bill be read a third time this day three months.
Mr. Borthwick: I cannot allow this Bill to pass its final stage in this House, without expressing my strong opposition to it, and my entire concurrence in what has fallen from my hon. Friend, the Member for Durham, (Mr. Trevor) in regard to it. On a former occasion, when I ventured to say, that I opposed this Bill, not as a Christian, but as a citizen, I had not time to state why I made that distinction, and it is for that purpose alone I now rise. I do not apprehend any evil to the Church of England from this measure. I believe her to be founded on a rock, which cannot be shaken by any act of this, or any other legislative assembly; and we are too much accustomed to speak, as though we were the protectors of the Church, and as if she were in danger from any acts of ours. But so soon as you admit those, who have been properly represented as deniers of the very God whom we worship, and whom the Church acknowledges, into the legislative assembly of the country you sever
1238
at once, and for ever, between Church and State.
Colonel Sibthorp: Sir, I am not afraid to divide. I think if the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had brought forward so important a mea-sure as this, affecting, as it does, the religion and the institutions of this country, at an earlier period of the Session, so as to have allowed time for proper discussion, he would have acted with greater credit to himself, and given more satisfaction to the country. I agree with my hon. Friend who spoke first, that this measure will be viewed with disgust and dissatisfaction through out the reflecting part of the community. I believe it will be so among my own constituents. Sir, I have no hostility to the Jews; but I say, that if they are admitted into this House, it will be impossible for them to attend to duties here, with all those forms which are prescribed to ourselves, unless, indeed, they go through them pro formâ. I shall certainly support my hon. Friend in his amendments.
Sir Charles B. Vere: I consider this a measure pregnant with danger to the Established Church in this country. I hope we shall still continue to be governed by a Christian Legislature, and that our laws will still have the sanction of Christianity upon them. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not bring forward so important a measure at an earlier period of the Session. I think that if it pass into a law, our laws will be stripped of that which constitutes the national honour and glory: for I remember the words of a celebrated Frenchman, when comparing the British with the French law, said, the difference was, that the law of England was the law of its religion, the law of France, was an episcopal law.
The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 13: Majority 31.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir Charles

Gordon, Robt.

Aglionby, H.

Grey, Sir G.

Bagshaw, John

Hindley, C.

Bernal, Ralph

Howard, P. H.

Bewes, T.

Hume, J.

Blamire, W.

Lennox, Lord G.

Bowring, Dr.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Brotherton, J.

Macleod, R.

Callaghan, D.

Maule, hon. Fox

Chalmers, P.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Churchill, Lord C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Falmerston, Lord

Dalmeny, Lord

Philips, M.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Potter, R.

1239

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Tulk, Charles

Robinson, G. R.

Wakley, T.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Wall, C. B.

Scrope, George P.

Warburton, H.

Smith, B.

Williams, W.

Steuart, R.

Young, G. F.

Tancred, H. W.

Thompson, Col.

TELLERS.

Thornley, T.

Ewart, W.

Tooke, W.

Hawes, Benjamin

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Stormont, Lord

Ashley, Lord

Trevor, hon. Arthur

Gladstone, Thomas

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Lincoln, Earl of

Twiss, Horace

Neeld, Joseph

Vere, Sir C. B.

Price, S. G.

TELLERS.

Richards, R.

Borthwick, P.

Ross, Charles

Sibthorp, Col.

Bill read a third time and passed.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. Aglionbymoved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report.
Colonel Sibthorphad opposed the Bill in every preceding stage, and would oppose it in the present. He concluded with moving, that the report be taken into consideration that day three months.
The House divided, when there not being forty Members present, the House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Medical Witnesses.—Read a second time:—Coal Trade; Westminster Small Debts; Greek Loan; Militia pay.—Read a first time:—
1216
Jewish Civil Disabilities; Pension Duties; Valuation (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Lord STRAFFORD, from Maidstone, against the payment of Church Rates—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Wesleyan Methodists, Dublin, against allowing Grocers to sell Spirits.—By the Bishop of ROCHESTER, from the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church, Winchester, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Report may not receive the sanction of the House.

STANNARIES.
On the motion of the Earl of Falmouth, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Stannaries Bill.
On the 1st Clause,
Lord Langdalesaid, that much opposition had been raised against the exercise of the jurisdiction now possessed by the Stannary Courts, on account of the alleged inconvenience and confusion which arose from their decisions; but still it was found that this species of jurisdiction was so valuable and so useful, that it was deemed right to establish a local court on a more extended scale. Now, he had no objection to the establishment of a local court in the county of Cornwall, for the decision of questions connected with mining concerns. If such a court were surrounded by proper safeguards, he conceived that its operation would be extremely valuable. He felt, however, considerable doubts as to whether the Bill before their Lordships was calculated to produce such a beneficial effect. He felt not a little hesitation in suffering the Bill to proceed through the second reading without observation. He did not think that it contained the necessary safeguards and precautions which ought to surround a measure the object of which was to establish a local court of a peculiar description. They ought to consider what provision was made for the judge, and what the situation of the judge would be under this Bill. The judge ought certainly to be placed in such a situation as would enable him to perform his duty fairly and impartially. What, he would ask, was the law to be administered? It was not the common law of England, but the custom of the stannaries. What those laws or customs of the stannaries were, it was extremely difficult to discover. They could not accurately ascertain what they were; and yet they were called on to pass a Bill for the administration of a species of law that was not known or perfectly understood. He next came to consider what was the situation of the judge. He was to be appointed, under this Bill, by the Duke of Cornwall, if there happened to be one; otherwise, by

1217
the King. He was to hold office during good behaviour; and he was removable from office by the Duke of Cornwall, on the requisition of five councillors of the Duchy of Cornwall. The judge, it appeared, was to try matters in which the interests of the Duke of Cornwall might be deeply implicated, and yet he was removable on the application of those officers. He did not think, that such a provision as this was calculated properly to secure the independence of the judge. He now wished to look a little at the history of this Bill. It originated with persons who were greatly interested in the mines of Cornwall; and as the judge was to adjudicate on matters that so nearly concerned them, it was agreed that one-half of the judge's salary should be paid out of the revenues of the dukedom, and the other half by those who more immediately promoted this measure. Every manager of a mine was to keep an account of the minerals raised; and one-fourth of the full value of what was obtained was to be paid over to meet, in part, the salary of the judge. A return of the quantity raised was to be made to the registrar of this court, from time to time; and if the individual did not make that return correctly, he was to be subjected to a penalty, to be recovered before the judge. Thus the judge was to sit trying causes, the object of which was to secure funds to meet the expenses of his own office. This, he thought, was a situation in which a judge ought not to be placed. Then the right of appeal was most defective. The appeal lay from the steward to the vice-warden, from the vice-warden to the lord warden, and from the lord warden to the Duke of Cornwall, if there were one, assisted by a certain number of councillors. He contended that there ought to be a proper appeal—an appeal either to the King in Council or to that House.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that was not the time to consider the principle of the Bill, which had already been conceded. He did not object to several of the observations which had fallen from his noble and learned Friend; and, in fact, he had marked on the margin of the Bill some points which he conceived ought to be amended.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that cases of great importance, involving property to the amount of hundreds of thousands of pounds, were likely to come under this
1218
court for consideration; therefore, the measure ought to be maturely weighed before it was carried into effect. He thought that the Bill should be postponed till next Session, in order that it might be properly considered.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that this Bill had already undergone long and serious consideration. It had been submitted to the Magistrates of Cornwall, and also to the principal officers of the duchy, by whom it had been carefully examined. After having received various important alterations elsewhere, it now came up to their Lordships in its present state. The Bill originated with a number of individuals of very great influence in the county of Cornwall, who had devoted many months to its consideration. They felt no desire to serve any particular body; but. looked to the welfare, not merely of the mining interest, but of the landed interest, and the trading interest. They wished, in fact, to constitute a court that would be beneficial to the public in general. If they looked to the north or to the south, to Devon, or elsewhere, they would find, that where mines were wrought, local courts were established. Indeed, a noble Friend reminded him, that if they went abroad, they would find no part of the world in which minerals were sought after that did not possess its local court.
The 1st Clause was agreed to.
On the 2d Clause, relating to the appointment and removal of the vice-warden,
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved an amendment, to the effect that the vice-warden could not be removed except by the certificate of the Barons of the Exchequer, that he had done some act to justify his removal. He contended that it was an anomaly, and inconsistent with that independence which a judge should possess, that his removal from office should depend on the will of that party who might be said to have an interest in most of the causes which came before him.
The Lord Chancellordid not object to the principle, that a judge should not be removable at the pleasure of those who appointed him; but he thought it would be better to have the same rule apply in this case as in that of the judges of the courts in Westminster Hall—namely, that their removal could take place only by address of both Houses to the Crown.
Lord Wynfordwould not object to that

1219
course, and was willing to shape his amendment accordingly.
Lord Hollandsaid, that there were difficulties in this case which ought not to be overlooked. The Duchy of Cornwall was now in the possession of the Crown, but suppose it should be held distinctly from the Crown, it would then be the private estate for the time being of the party holding it, to which were attached certain jurisdictions and privileges. Would their Lordships now interfere with those privileges, and say, that the Duke of Cornwall at a future period should not appoint or remove his own judicial officers? He thought it better to let the matter stand as it now was in the Bill.
Lord Langdalethought the least difficult way to settle the point would be to leave the removal in the hands of the Crown, on an address of the two Houses of Parliament.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
On the 5th Clause, which gave an appeal from the vice warden to the lord warden, assisted by some of the judicial Lords of the Privy Council,
Lord Langdaleproposed an amendment to add these words:—"subject to an appeal to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal."
The Lord Chancellorthought that would be hard on some of the suitors in small cases, though in important cases, such an appeal might be necessary.
The Earl of Falmouththought it would be a hardship, for there would then be an appeal in almost every case. He would suggest that the appeal should be to the lord warden, assisted by a Baron of the Exchequer. He would prefer one appeal.
Lord Langdalewould also prefer one appeal; but he did not approve of the one proposed.
Amendment carried, and clause agreed to.
On Clause 7,
Lord Wynfordproposed, that in trials in any of the Courts under this Bill there should be power to move for a new trial, as in the courts at Westminster, and that the application for such new trial should be made to the vice warden, or to one of the Courts at Westminster, and that, if necessary, the new trial should take place in the neighbouring county of Devon.
The Lord Chancellorsubmitted, that the Stannaries Courts were wholly inde-
1220
pendent as to their jurisdiction, and he must object to the amendment affording the right of an application for new trials to any of the Courts of Westminster Hall. The application ought to be made, in the first instance, to the vice warden; and if he should refuse the motion, his decision could be questioned by appeal in the same manner as any other order he might pronounce.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that as this Bill did not give a writ of error, he was only anxious to provide for the correction of mistakes arising either on questions of fact, on the misdirection of the learned judge at Nisi Prius, or from verdicts against evidence—in a word, that the judgments of these courts should be examinable. He should be quite content provided there was secured to parties a means of control over the judgments, if erroneous, of the courts below.
The Lord Chancellorwould, on the Report, secure this by giving an appeal from a judgment at Nisi Prius, in the same manner as from any other order of the vice warden. He had no objection to include in his amendment the provision proposed, by which a cause might be sent for trial to the adjoining county.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 36,
Lord Lyndhurst Lord Lyndhurst moved an amendment to the effect, that the learned counsel whom it was understood was to be appointed to the office of vice warden should be permitted to practise as a Barrister for three years from and after the passing of the Act except within or in cases connected with the county of Cornwall. He was induced to make this proposition, inasmuch as the court over which he was to preside was a mere experiment, and as everybody knew that no professional man having left the Bar, could return to it except under great loss and disadvantage. By his being permitted to remain at the Bar, he would continue to mix with his professional brethren, whom he would be enabled with great public advantage, to consult on cases of difficulty, and in the arrangement of the business of his court.
The Earl of Falmouthobjected to the alteration proposed by the noble and learned Lord. The arrangement had been made, and the salary of the vice warden had been increased to the amount stated in the Bill, on the ground that he should cease to practise at the Bar, and should

1221
give his whole time and attention to the business of the county. The proposition of the noble and learned Lord had not even been suggested in the Commons, and he contended, that after a salary had been secured, on the arrangement of the learned gentleman's ceasing to practise at the Bar, it was too much now to interfere with that arrangement in the manner proposed.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he had authority for stating, that at the very time it was proposed to raise the salary from 1,000 l. to 1,500 l. on consideration of his not continuing to practise, the learned Gentleman who had been appointed, objected and said, during the three years he might be permitted to practise he should consider himself only entitled to the salary of 1,000 l. per annum; and if at the end of three years he should not be allowed to continue to practise, that then he should expect the increased salary of 1,500 l. per annum.
Lord Wynfordremarked, that the learned gentleman who had been appointed to the office of vice-warden was a gentleman of great eminence at the bar. He did not doubt but many gentlemen at the bar might be found who would be ready to take the appointment on other terms, but he was satisfied no person of eminence would do so. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend near him that the Bill was an experiment, and on those grounds supported the amendment.
Lord Langdalesaid, that if the Bill was to be a mere experiment, a clause ought to be introduced to restrict its operation for a period in which that experiment could fairly be tried, instead of appointing a judge with power to continue to practise at the bar for three years, thus allowing him an opportunity of choosing which of the two lines of life best suited his habits. For the experiment, even the judge ought to devote his whole heart and soul to the business, and if the Bill was to be permanent, his whole time and attention ought to be applied to it. To a limitation of the term of the Bill he should not object, though he must strenuously oppose the proposition for the Judge being allowed to continue to practise at the bar.
Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that as it was not at present known what was the extent of business to be disposed of by this court, the Bill was a mere experiment, and no valid objection to his alteration of the clause had been even suggested.
Amendment negatived, and the clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Remaining clauses agreed to. The House resumed, Bill reported with amendments.

CORPORATE PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.
Viscount Melbourne, in moving the second reading of the Corporate Property (Ireland) Bill, said, that the main objects of the Bill were to restrain the corporations in Ireland from any alienation of the corporate property, or the exercise of any patronage they might possess, until Parliament should have legislated on the subject.
The Duke of Wellingtondeclared, that he never could consent to be a party to the statements contained in the preamble of this Bill. There were points also in the enacting clauses to which he most decidedly objected, but he could not allow even this stage of the Bill to pass without expressing his entire dissent from the statements contained in the preamble, since he considered the measure both unprecedented and contrary to justice.
Viscount Melbourneobserved, that the Bill merely went to provide a remedy for the loss of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill; and with regard to the preamble, so much objected to, it merely recited facts. He would read it: —"Whereas it is fitting and expedient that provision should be made forthwith against the wasting of the estates of Corporate towns in Ireland, their corruption and abuses, until such time as Parliament shall provide a remedy." That there had been great abuses in the corporations of Ireland could not be denied, or why was it that noble Lords opposite had, in the early part of the Session been so desirous for the total abolition and destruction of corporate bodies in Ireland? Noble Lords opposite could not refuse to assent" to the recitals in the preamble. Those recitals were merely statements of facts; those facts he had considered to have been admitted by noble Lords opposite, and he very much doubted whether this measure was either unprecedented or contrary to justice.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged to say, that he, for one, had never admitted the existence either of corruption or abuse in the corporate bodies of Ireland. The grounds upon which he contended for their extinction was, that they were administered on party

1223
principles. As to corruption and abuse, they never had been admitted by noble Lords on his side of the House. On the contrary, they had stated that they had no evidence of any such corruption or abuse on which they ought to act. It appeared to him that this was a most extraordinary Bill, even independent of the terms of its preamble. What were its enactments? Why, first, that any contract fraudulently made by these corporate bodies should be null and void. Were they not so even by the operation of the law as it stood. The second declaration of the same enacting clause was, that where a corporation disposed of its property for an inadequate consideration, such disposition should be wholly null and void. But the clause contained no provision whatever for the repayment of the purchase-money; so that if he, or any other person, contracted with a corporation on the present principles, to buy their estate for 5,000 l., and that it turned out the consideration money was inadequate by 200 l. or 300 l., he, or the purchaser, whoever he might be, would become a mere trustee for the corporation, and have no means of recovering his purchase-money, but by a suit in equity, and when he had obtained his decree, the corporation might be without funds. Could anything be more unfair, unjust, or absurd? What was the next provision? It enacted, that with respect to conveyances so pronounced null and void, that Parliament might in the next or ensuing Session, provide some means for calling them in question. Now the courts of justice were open for purposes of this kind. Why should they legislate to provide a mode of proceeding which was already in existence? or, if proper to legislate at all upon the subject, why empower the Legislature to do that which they had the power of doing without any present interference? The second clause of the Bill enacted, that if any appointments were made, which should eventually be deemed unnecessary, and the parties holding them should be removed by any subsequent Act of Parliament, such parties should not be entitled to any compensation. Was it not better to leave this matter to the judgment of Parliament when it came to legislate on the subject? He did not mean to say, that he opposed the second reading of the Bill, but the objectionable parts of the preamble must be struck out, and the clauses remodelled
1224
in Committee. The Bill comprised only one page, and was the most singular specimen of legislation ever sent up to that House of Parliament.
The Earl of Falmouthprotested against the use of the words "corruption and abuse," contained in the preamble of the Bill, on no better evidence than the report of the Commissioners. The Bill went further than the measure of last year, and he objected to it on constitutional grounds, and on the first principles of justice. He never could suffer a Bill of this nature to pass, he never could sanction so abominable an assumption of facts as the preamble of this Bill set forth.
Lord Hollandsaid, the House had had some experience of what the noble and learned Lord (Lyndhurst) meant by remodelling a Bill. The noble and learned Lord had not spared the ruffian Bill, as the Irish Corporation Bill had been termed; and now he was about to embrue his hands in the blood of this little infant measure, which was, in fact, a child of his own. Noble Lords opposite had told the Government over and over again, last year, that they were ready to meet the Government half way, and to do anything to enable them to consider the matter this year, if necessary; but now they said "No;" and what, he would ask, was the reason for pursuing such a course? It appeared to him that the noble and learned Lord seemed to want to disgust the people, and indispose them to that House; the people would say—" That cruel tyrant, who has done away with so many of our Bills, is now diverting himself with killing a fly." After he had washed his hands in the blood of so many important Bills, he had now come to destroy this little innocent. Why, the noble Lord said he would do so in Committee. Indeed, noble Lords on his (Lord Holland's) side of the House had nothing to do but to lament over the destruction of the Bills which had been brought into the House this Session. If the noble and learned Lord was sincere in his views—if this Bill was such as would disgrace the statute-book, why attempt to new-model it in Committee? Why did not the noble and learned Lord vote against its second reading? The noble and learned Lord had been silent as to the amendments he intended to propose; but he, judging from the thunder of his index to the second reading, could not doubt that those amendments must be terrible indeed,

1225
and fatal to the Bill; and then the whole murder would out, and show that the intention, all along, had been to keep up those notable corporations, which, during the discussions last year, were allowed to be corrupt and full of abuses, and, as the noble and learned Lord now said, were completely under party government, just as they were, and to give to a party a triumph.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that really there was no pleasing the noble Baron who had just sat down. If noble Lords on his (Lord Lyndhurst's) side of the House objected to the second reading of a Bill, his cry was, "Read the Bill a second time, and go into Committee;" if, on the other hand, they should read the Bill a second time, and go into Committee, that course was objected to. The noble Baron had expressed some alarm that this Bill should be altered, it was so small; it was an insect to be sure, but then it had a poisonous tooth, and he wished it to go into Committee, in order to take away its poisonous power. As to the remark, that we (continued the noble and learned Lord) shall disgust the country, and indispose the people towards this House, because we will not agree to measures unjust in character—to Bills which, in their very preambles, are libels on his Majesty's subjects—Bills which are inefficient in some of their clauses, unnecessary, unjust, and atrocious in others, I am sure that we shall not offend or displease the people of England, if, in the discharge of our duty as Legislators, we watch over every Bill that is sent up to this House, and do not send out any Bill of which we do not approve conscientiously, and believe is consonant with the principles of the laws and constitution of this country. I am sure the course we are pursuing is much more likely to recommend this House to the country than the careless course of legislation recommended by the noble Baron.
Lord Hollandthought, the inconsistency with which be charged the noble and learned Lord, lay in the fact, that, in agreeing to go into committee on the Bill, he had stated his arguments against the whole principle of the Bill, its preamble, and groundwork of it; that course was quite as inconsistent as if he threw out the Bill, on its second reading, on matters of mere detail. As to the manner in which the country would judge of the noble and
1226
learned Lord's conduct, he wished him joy of the great advantage he would gain by so altering this Bill as to lose it.
Lord Ellenboronghsaid, that he and his noble Friends on his side of the House did not wish to protect abuses or to prevent their extinction; on the contrary, they had shown by the amendments of last year, in which the House of Commons did not think proper to acquiesce, that their object was to remove the abuses which really existed. At the same time he and his noble Friends could not agree with the preamble of the Bill impugning, as it did so unjustly, the Corporations alluded to; and though they might agree to the second reading, that would not deprive them of the right of altering such of the details of the Bill as might appear to be objectionable.
Bill read a second time.

COMMON FIELDS' ENCLOSURE.
The Earl of Shafteshurybrought up the Report on the Common Fields' Enclosure Bill.
Lord Ellenboroughproposed the insertion of several amendments, chiefly verbal, and some consequential. One of the latter was an amendment on the last clause, which exempted from the operation of the Bill all waste lands belonging to the lords of manors; he proposed that all waste lands whatsoever should be so exempted. In short, the object of the Bill was, to increase the productive power of the agricultural class, and to promote the cultivation of lands which could not now be cultivated. The Bill was not exactly in the state he should have liked to see it, but, amended as it would be by their Lordships, he did not think it would work any injustice to any one, while it would find employment for a vast number of our agricultural population.
Lord Hollandwas not disposed to offer any opposition to the Bill; on the contrary, he thought the proposers of it deserving of thanks for the measure. But there was one clause in it which excepted from the operation of the Bill all waste lands and commons within ten miles around the metropolis; that he thought a very ample exception in favour of the metropolis, and perhaps it was greater than was necessary, but he wished to see a similar provision made for the several towns and cities of England beside. It had been matter of surprise to all foreigners, and, indeed, a reproach to this country, that though its laws and institutions were formed on pro-

1227
per and liberal grounds, yet there were no places provided suitable for the healthful exercise and recreation of the people. In order to carry out the principle, then, which had been made applicable to London, he should propose the insertion of a new clause to exempt all commons and waste lands within two miles of every city, borough and town in England, the population of which amounted to 500 persons.
Lord Ellenboroughconcurred in the proposition, and undertook to draw up a clause to promote the object of the noble Baron (Lord Holland). He thought it extremely desirable that the people should have some open space to which they might resort for healthful recreation. It was much better for them to have such places left open to them, than to be shut out and left no other resource than the alehouse and beershop. He thought, however, that one mile would be sufficient for the noble Lord's purpose, as applied to other places than the metropolis, taken in conjunction with the other provisions of the Bill.
Lord Holland acquiesced.
Report received. Bill to be read a third time.