Sitting of 22 February 1836

RAILWAYS.
Lord George Lennoxpresented petitions from Worthing, Shoreham, and other places in favour of the London and Brighton (Stevenson's) Railway.
Viscount Sandonwished upon this subject to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Holding as he did himself petitions for several railroads in his hands, which he should have to present to the House to-morrow, he was anxious to extract from the right hon. Gentleman a definite answer as to the course which it was intended to pursue with regard to railroad bills in general. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared on the part of the Government to suggest some course for the consideration of railway petitions and bills, by which the House would be enabled to have all such cases, especially those of rival lines, fully and completely

677
investigated, before it came to adjudicate and decide in favor of any particular bill. He (Lord Sandon), without entering on this occasion into the subject of railways generally, would content himself with putting that question to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that it was not his intention to submit to the House any proposition on the part of the Government for preferring one line of railway to another, or even for pointing out any rule for the adoption of the House on the subject. It was his intention, however, in the course of the evening, to submit to the House the propriety of appointing a Select Committee to consider the best means that might be adopted by the House, or by the Committees sitting on railroad bills, for giving information to the House upon various points connected with the different railway bills that might be brought before the House. He had taken upon himself to propose this course to the House in consequence of the conversation that occurred some nights ago on the subject. It appeared to him that a strong impression then prevailed as to the necessity of adopting some mode of proceeding generally applicable to all those railway speculations which might be brought under its consideration. Many Gentlemen suggested different courses for adoption; but it seemed to him, and his own views had been confirmed by conversation with several Members since, that the principal point then in discussion would be best settled by a Committee upstairs in the first instance; their decision, of course, to be Subject to the subsequent consideration and adoption, if it should so think fit, by the House. His proposition then was, not that they should refer any particular railway or railways to any particular Committee, or that they should point out any particular course for Committees to follow with regard to railways, but it simply was to obtain the attendance in a Committee up stairs of those Gentlemen who took most interest in this important subject—he did not mean an interest in railroads, but in the good conduct of railway bills through that House, who might thus have the opportunity of deciding upon the various suggestions that might be laid before them, and who, he hoped, would be finally enabled to propose a plan to the House more worthy of its adoption, and which would tend more to secure a beneficial result than any resolu-
678
tion that might be moved, or any particular plan that might be brought forward by any individual Member of that House. As he knew that considerable misunderstanding had gone abroad on this subject, he was most anxious to state that his object in moving for this Committee was not to refer to it the plans of any particular line or lines of railways—his object in proposing it was, that the Gentlemen composing the Committee should merely lay before the House some recommendation by which their course of proceeding with regard to railways should be guided, subject, of course, to the approbation of the House. It was his opinion that the House of Commons itself should interfere in this matter. He bad therefore ventured, with that view, to put a notice on the notice-book of the House. He had done so as a Member of the Government, because he believed that the Government was to a certain degree responsible for the good conduct of those railway speculations through Parliament; and, also, because he thought that the proposition thus brought forward would, be more favourably received by the House. Having stated so touch in answer to the question of the noble Lord, he begged to add, that he thought, if it were intended by the House to adopt his proposition for the nomination of a Select Committee, it would be very desirable that the second reading of all railroad bills should be postponed far a short period. He thought that the Committee which he should propose would be able to report in, at the most, four or five days. As he had already said, the object of that Committee, as far as he contemplated it, would be merely to chalk out the rule that the House should adopt for the guidance of their future proceedings with respect to railways; and it was most important that no railway bill should be read a second time until that matter was settled. The delay required, as he had stated, would not be great. He would suggest, therefore, that the second reading of all such, bills fixed for that night should be postponed for only eight days; and in the meanwhile the report of the Select Committee might be prepared and laid before the House. He did not imagine that any inconvenience could arise from such a short postponement of the second reading of these bills. The Select Committee that was to be appointed might lay down certain rules applicable to such private bills before they were read a second

679
time, and it might require that additional information should be afforded to the House previous to their passing that stage. Now, if the bills that stood for that night should be read a second time, any such decision of the Committee would obviously be of no avail, as regarded them, as they would have been in the mean time referred to the List Committees.
Colonel Sibthorpwas gratified to hear the right hon. Gentleman admit that the Government was responsible for the good conduct of railway bills. Every attorney's clerk should not be allowed to bring in a railway bill, and then go about canvassing Members for its support.
Lord George Lennoxsaid, that notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, he should persist in moving the second reading of the London and Brighton Railway Bill. He thought that the greatest injustice would be done to individuals by postponing the second reading of this Bill for eight days. He could not conceive what object could be gained by such a postponement. It should be recollected that the Bill, after it was read a second time, could not go to a Committee for ten days. By delaying the second reading for eight days an advantage was given to rival parties, and an opportunity afforded to them to oppose the Bill, It was exceedingly hard that parties should be thus thrown back after they had complied with all the standing orders and rules of the House regarding the introduction of such Bills. If they allowed this Bill to go to a Committee, he (Lord G. Lennox) was sure he should be able to show that Stevenson's line was the best that could be adopted. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Viscount Sandonquite concurred in the view taken of this matter by his right hon. Friend, and he would advise the House to pursue the course which his right hon. Friend had pointed out for its adoption, especially as where there were contending parties for a railway the Committee might point out the best plan to be par-sued. In the present case he understood that there were no fewer than seven different schemes. Now was there any means at present for the House to decide as to which of those schemes best deserved adoption? He was anxious that the House should be supplied with such means, and therefore, he should vote for
680
the appointment of the Select Committee. He was, for his own part, inclined in, favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Lancaster—that railways having the same termini should be all referred to the same Committee, but that was a point for the Select Committee to decide. He begged leave to move as an Amendment, that the second reading of the Bill be postponed till that day se'nnight.
Mr. Gisbornewas of opinion that the proposition of his right hon. Friend would be one of the most violent proceedings that the House of Commons had ever adopted. His right hon. Friend had put a notice on the notice-book. He came down to move, but previous to doing so he proposed that the second reading of a number of Railway Bills which stood for that night should be postponed. Now, was it just towards the parties who had come down there prepared to have their bills read a second time to be thus put off for eight days? Such a delay tended to inflict a serious injury on them, by giving their opponents, where there were rival plans, a longer opportunity for petitioning against them as not having complied with the standing orders. These railway bills, if read a second time that night, would not go into Committee for ten days. His right hon. Friend's Select Committee could report in the space of four days. Why, then, should such a delay be interposed in the way of the progress of these bills? He certainly should divide the House on the Bill, the second reading of which he had to move that night. He would support the second reading of the noble Lord's Bill, and he hoped the noble Lord would support his also.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that upon public grounds he most entirely concurred in the sentiments that had been expressed by his right hon. Friend opposite, the President of the Board of Trade. When they took into consideration the number of those bills that had been already introduced, the number that was still likely to be introduced, and the amount of capital—not less than 45,000,000 l. he understood—that was about to be embarked in such speculations, he was sure that it would be admitted on all hands that the subject was one of the highest importance, and welt worthy of the attention of the Government and of that House. It was to be remarked, that with regard to all other public works they had well framed stand-

681
ing orders; but as regarded railroads, the standing orders relating to the construction of canals had been rudely and and imperfectly made to fit railroads. Their standing orders on that point had not been carefully considered or properly settled, and it was therefore well worthy the consideration of the House whether the whole subject should not be referred to the adjudication of a select Committee, such as that proposed by his right hon. Friend. So far from looking upon the postponement of the second reading of the railway bills at present before the House as unadvisable, he (Sir J. Graham) should like to see the progress of all railway bills postponed for an entire session. He should like to appeal from the country drunk to the country sober. There seemed to exist at present a perfect mania for speculations of this description. He thought it extremely likely that one of the recommendations of the proposed select Committee would be, that some additional information should be afforded to the House before the second reading of any of those bills. It was therefore important that the present hills should not be read a second time until that Committee had made its report. The Government had only discharged its duty in bringing this matter before the House.
Lord Granville Somersetcould not concur with his right hon. Friend in thinking that all railways—no matter how great their commercial imporiance—no matter how beneficial they might be to the community at large—should be postponed for an entire Session. He must say, that he viewed with great suspicion the proposition for putting off the second reading of the railway bills which stood for that evening. That delay gave to rival opponents the opportunity of making still greater opposition. He thought that it would be a great hardship on parties where there was no rival line, and where they had complied with all the standing orders, to be put off in this way for another week.
Mr. Claysaid, that on ordinary occasions it was not judicious to oppose the second reading of a private Bill, as it was only by referring Bills of that description to a Committee that they could be properly investigated and adjudicated. In this particular case, however, he would oppose the second reading of the Bill, concurring as he did entirely in the view taken of the matter by the right hon. Gentleman
682
the President of the Board of Trade. The Government had done its duty in bringing the whole subject under their consideration, and in endeavouring to provide the House, which was now quite at sea without compass or chart, with some general and pervading principle to direct it in its future adjudication of schemes of this nature. It so happened, that in one of the parishes of the borough which he had the honour to represent, there were no less than sixteen of those schemes afloat that would seriously interfere, if carried into execution, with private property there. In the parish of St. Mary, Whitechapel, there were no less than 1,284 houses and tenements scheduled to be taken down. The House might judge of the alarm and excitement that prevailed there in consequence, and that single fact proved how necessary it was for the Legislature to interfere at once in the matter, and to see that the public interests should not be injuriously or capriciously affected by suck speculations.
Mr. Charles Barclaysaid, that he should not consider himself precluded by voting, as he intended to do, for the second reading of this Bill, from assenting to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman for the appointment of a Select Committee. He was glad that the Government had taken this matter up. It was absolutely necessary, not only for the protection of the country at large against the effects of wild schemes and improvident speculations, but for the protection of the speculators themselves against their own folly, that the House and the Government should interfere. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of the Committee laying down some such rule as this—that no Railroad Bill should be passed without 5 percent. of the estimated expense being previously vested in Exchequer Bills, which would be some security to the public that the project would be completed. Such a condition would inflict no hardship on good bonâ fide speculations, and it would save the country from those of an opposite character, if the House acted with proper caution with respect to the passing of those Railway Bills, many of them would be productive of incalculable advantage to the country.
Sir Robert Peelregretted much he had not been present at the commencement of this discussion. When this subject was before the House on a former night, it

683
appeared to be the prevalent impression that the present mode of conducting private bills respecting railways was not satisfactory. He was one of those who thought that railways were most important for the welfare and maintenance of the commercial eminence of this country, but at the same time it was impossible to deny that they interfered greatly with private interests, and that private interests often suffered to a great extent from their being carried into execution. Of course, the principle that private interests must yield to the interests and convenience of the public was in this, as in other analogous cases, indisputable; but private parties so affected had a right to demand from Parliament its special consideration of each case, and its conviction, before deciding in its favour, that the projected speculation was really calculated to promote the public interests. That was due as well to the interests of the public as to those of private individuals. On a former night the hon. Member for Middlesex bud remarked, that the House was too much occupied with those private bills, and he had suggested that some other tribunal should be appointed for deciding on them. He apprehended that great objections existed to the adoption of any such proposition as that. He could not, for instance, conceive any other tribunal that could be appealed to in the last resort, except that House, to decide as to the public utility and advantage of such an important undertaking as a railroad from London to Birmingham, and what amount of private property should be sacrificed in carrying it into execution. That was his objection to transferring business of this sort—business of the highest importance—from the House of Commons to any subordinate tribunal. On the other hand, he did not like to be called upon to vote in favour of the second reading of a bill which went, as bills of this description did, to call upon individuals to make a large sacrifice of their private property, without any knowledge whatever of the facts of the case, and without possessing the slightest evidence as to the practicability or utility of the project in question. He felt that strongly when, last Session, he was called on as a Member of that House to vote in favour of the Great Western Railway. It had been suggested that railway bills which had two common termini should be all referred, to one Committee, The difficulty
684
there would be to select from the rival Committees the one to which the whole of the bills should be referred. He, therefore, concurred with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in thinking that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider, without delay, what course it was most expedient to pursue in this matter. He should certainly vote for the appointment of such a Committee, as he agreed entirely in the main principle of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. It appeared to him that the following, amongst other recommendations, might be usefully adopted by that Committee, and laid before the House as one of the rules for its future guidance—namely, that the List Committees, to which private bills of this nature were in the first instance referred, should, instead of making a mere barren report that the standing orders had been complied with, present a report, giving to the House information as to the nature of each particular speculation, the number of shares in each, the amount paid up, the probable grounds of success, the number of landowners through whose property the proposed railway was to pass, the number that had given their consent to the measure, and the data on which the calculations as to the final success of the project were founded. The House would then have something like satisfactory grounds on which to found its decision when called on to assent to the second reading of a bill of this description. It appeared to him that the Committee proposed by the right hon. Gentleman might report in a few days, and till that report was presented the progress of all railway bills before the House should be suspended. He was not hostile to any of those speculations; on the contrary, there was one in which he was himself interested, but it must abide the fate of the others, and await the Report of the Select Committee that was to be appointed.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonexplained, that his object was to obtain necessary information, and the Committee would consider the best mode in which the whole subject could be treated. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that Parliament ought to be the court of last resort, and also in the view taken by the right hon. Baronet as to the points which the right hon. Baronet thought should be comprised in the reports to be made by List Committees on particular railroads. It might, how-

685
ever, be desirable that the House should be put in possession of some information previous to the second reading, and before it allowed the parties to embark on the wide sea of speculation, and, therefore, it was that he was desirous that the second reading of such Bills as stood for that night should be delayed for a week. He did not believe that any material inconvenience, or any great additional expense, would arise from this delay, whilst it was certain, that the information the Committee would be enabled to collect and to bring before the House would be of the greatest advantage in the consideration of all measures of this description. He was not unfriendly to the great works to which these bills related; but, at the same time, he felt bound, from the situation which he held in the Government, to take care that the capital of the country was not improvidently or unwisely applied. It was upon this ground that he had felt it his duty to suggest to the House the propriety of appointing a Committee, to consider of the most fit and proper mode of proceeding upon all bills of this description, and likewise of interposing some delay in their further proceedings upon them. For his own part, he thought it highly expedient that the House should overlook the inconvenience of a short delay, in order that the subject might be well inquired into, and all the suggestions of different Members of the Committee attended to and considered. He hoped, therefore, that the House would consent to postpone the particular Bill now under their consideration, and that he should afterwards receive their sanction for the appointment of a Committee.
Mr. Herbert Curteisshould feel it to be his duty to support, on principle, the proposition for postponement. It was of the highest importance that the House should not be hurried into untimely decisions upon bills of this description. One or two other lines of railway to Brighton had been projected independently of that contemplated in the present bill Why, then, should they blindly proceed to read this bill a second time, when afterwards they might very possibly discover that it would have been better to adopt one of the other plans.
Mr. Ewarthoped that the only object of his right hon. Friend (Mr. P. Thomson) in moving for the appointment of a Committee was, to give information to the
686
House and security to the public. In dealing with subjects of this description it should always be borne in mind, that whilst on the one hand it was the duty of Parliament to protect the country against dangerous speculations, so on the other hand it was also its duty to leave to the public the benefit of free competition. He was prepared to support such measures as would give information and security; but beyond that he would not go. He should strenuously oppose anything that appeared to him to approach an undue interference on the part of Parliament.
Mr. Harveyremarked that the truth of the proverb which said "the race is not always to the swift," appeared to be as applicable to the members of that House as to the world in general. He (Mr. Harvey), only a few nights ago, had made a proposition to the House of a similar description to that now suggested by the right hon. President of the Board of Trade; but it was then treated with indifference—as a matter of no consequence or importance whatsoever. He was glad, however, to find that the suggestion which he had originated had been taken up by the Government, and that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to adopt a step which should put a check upon inconsiderate speculation, and enable the House to give a due consideration to all measures of this description. All that he regretted upon the present occasion was, that the right hon. Gentleman had not yet found time, although it was a matter which came strictly within the business of that department of the Government over which he presided, to give to the subject all the consideration it required, and was therefore compelled to ask for a week to consider of his plans. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman could not require so long a time, if he applied himself to the matter with reasonable industry. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to state his plans on Thursday next.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewartthought that if the House interfered at all in bills of this description, it ought to be before the second reading, in order to protect the public against the severe inconvenience that would attend the promulgation of more than one line of road. As regarded the present bill, he should vote for suspending the second reading until some general plan of proceeding were adopted.
Sir James Grahamhad two suggestions which he wished to offer to the House. First, if a postponement were to take place for eight days, he would suggest that in the interval, with respect to this particular bill, no petition should be received on the ground of a suspension of the standing orders; and secondly, if at the end of the eight days the second reading should be agreed to, then the House should go into Committee upon it at the end of three days. Whereas if the Bill were read a second time to-day, the House, agreeably to the standing orders, could not go into Committee upon it until after the lapse of ten days. Thus, if his suggestions were adopted, the parties would be left in precisely the same situation as if the bill were read a second time to-day.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid that if the postponement were allowed, it should of course be understood that the committal of the bill should follow the second reading at the end of three days. If, upon a division, the House should determine that the second reading of this bill should be deferred for eight days, he hoped that all the other bills relating to railways, which stood for a second reading to-night, would be considered as being included in the decision.
Lord George Lennoxrepeated his determination to press the second reading of the bill on the present occasion. Great inconvenience and much injury would result from the proposed delay, unless, indeed, he were assured, that in the interval which it was proposed should elapse before the second reading, no proceeding should be allowed on the part of those who were opposed to the bill. A public meeting had taken place at the Town-hall, at Brighton, at which Sir J. Rennie's plan was declared impracticable, and consequently abandoned. Subsequently Mr. Stephenson's plan, the plan embodied in this bill, was taken up; and now that it was brought before Parliament, Sir J. Rennie suddenly started up with his rejected plan again; and the consequence of the postponement of the second reading of the present bill would be to enable Sir J. Rennie to introduce his plan to the detriment of Mr. Stephenson. If it were understood that during the postponement, Sir J. Rennie should not be allowed to take any step, he should not object to the amendment; but unless such an understanding were distinctly entered into, he must now press the second reading.
Captain Alsagerfelt entitled to say a few words, because he had charge of the second bill for a railway to Brighton, He thought that this second bill had a fair claim to the favourable consideration of the House, because in fact it was only a continuation to Brighton of a railway for which he last year obtained a bill, and which was to run from London to Croydon. In the course of a few days Re should have petitions in favour of the second bill from Brighton, Lewes, and Reigate. In the meantime he hoped the House would not consent to the second reading of the bill proposed by the noble Lord.
Sir John R. Reidthought the better plan would be to postpone the consideration of the question for a few days. He had a petition to present from very respectable persons, both from Epsom and Ewell, in favour of the line of road by way of Riegate, which was considered by them, and in which he concurred, the best line of road.
The House divided on the question that the Bill be read a second time. Ayes 75; Noes 271—Majority 196.

List of the AYES.*

Attwood, Thomas

Freshfield, James W.

Bagshaw, John

Gisborne, T.

Baillie, Col. H.

Gore, O.

Barron, Henry W.

Goring, Harry Dent

Barry, G. S.

Grey, Hon. Charles

Berkeley, Hon. F.

Guest, J.

Berkeley, Hon. C. C.

Hall, B.

Biddulph, Robert

Harland, W. C.

Bish, Thomas

Hawkes, T.

Blake, Martin Jos.

Hay, Sir A. Leith.

Bonham, Francis R.

Henniker, Lord

Bridgman, Hewitt

Hope, Henry T.

Buller, E.

Houldsworth, T.

Burrell, Sir C. M., Bt.

Hoy, James Barlow

Campbell, W. F.

Hurst, R. H.

Chapman, M. L.

Jervis, John

Chichester, J. P. B.

Leader, J. T.

Cole, Hon. A. H.

Lynch, A. H. S.

Cripps, Joseph

Macleod, R.

Dillwyn, L. W.

M'Taggart, J.

Duncombe, T. S.

Moreton, Hon. A. H.

Eaton, Richard J.

Mosley, Sir O., Bart.

Euston, Lord

Nicholl, J.

Ferguson, Sir Robert

O'Connell, M. J.

Finn, Francis

Parry, Colonel

Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.

Potter, R.

*This is the first division in which the names of the Members dividing were taken down, according to Mr. Ward's plan (see ante p. 562.), and regularly entered in the votes of the House. The lists henceforth, except one or two, when the House was in Committee, which case was supposed not to be provided for by Mr. Ward's Resolution, may be relied, on.

Russell, C.

Stuart, Lord James

Ruthven, Edward

Surrey, Lord

Sanford, E. A.

Thornley, T.

Scholefield, J.

Tooke, William

Scourfield, W. H.

Twiss, Horace

Scrope, G. P.

Villiers, Frederick

Sheldon, E.

Whalley, Sir S.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Winnington, Capt. H.

Smith, J. A.

Wood, Matthew

Somerset, Lord E.

Wrottesley, Sir J. Bt.

Somerset, Lord G.

TELLERS.

Strickland, Sir Geo.

Lennox, Lord A.

Stuart, Lord D.

Lennox, Lord G.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Clay, W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Clerk, Sir G., Bart.

Agnew, Sir A., Bart.

Clive, Edward Bolton

Ainsworth, P.

Clive, Visc.

Alsager, Richard

Clive, Hon. R. H.

Angerstein, John

Colborne, N. W. R.

Anson, Sir George

Cole, Lord

Ashley, Lord

Collier, John

Astley, Sir J.

Compton, H. C

Bainbridge, E. T.

Conolly, E. M.

Baines, E.

Cooper, A.

Baldwin, Dr.

Corry, Hon. H. T. L.

Barclay, David

Cowper, Hon. W. F.

Barclay, Charles

Crawford, W. S.

Baring, Francis T.

Crawford, W.

Baring, T.

Curteis, Herbert

Baring, H. Bingham

Curteis, Edward B.

Barnard, E. G.

Darlington, Earl of

Beauclerk, Major

Davenport, John

Beckett, Sir J.

Divett, E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Duffield, Thomas

Bethell, Richard

Dundas, J. C.

Bewes, T.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Blackburne, John

Dundas, Hon. J. D.

Bodkin, J.

Egerton, Wm. Tatton

Borthwick, Peter

Egerton, Lord Fran.

Bowes, John

Ellice, E.

Bowring, Dr.

Elphinstone, H.

Brady, D. C.

Entwistle, John

Bramston, T. W.

Estcourt, Thos. G. B.

Brodie, William B.

Ewart, W.

Brotherton, J.

Fector, John Minet

Bruce, C. L. C.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Brudenell, Lord

Ferguson, Robert

Buckingham, J. S.

Ferguson, G.

Buller, Charles

Fergusson, R. C.

Buller, Sir J.

Fielden, J.

Burton, Henry

Finch, George

Byng, G. S.

Fitzsimon, Chris.

Calcraft, J. H.

Fitzsimon, Nicholas

Callaghan, Daniel

Fleming, John

Campbell, Sir H.

Forbes, Lord

Canning, Sir S.

Forbes, Wm.

Cartwright, W. R.

Forster, Charles S.

Castlereagh, Visc.

Freemantle, Sir T. W.

Cavendish, Hon. C. C.

Gaskell, Daniel

Cavendish, Hon. G. H.

Geary, Sir W. R. P.

Cayley, Edward S.

Gladstone, Thomas

Chalmers, Capt. P.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Chaplin, Thos.

Gordon, Robert

Chapman, M. L.

Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.

Churchill, Ld. C. S.

Graham, Sir J. R. G.

690

Greene, Thomas

Morpeth, Viscount

Greisley, Sir R.

Mostyn, Hon. E. L.

Grey, Sir G.

Murray, John Arch.

Grote, G.

Musgrave, Sir R. Bt.

Halford, H.

Nagle, Sir R.

Hallyburton, Hn. D. G.

Norreys, Lord

Halse, James

O'Connell, D.

Harmer, Sir J., Bart.

O'Connell, John

Harcourt, G.

O'Connell, Morgan

Hardy, John

O'Connell, Maurice

Harvey, D. W.

O'Connor, Don

Hawkins, J. H.

O'Loughlen, M.

Hayes, Sir E. S. Bt.

Ord, W. H.

Heathcoat, John

Paget, Frederick

Hector, C. J.

Palmer, Robert

Herbert, Hon. Sidney

Parker, M. E.

Hindley, Charles

Parker, John

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Parnell, Sir H.

Hodges, T. L.

Parrott, J.

Hogg, James Weir

Patten, John Wilson

Holland, Edward

Pattison, James

Hope, Hon. James

Pease, J.

Hoskins, K.

Pechell, Capt.

Howard, P. H.

Peel, Sir R. Bart.

Howard, Hon. E. G.

Pelham, Hon. A.

Howick, Viscount

Pemberton, Thomas

Hughes, Hughes

Pendarves, E. W.

Hutt, W.

Perceval, Col.

Horsman, T.

Philips, Mark

Jackson, J. D.

Pigott, Robert

Jephson, C. D. O.

Pinney, William

Ingham, R.

Plumptre, John P.

Inglis, Sir R. H., Bt.

Pollington, Visc.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Pollock, Sir Fred.

Jones, W.

Poulter, J. S.

Irton, Samuel

Powell, Colonel

Kearsley, J. H.

Power, R.

Kemp, T. R.

Poyntz, Wm. Stephen.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Price, Richard

Knight, H. G.

Pringle, A.

Knightley, Sir C.

Pryme, George

Labouchere, Henry

Pusey, Philip

Lambton, Hedworth

Reid, Sir J. Rae

Langton, Wm. Gore

Rice, Right Hon. T. S.

Lawson, Andrew

Rickford, W.

Lee, John Lee

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Lees, J. F.

Robarts, Abraham W

Lefroy, Anthony

Robinson, G.

Lennard, T. B.

Roche, D.

Lewis, David

Roebuck, John A.

Lister, E. C.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Loch, James

Ross, Charles

Long, Walter

Russell, Lord John

Lowther, J.

Ryle, John

Lushington, S.

Sanderson, R.

Lushington, Charles

Sandon, Lord

Lygon, Hon. Col. H. B.

Scarlett, Hon. R.

Mackenzie, J. A. S.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Macleod, R.

Scott, James W.

Mahon, Lord

Seale, Colonel

Mangles, J.

Seymour, Lord

Marsland, H.

Sheppard, Thomas

Martin, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Maule, C. Fox

Smith, Robert V.

Maxwell, John

Smith, A.

Methuen, P.

Smyth, Sir G. H., Bt.

Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt.

Stanley, Edward

691

Stanley, Lord

Walker, R.

Stanley, E. J.

Wall, Charles Baring

Steuart, R.

Wallace, Robert

Stewart, Patrick

Walpole, Lord

Stormont, Lord

Warburton, H.

Strutt, Edward

Wason, R.

Stuart, W. V.

Welby, G. E.

Tancred, H. W.

White, Samuel

Tennent, J. E.

Wigney, Isaac N.

Thomson, C. P

Wilbraham, B.

Thompson, Pau B.

Wilks, John

Thompson, Col. P.

Williams, W.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Williamson, Sir H.

Trevor, Hon. G. R.

Wilson, M.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Wodehouse, E.

Tulk, Charles A.

Wood, Charles

Tynte, C. J. Kemeys

Wortley, Hon. J. S.

Vere, Sir C.

Wrightson, W.

Verner, Colonel

Young, G. F.

Vesey, Hon. Thomas

Young, J.

Vivian, J. H.

TELLERS.

Wakley, T.

Hume, J.

Walker, C. A.

Ward, Henry George

Second reading postponed for eight days.
A Committee to consider the subject was appointed.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES ENGLAND.
Sir E. Knatchbull, previous to the order of the day being proceeded in for the second reading of the Tithes Commutation Bill, wished to suggest to the noble Lord opposite the propriety of postponing the second reading of the Bill.
Sir Robert Inglisalso recommended the postponement.
Lord John Russellsaid, that his object was to have the Bill, with the whole of its provisions and amendments, printed before it went into Committee, It would be a fortnight tomorrow since he had stated fully to the House the outline of the measure. He had had a great many reports from different parts of the country, and had received various letters from Somersetshire and other counties, stating the opinions of different classes of people on the measure he had proposed. He did not, therefore, think it could be fairly said that its provisions were wholly unknown, either to the House or the country. He certainly thought sufficient time should be allowed before the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Bill, He should fix such a time as he thought would be convenient to the House; but should it be considered that the interval he proposed was not long enough, he could have no objection to postpone the Committee to a future day. There was a
692
great deal of business before the House. The Irish Municipal Bill was fixed for Friday, and on Monday the Government were anxious to bring forward the estimates; he, therefore, did think it very desirable that the second reading of the Bill should not be postponed. He wished to make the Bill as complete as possible before it went into Committee; and if there were now a delay of a week or ten days, they must, after the second reading, encounter an additional delay of a fortnight, without any object being gained.
Mr. Benettthought there was no ground whatever for the postponement which had been suggested. Such of his constituents as he had had the opportunity personally to explain the provisions of the Bill to, at once understood it. He had had a conversation respecting it with one beneficed clergyman, who had stated that he considered its provisions most favourable to the clergy. He (Mr. Benett) was for paying the utmost regard to the interests of the tithe owners; but he rather doubted whether the provisions of the Bill were not more favourable to them than justice demanded.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, he was in favour of any course which would tend to allow sufficient time for the consideration of this great measure. If the commercial and manufacturing interests have demanded that the commutation of tithe awarded by the Commissioners should be vested entirely in a money-rent, he thought that powerful portion of the community, between whom and the manufacturing interests there certainly was a frequent collision, would have said they were hardly treated, and that it was not altogether fair that the whole weight of that powerful body (the Church) should be thrown on that side which would operate against the agricultural interests. Still the manufacturing interests had a perfect right to demand something in their favour; and what he should suggest would be, whether it would not be possible to decide that there should be an equal division of the point in dispute, i. e., by deciding, in the case of tithes,—that the commutation granted should be half vested in a corn-rent (as proposed by the present Bill), continuing the other half in a money-rent, which, he considered, would be the easy and proper mode of disposing of the question.
Mr. Pembertonobserved, that the dif-

693
ference, as he understood, between hon. Members was not so much respecting the mere principle of the measure, strictly considered, as the extent to which that principle might be carried. In his opinion the Bill did not go far enough; he was, therefore, more a Reformer than the noble Lord; and the question of extent involved the whole principle of the measure. He thought that the time which had elapsed since Saturday was hardly enough for the consideration of a measure so important, and which it was necessary should be examined, with the view of seeing whether it really afforded fair ground for an expectation that under it a commutation of tithes could be effected. By the Bill, as it stood, both parties, if they happened to concur, might avoid commutation, or one, being hostile to the other could insist on commutation. To make commutation voluntary or compulsory ought to be the principle of such a measure; the extent, then, involved the principle; he thought the Bill did not go far enough. They were all agreed that facilities should be given for commutation, but it was most material to inquire what the opinion of the parties interested was to the probable effect of the combination of the voluntary and compulsory regulations in bringing about the commutation of tithes. For these reasons he thought it would be advisable to postpone the second reading until that which really constituted the principle of the Bill was fully known and considered.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: As the hon. and learned Gentleman not only assented to the principle of commutation, but also admitted that the principle was adopted in the Bill, he thought they were in full possession of his authority in favour of the measure. The only practical way of bringing the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument to issue, was by a discussion in Committee, It was impossible to occupy time advantageously in the discussion otherwise than in Committee. Surely every argument which could be adduced in favour of the Bill being printed and circulated throughout the country, was an argument in favour of the second reading, his noble Friend having distinctly stated that his object was to have the Bill printed.
Sir Thomas Freemantlewas for the postponement of the second reading, on the ground that hon. Members had not
694
been able to obtain a sufficient number of copies to send to their constituents. When he said this, he begged it to be under-stood that he had no wish to delay the Bill; being, on the contrary, favourable to its provisions.
Sir Matthew White Ridleythought there was a necessity for immediately going into a discussion of the Bill. He had received a letter that day, the writer of which expressed an opinion which, though by no means flattering to the noble Lord opposite, as the framer of the Bill, he should state to the House. "The Bill (observed his correspondent) reflected no great credit on its framers; it contained much that was highly objectionable. This would, no doubt, be corrected when the Bill went into Committee; and, therefore, the sooner the principle of it was discussed and disposed of the better." In that opinion he (Sir M. W. Ridley) entirely concurred.
Mr. Goulburnwished to know whether it was the noble Lord's intention to enter into a discussion of the principle of the Bill at that moment; or whether he wished it to be read a second time merely for the purpose of supplying some omissions in it.
Lord John Russellwas anxious to have the Bill read a second time as soon as possible, as there would be then more time to consider its details with all the attention they deserved. He did not pretend to say, in reply to the objection which had been read by the hon. Baronet opposite, that the language in which the Bill was drawn was strictly in accordance with Parliamentary custom and usage in such cases. The form in which certain provisions of the Bill had been submitted to the House might, no doubt, be altered. He claimed not the merit of being able to draw up Acts of Parliament in strictly technical phraseology, for he knew it was a task of very considerable difficulty, requiring a great deal of practice and experience. In this respect, he doubted not, but that improvements might be effected. Nor did he mean to contend that there were not omissions in the Bill which might be supplied when it went into Committee. But to the principle of the Bill he adhered. Nor was he disposed to consider the propriety of admitting any alterations into its main provisions until it had gone into Committee.
Sir Robert Ingliswished to know whether, if the Bill were now read a

695
second time, the noble Lord would regard: that second reading as merely pro formâ or was he disposed to think that in permitting it to advance this stage, the House was pledging itself to the principle of the measure? Before resuming his seat, he begged to disclaim being bound by the opinion expressed by the hon. Member near him (Mr. Pemberton); and he wished it might be understood, that in addressing that House, that hon. Member was expressing merely his own opinion, to which those who sat upon the same side with him were in nowise bound.
Lord John Russellthought it would be an extremely inconvenient practice, if a Bill were read a second time, and it was to be considered that the House had not affirmed its principle. In the present case, if the House permitted the Bill to be read a second time, he should certainly assume that, in doing so, they had affirmed the general principle—that there should be a commutatation of tithe into a rent-charge. But whether the general principle should be carried further—whether that commutation should be compulsory or voluntary—was another question to be decided after farther discussion. It was by no means at variance with the principle of the Bill that the commutation should be wholly compulsory, and it would be for the hon. Member, who thought it ought to be so, to show that, after the House had affirmed the general principle. The hon. Baronet opposite was, no doubt, as well prepared at the present moment to enter into a discussion of the principle of the Bill as he could be if the second reading or the affirmation of its general principle were postponed to some future day, as the "ancient and venerable" arguments with which the hon. Baronet would oppose it, had been for a long period marshalled in the hon. Baronet's mind, and frequently stated to the public.
The order of the day for the second reading of the Bill was read, and the question put, that the Bill be read a second time.
Mr. Greenesaid, that the parties should not be left to themselves to settle their own disputes as to commutation; the Legislature should seek to frame a regulation calculated to prevent disputes. It would be unjust to have a partial instead of a general commutation in parishes, by which the different holders on lands in the same parish would be placed in different circum-
696
stances with regard to the method of valuing tithes. With respect to the appointment of Tithe Commissioners, he perfectly concurred in the propriety of establishing that provision, in order that an uniformity might be preserved in the system; for if it was a sufficient foundation for the appointment of Poor Law Commissioners, that the administration of the Poor Laws was different in different parishes, that observation applied with even greater force to the case of tithes.
Mr. Lennardexpressed some doubt whether it would not be found necessary to alter that provision of the noble Lord's Bill by which it was proposed to take the average of the last seven years as the basis for the commutation of tithes. Prices had been much higher on the average within the last seven than within the last twenty months, and, therefore, unless it could be. shown that tithes had fallen in a corresponding ratio, or that prices were likely again to rise, it would be unfair to take that average as the standard of valuation. He hoped an inquiry would be instituted into this point, as it would be very unfair that the landowner should be permanently charged with a higher rate of payment on a higher rate of price for the produce of his land than he had received. There was another point to which he wished to advert—namely, the adoption of the two different sums of sixty and seventy-five per cent, as the minimum and maximum. He thought it would be much better to ascertain what was a fair deduction to be made, otherwise the grasping and exacting tithe-owner would be placed in a much better situation than the indulgent and considerate owner of tithes. This Bill was called in the country "the Clergyman's Bill," and there were some provisions in it which fully justified that appellation. The Bill provided, that if the tithe-owner had allowed his tithe to be in arrear two years, he might obtain the whole of those two years' arrears from the party charged with the payment of tithe. Now, this placed the tithe-owner in a better position than the landlord stood in at present, for if a creditor entered upon the land of a tenant and took his goods in execution, the utmost claim which the landlord could make was for one year's rent, but under the provisions of this Bill, if the landlord or any other creditor entered upon the land, the tithe-owner could claim two years' arrears of tithes. If, then, they put

697
the tithe-owner in as good a situation as the landlord with regard to his rent, they would do all that the justice of the case required. He admitted the great importance of having this question settled, but when the House looked at the great responsibility which the landlord was to take upon himself, it became them to be very careful in looking into the details of this Bill. It was very probable that the Corn Laws would soon be repealed, and it was quite obvious, that unless prices were kept up by some other means than those now in operation, the landlord would be placed under very great disadvantages, and therefore they ought to watch this Bill, lest they should be subjected to unfair incumbrances, particularly when the commuted payment for tithes was proposed to be the same, whether agriculture was flourishing or not. He hoped the Bill would not be pressed forward with any undue haste, but that abundance of time would be given for the full consideration of its details.
Mr. Benettagreed with his hon. Friend, the Member for Maldon, in calling this measure the Clergyman's Bill; but still it was a just and honourable Bill, and was founded on sound principles. He presumed his hon. Friend called this the Clergyman's Bill, because it did justice to the tithe-holder, and it was on this ground he (Mr. Benett) agreed in the propriety of the term. He also agreed with his hon. Friend, that there was something obscure in that part of the Bill which related to taking the amount of tithes at between sixty and seventy-five per cent. of their valuation. He believed that the valuation was to be taken on the gross amount of the average of the last seven years, and twenty-five per cent. was to be remitted for the cost of collection and other incidental expenses. He was sure that all the English surveyors who knew anything of the subject would admit that twenty-five per cent. was rather too low than too high an estimate of the charge of collection. The Bill then would give to the clergy, as well as to the lay-owner of tithes their extreme value, and they probably would, under its operation, receive more than they did at present. As to the variation of fifteen per cent. his hon. Friend should remember that it was quite impossible to be accurate in everything. There were different modes of collecting tithes adopted in different parishes, and consequently there was a great difference in the expenses of the collection, and that varia-
698
tion of fifteen per cent. was to make an allowance for the variation in the cost of collection. Now he, as a landlord, who had nothing to do with the collection of tithes, but much with the payment of them, was quite satisfied with this Bill, for it was, he repeated, a just and honest one. He was, however, of opinion that the commutation should be permanent and compulsory. With respect to the effect and objects of the commutation of tithe, it was designed not to benefit the landlord, but to promote the welfare of the country at large. There were large tracts of waste lands which had hitherto been left unreclaimed solely owing to the injurious operation of the law of tithe, for no man would lay out 20 l. upon the improvement of land if he was obliged to pay 5l. for leave to lay it out. He was satisfied with the measure, and in his opinion it ought to be well received by the whole of the country.
Mr. Pembertonsaid, that the great object of the measure was to effect with certainty and with unanimity the commutation of tithe for a permanent rent-charge. He thought that the Bill of the noble Lord ought to secure at least this great advantage, but it appeared to him, that so far from finding in this measure any certainty in effecting this object, it would at the end of the five years looked forward to by the Bill, and ten times five years, be quite problematical whether one-half the land subject to tithes would have been at all affected by this Bill. He had stated some time back, that if the principle of compulsion was to be adopted in carrying this measure into execution, it should be the compulsion of the Legislature, and not of individuals. The Bill before the House professed to effect the commutation OF tithes in one or other of three several modes. The first mode was by means of voluntary agreements between the tithe payer and the tithe receiver. The second mode proposed was by agreements entered into by certain proportions of the tithe receivers and the tithe payers, so as to be binding upon the whole. And the third method suggested was by the interposition of the tithe commissioners themselves, in case such interposition should be called for by either of the parties not coming to an agreement amongst themselves. With regard to the proposed voluntary agreement between the tithe owners and the laud owners, the law as it at present stood enabled such parties not only to

699
effect a commutation of tithes for a rent-charge, but, what was still more important, it enabled them to secure an absolute and permanent commutation. So also in the case of incumbents of parishes and other individuals having only a partial interest in tithes, the present law enabled them to make agreements for composition without the aid of the machinery of this Bill, or the expense and trouble of setting that machinery in motion. With regard to the second plan contained in the provisions of this Bill, it ought not to be forgotten, that the right to receive tithes was in many instances divided between the rector and the vicar of the parish; and he (Mr. Pemberton) should be glad to know whether it was the object and intention of the clause for carrying into execution this second portion of the scheme that the rector possessing three-fourths of the tithes should have the power of binding the vicar, who is entitled to one-fourth, and also whether such an agreement so brought about was designed to be binding upon all persons interested in tithes, whether tithe payers or tithe receivers. He did not understand why three-fourths of a body of tithe owners should be allowed by their acts to bind the remaining one-fourth of the same body; but he maintained that if this principle (whether objectionable or not) were asserted at all, it ought to be asserted to the fullest extent, namely, to the carrying tithe commutation against even the wishes, to a certain degree, of both tithe owners and tithe payers. He, however, did not apprehend that the clause to which he now referred was either very important, or that it would be likely to lead either to any great advantage or any decided prejudice, but the clause was followed by another, upon which much reliance had been placed by the noble Lord at the Head of the Home Department, and who had held out the expectation that from its provisions tithes in kind would in a short time have no longer existence. The provision of this clause was, that the Commissioners might interpose at the instance either of the tithe owner or the tithe payer, and it must therefore be assumed that to either the one party or the other the commutation was a matter of interest to be effected. This was, however, in his opinion a most fallacious assumption, especially in those cases where the incumbent tithe owner had already made his own arrangement with the tenants on the
700
land. It could not be denied that there would be a vast number of cases in which, from the age, the infirmities, and from other circumstances, the existing incumbents of parishes would not be willing either to take the trouble, undergo the labour, or incur the expense of endeavouring to effect a permanent arrangement, which arrangement would not come into operation until after death had removed him, or them, from the possibility of deriving any benefit from it. Look again at the multitude of cases which would arise in parishes under lay patronage, where the incumbent was not likely to act against, or to adopt, any course contravening the wishes of his patron, by claiming the provisions of this Bill. Again, in the instances of landowners absent from this country, or of minors, or even of lunatics, and indeed in several other cases it would frequently occur that trustees, guardians and committees would not only hesitate, but decline to interfere and bind their principals; and thus these feelings would, in multitudinous cases, prevent the Bill being carried into execution. Under such circumstances, he begged to ask the House if it were desirable to effect a commutation of tithes in the manner provided by these latter clauses of this Bill. The Bill professed to establish harmony, but he would inquire whether it was possible to devise a measure more calculated to destroy harmony of feeling and produce dissent, than one which gave the power of compelling one reluctant portion of the parties interested to accede to the wishes of the other perhaps smaller portion; and it was proposed by this Bill to establish peace, whereas its provisions afforded the best means of destroying peace. In short the Bill would require some radical alterations in order to make it effective in respect of the objects it professed to have in view, and it was the duty of the State to effect that object in a manner least inconvenient both to the payer and to the receiver of tithes. He admitted that it was desirable that commutation should be effected, but he thought that the system of commutation proposed would be disadvantageous, combining the evils of both the compulsory and voluntary systems, without possessing any of the advantages of either.
The Solicitor-Generalobserved that the real question now before the House was, whether or not the provisions of the bill now under consideration were calcu-

701
lated to effect its scope and object. From the argument and reasoning in this respect of his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down, he felt himself under the necessity of wholly and entirely differing. In treating upon this question, it was necessary to look at the history of measures which for this same object had been previously introduced to the judgment find consideration of the legislature. The measures brought forward in the Sessions of 1833 and 1834 had failed under circumstances to which it was not necessary further to allude. Those measures were followed by the Bill introduced last Session by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, the objection to which was, that if passed it would have been still-born, and proved a complete dead letter in the Statute Book. It was a measure merely permissive—it was left wholly to the voluntary feeling of parties interested in tithes. The measure itself had a sort of obscurity which would make individuals prefer the present evils to the care of its doubtful provision. Every person likely to be affected by such a measure as that—a measure which did not enforce immediate commutation, but tacitly, as it were, held out an intimation that if it were not acted upon some other more compulsory measure must follow it—would rather take his chance of being compelled by some subsequent measure than immediately avail himself of that. It therefore became the duty of any person introducing a measure in the present day for the commutation of tithes to make the commutation either wholly voluntary or compulsory on the parties. As, however, the principles of this Bill would in all probability be misunderstood, it would be perhaps desirable that he (the Solicitor-General) should very shortly state the objects it proposed to effect. In the first place it was clear that the first step to be taken in framing such a Bill must be to afford parties agreeing to a commutation the means of carrying it into effect. That, accordingly, was the first object of this Bill, He (the Solicitor-General) had listened with great deference to what had fallen from hon. Members on the other side on this subject, and he could not see what possible danger there could be in allowing to parties agreeing between themselves to commute tithe, the means of carrying the commutation into effect, provided certain necessary precautions
702
were taken. The hon. Member for Lancaster had made an objection of which he (the Solicitor-General) confessed he could not see the importance. It was said that the consequence of this facility to persons desirous of effecting a commutation would be so to confuse the boundaries of properties as to make it extremely doubtful what land was or was not subjected to a commutation. But this appeared to him (the Solicitor-General) to be an objection to the present system also, and one which could not well be obviated. It was one already in operation. Then what was the next step to be taken by the framers of a Commutation Bill? Why, to afford the means of effecting the commutation in cases where the majority of a parish desired it in opposition to the minority. This was upon a principle so universally recognised, that of the larger portion of a community governing the smaller, that there could be no doubt of its justice; and it seemed to him (the Solicitor-General) that the mode proposed, in this instance, by the Bill was the most reasonable that could possibly be suggested. There was yet one step further to which the proposes of this measure proposed to go. It was that if either of two parties desired a commutation, the other being averse to it, then that the party so desiring it should have the right to compel the other to come into the arrangement, due care being taken that the matter was fairly conducted. This was the general principle on which the Bill was constructed. Now it certainly did appear to him that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pemberton) was somewhat inconsistent in his argument on this point of the Bill. His hon. and learned Friend had actually intimated his intention of opposing the second reading, not because the Bill went too far in this respect, but because it did not go far enough. His hon. and learned Friend must allow him to contrast with his opinion that of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, who had had a thirty years' experience of the operation of tithe, and who had stated that the mode here proposed was a just and equitable mode, and one, moreover, which would meet with a general acquiescence. Thus it would be seen that he differed materially from his hon. and learned Friend in the view which he had taken of this measure. He next came to the observations of the hon. Member for Maldon. The hon. Member

703
seemed to have fallen into an error when he objected that the effect of taking the average of the last seven years would be to arrive at too high an amount, as the price of corn during those years would be found to be higher than if an average of the last twenty years had been taken. It appeared to him (the Solicitor-General) that the hon. Member was mistaken in this view, for, taking the average of that seven years, it would be found that if during the first part of the time the prices were high, during the latter part of the time the prices were low, and the average therefore would be as fair an average as any that could be had. The question of the number of years was one of detail, and consequently one for the Committee—the principle of average would be the same. The hon. Member had another objection, which was, that the amount of the commutation should be calculated on the amount of rent actually paid, not on the amount agreed to be paid, without allowing for that which was thrown off; but the hon. Member would find that there was a corrective power in other clauses of the Bill which made it unnecessary to answer the objection. The principle of average was that on which the commutation would be calculated, and by it the proportion of each tithe payer would be regulated. There was one objection which had been repeatedly urged by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, which was, that it was perfectly monstrous to ask the clergy to accept 60 l. where they were entitled to claim 100 l. It appeared to him (the Solicitor-general) that this objection proceeded from the right hon. Gentleman not having sufficiently considered the nature of the right of the clergyman to the 100 l. Was not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only condition upon which the soil was generally made to yield produce enough to make the 100 l. one tenth of the whole, was that the clergyman should actually take a less sum than that which would nominally be due to him? This principle was, in point of fact, actually in operation in most of the estates in the kingdom, and, if that were the case, it did away with the injustice of asking the clergyman to take a less sum than that to which he was nominally entitled. These appeared to him to have been the main objections to the ill, and they certainly appeared to himo be objections to
704
the details entirely, and not to the principle. It was beyond the power of legislation at once to meet all the objections which could be raised to a measure, or at once to provide a certain and universal remedy, by positive enactment, for every anomaly which might have existed; it was enough if the measure grappled boldly with the main question. This the present measure was as fair a one as could be drawn, and he therefore hoped to see the motion for the second reading pass unanimously.
Sir Robert Inglis: As the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down and the hon. and learned Member who had preceded him. in the debate, had-severally alluded to him in the course of their observations, he felt himself bound to trespass for a very few minutes on the attention of the House. His noble Friend had said that he desired to maintain the ancient and venerable rights of the Church. He thought those rights as venerable as law, and as ancient as justice, and he hoped ultimately to have the support of all those in the country whose opinions he respected, even though he might now stand alone in those extreme opinions which were attributed to him. The hon. and learned Member had said that he was in error in complaining that the clergy should be called on to receive 60 l., when they were entitled to 100 l. He maintained, however, that such a proposition was unjust. The hon. and learned Member had said, that it was only owing to the clergy taking less than the sum they were nominally entitled to that the amount of produce, which produced that nominal sum, was yielded; but he would ask the hon. and learned Member into whose pocket he proposed that the difference should go? Whether he intended that the amount should go to the landlord or to the cultivators? Every legal contract entered into for the payment or commutation of tithe went on the supposition that the Church was entitled to one-tenth of the produce, and by what right was it that this principle was now proposed to be set aside? He objected to this measure because it was compulsory, and because it proposed to be immutable. They had no more right to deprive the clergy of their right to tithe than they would have to deprive him of his ground-rents. He might be told that in the cases of Canal Bills private property was sacrificed to the public good; but he would reply that in those

705
cases the owners of property had their claims decided on by a Jury well-chosen, and prepared to give them the full amount of its value, not to deprive them of nearly one-third of it. If in the case of private property the Legislature would not lend itself to an act of spoliation, why do so in a case where the property of the public was concerned? This was his objection to the principle of the Bill—he should state his objections to the details on a future occasion. There was one suggestion, however, which he would make to the noble Lord, as regarded the mode in which the commutation was to be effected. Would it not be better, instead of arriving at once at a fixed amount or average of previous years, to make the commutation depend on a progressive calculation, alterable and renewable from year to year?
An hon. Membersaid, that the right hon. Baronet seemed to have omitted from his calculation the expenses of collection, which frequently amounted to from 25 to 40 per cent. ["No, no."] Those who were not practically acquainted with the subject might perhaps say "no," but the fact would be found to be as he had said. It appeared to him that the real grievance of tithe had not been stated to the House. The evil was, that a person who had not laid out a single farthing in the cultivation of the land should be entitled to come in and claim the tenth of its produce—that one-tenth frequently amounting to the whole profits of cultivation. Let the House suppose the case to be that of the manufacturer—let a manufacturer expend an immense sum on the erection of machinery and the purchase of stock, and then be liable to the clergyman for one-tenth part of his manufactured goods; how would he be able to bring his goods to market? In France tithes had been entirely swept away. In Spain they were going very fast. In Austria, too, they were beginning to go. But in this country the landlords and cultivators were willing to compromise the matter on fair and equitable terms. Still, when they were granting the clergy a permanent annuity on the land, they, the landowners expected that some liberal allowance would be made; and, indeed, unless some such liberal allowance were made, the landed interest never would be satisfied with any measure of commutation. He intended when the Bill went into Committee to propose a reduction in the average on the seven
706
years. He was satisfied that imposing a rent charge would have the effect of increasing the value of tithe property. Instead of twenty-four or twenty-five years as much as twenty-seven or twenty-eight years' purchase would be obtained for it as soon as it became permanently fixed on the land, on account of the additional security that would be given: and, therefore, he must say, the Bill was in this respect highly advantageous to the tithe-owner. He wished that the question of redemption had been left out of consideration altogether, and it was his intention, when they got into Committee, to propose an Amendment, for the purpose of preventing any redemption of the commutation to be effected under this measure.
Sir Edward Knatchbullhardly knew how to address himself to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who bad just sat down. Those who were hurt least cried out the most, and this he believed to be the case with the hon. Gentleman. Now, it was his (Sir Edward Knatchbull's) wish, and, he trusted, the desire of every hon. Member in that House, to give to the clergy their full rights. To do justice to the clergy must, he felt persuaded, be the object which all parties had in view. But while they did this, while they gave the tithe-owner that which was his due, surely it was not unreasonable that they should, at the same time, afford some relief to the landlords. He would not go into any lengthened discussion of the details of this measure on the present occasion, as it was not, as he before expressed, his intention to offer any opposition to the second reading. He should reserve what he had to say until he had an opportunity of communicating with his constituents on the subject, because he thought it only right that, before any objections were raised against the Bill, the feelings of that part of the constituency which would be chiefly affected by its provisions with respect to it should be ascertained. There were, however, one or two points which were left untouched by the measure, to which he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord. In the Bill there did not appear to be any provision made for the payment of tithes in case of the death or removal to another parish of the incumbent shortly before the tithes becoming due. He was aware that the present law was defective in this respect, but he also knew that many instances of hardship

707
occurred in consequence of the in ability of parties entitled to them to recover tithes under such circumstances. But the defect was one which could easily be remedied. He would only call the attention of the noble Lord to one other point. It was proposed that the average should be taken according to the value of the last seven years. This he knew to be a matter of detail, but still he hoped the noble Lord would take care that the difference between land in tillage and pasture land in regard to tithes should be fairly considered, and that no greater pressure would be placed on one species of land than on another. He had risen merely for the purpose of calling the attention of the noble Lord to these two points, but before he sat down he wished to make a single remark on what had been said about the 100 l. to which the clergyman was staled to be entitled. Although, legally speaking, the clergyman had a right to 100 l. yet actually he rarely received more than 75 l. The latter amount he would still get under this Bill, and, that being the case, the objection to the measure on that head seemed to be un tenable.
Mr. Jervissaid, that from the manner in which some hon. Gentlemen had discussed the measure, it would seem as if there was not a general demand throughout the country for a commutation of tithes. He, however, knew that there was a great outcry in all quarters for an alteration of the tithe system, and all he regretted was that there were a great many tithes—those that created most vexation—which this Bill did not touch. He alluded to personal tithes, the tithes on mills, and mixed tithes. They were all aware of the difficulty of collecting the tithes on calves, milk, eggs, and other articles of that description; and yet, notwithstanding this Bill, all such tithes would be still payable. The tithes on fish and fishing he considered an unjust impost, because it was not only not founded on the common law, owing its origin solely to custom, but amounted to a tax upon labour. The same might be said of the tithe upon mills. He next must say, that the additional charge of 15 s. proposed to be imposed on every acre of land devoted to the cultivation of hops was highly objectionable, and would in fact operate as a most unfair increase of taxation on those who had expended large capitals in preparing their farms for the production of this particular article. In the parts of the
708
country with which he was best acquainted—Kent or Worcestershire, for instance—he believed that no farmer grew more than a given quantity of hops in any one year. The tithes on wood formed another subject which deserved consideration, and, for his part, he believed, that, unless all small tithes were got rid of for a corn-rent, the measure would not give satisfaction to the country.
Mr. Hodgesdefended the measure. He considered the additional charge of 15 s. an acre on land employed in the growth of hops a reasonable proposition. Without some such payment he did not think that anything like fair competition could be maintained among the hop-growers.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that it was not his intention to go at any length into the details of this measure, but only to advert to particular points. It was his desire, and he was satisfied it was the anxious wish of the noble Lord opposite, and of every other Member of that House, that whatever was done for effecting a commutation of tithes should be done in an amicable spirit. He fully concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-General, that there were almost interminable difficulties in the way of effecting any satisfactory arrangement of this question, and it was because of those difficulties that he felt it to be essential that the commutation should be voluntary, for by a voluntary commutation alone could they relieve themselves from the difficulties which lay in the way of anything like a just settlement of every case of tithes. The hon. Member for Chester had pointed out several omissions in this Bill, and enumerated the tithes which he conceived ought to be got rid of. The great advantage of voluntary commutation was, that by means of it all these intricate questions could be easily settled, although, they could not be arranged by any compulsory system which they might adopt. All such tithes as those on fish, fishing, mills, and, in different parts of the country, houses, could be more readily commuted by agreement between the parties themselves than in any other way; but, for his part, he did not believe it possible that the noble Lord could make any general compulsory arrangement which would meet the particular circumstances of every case. It was for this and other reasons, which were not necessary now to be noticed, that he had been disposed to

709
try the experiment of voluntary commutation before he resorted to compulsory measures. The noble Lord, however, said that he meant to adopt the voluntary system. What, did the noble Lord mean to tell the House that any experiment could be tried in the short space of six months from the passing of the Bill, or that in six months any experiment could be fairly tried on such a subject? Now, what could possibly be known of a measure six months after it had passed? Or, even supposing that every provision of the noble Lord's Bill were known, was it not likely that no commutations would be effected until the compulsory part of it was brought to an issue? With respect to the additional duty proposed to be laid on lands employed for the cultivation of hops, all he need say was, to express his concurrence in what had fallen from the hon. member for Kent. It was no more than just that those who expended large capitals in the production of hops should be adequately protected. If the noble Lord had said that no additional tithe should be imposed on lands brought into hop cultivation, what effect would that have had? Why, it would have enabled the land paying the limited tithe, by converting it to the growth of hops, to be brought into unfair competition with the land paying the larger tithe in which a large capital had been invested for the purpose of raising from it this particular produce. There were only one or two other points to which he would call the attention of the noble Lord, and respecting which no provision seemed to have been made in the framing of this Bill. It appeared to him that the noble Lord had not contemplated, when the subject was under his consideration, the case of a rector and a vicar receiving tithes from a particular parish. There was a complete omission as to this case in the noble Lord's Bill. No arrangement had been made as to the rights of the rector and vicar hereafter, although the noble Lord ought to have known that it frequently happened that the tithe of one particular produce in a parish, belonged to the rector, and of another to the vicar. He should like to know, therefore, whether it was the intention of the noble Lord that the land should pay the rector's charge as an additional tax? He cited this as one of many things which did not seem to have entered into the noble Lord's contemplation when he framed this Bill. He
710
did not think that House would suffer one man to be injured for the benefit of another; yet what were they called on to do? Why to defraud the tithe-owner for the purpose of making a contract with, another party, who alone was to receive the advantage. He thought the noble Lord would be required to review his Bill, in order to guard against such inaccuracies. He did not know exactly from the Bill, how it was intended to commute the tithe, in each parish, That, however, was an important question, and he should like to know whether the same commutation would apply to all the lands in a parish, or only to a part, according to the proportionate value of the tithes. These, however, and other omissions, he trusted the noble Lord would be able to supply before the Bill got into Committee. With respect to the principle of the measure, it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the second reading; for he was now, as he always had been, friendly to any plan by which so desirable an object as a just commutation of tithes was likely to be effected. His belief was, that by far the wisest course would be to give a fair trial to voluntary commutation, because that alone was calculated to meet the difficulties in the great variety of cases likely to arise. On that head he would now offer no objection, but would conclude by reserving to himself the right of opposing the measure in any way he should think fit during its progress in any of the other stages.
Mr. Harveysaid, that the Bill involved two principles—one relating to the commutation of tithes, and the other to appropriation. So far as the commutation of tithes was concerned, there was but one feeling, either in that House or in the country. It had long been the opinion of the people out of doors that a commutation of tithes ought to take place, and it was only within the walls of that House that any thing like tardiness on the subject had been exhibited. There could be no doubt that it was most important to have tithes commuted into a money payment. That was a point conceded by all parties; for so far as the principle of commutation was concerned they were all agreed. The question respecting the proposed appropriation was, however, a much more important one, and on that subject there was no unanimity to be found anywhere so perfect as in that House. There was there what he might call a marvellous

711
unanimity existing, because, in point of fact, the question of appropriation involved what he considered a most unjustifiable concession to the landed interest of this country. Tithes in their present form certainly should be changed. That was palpable, as would be proved by the fact that the value of land which was tithe-free was much greater than that of land which was rot, although the land might be as good in the one case as the other. This was a fact that was well known. Land, then, that was tithe-free was more valuable than land that was subject to tithe; but what, he asked, was the proposition made to them by the noble Lord's Bill? Why, they were conferring on the landlord an advantage, by doing that which would render his property more valuable. Now he should like to know in what way the tenantry, the occupier of the land, the yeomen of England, were to be benefitted by the proposed measure. To be sure they were told that the interests of these parties and the landlord were identical—that they represented only one person; but while they gave the landlord an advantage in some instances of forty per cent, and in others twenty-five per cent, he was wholly at a loss to conceive what the benefit was, that they intended to confer on the tenant by the - arrangement. What advantage, he asked, did the occupying tenant derive under this Bill? If the tithe was taken away, would not the landlord be free to let his ground for the full value? Where was the benefit, then, to the occupying tenant? They had a right to deal with tithes as public property, and for the benefit of the public at large. They should take care that great public principles were not sacrificed to the ad vancement of personal interests. In any arrangement that they should come to on this subject, they should recollect that they were the trustees of this property for the community at large, and that they should legislate for the benefit of all, and not for the advantage of any particular class. If, in the settlement of the tithe question in Ireland, they had felt it necessary to have an appropriation of some part of the Church revenues for the instruction and moral benefit of the people, why should they not do the same in England? Let the people derive some benefit from the settlement of this question; and let it not be promulgated through the country that this House was legislating' on a great question for the
712
advancement of private and personal interests. He had no hesitation to declare his conviction that this measure would be a most unpopular measure, and would be received with any thing but satisfaction by the country. With respect to that part of the Bill which deducted from twenty-five to forty per cent from the clergyman, he certainly did not approve of taking such a sum from the clergyman. The ground alleged was, that the clergyman, under the proposed plan, would be saved the expenses of collection, and have additional security. The expense of collection bore no just proportion to this reduction. Why, he would venture to state, that throughout the entire county of Essex the tithe was in no instance taken in kind, but was paid to the clergyman in money, The clergyman either had the tithe collected in money from the tithe-payers, or had the large tenant to collect it for him. He ventured to say, that he did not think that the expense of collection could much exceed five per cent, and he certainly thought that it was most unfair to subject the clergyman to such an injury as to make so large a deduction from his income. He certainly did not want to manifest any extraordinary affectation of sympathy for the clergy. He certainly had no hesitation to say, that for the clergy he entertained respect, and he thought, that to a certain extent, their rights should be respected. So far as regarded the existing clergy, he had no objection that, so long as they remained, they should be allowed to preserve all that belonged to them. However, with the same frankness, he would avow, that he sincerely hoped that the time would come when they would have no church at all. He repeated, that in the measure before the House there was a perfect sacrifice of public principles to personal interests, and he foresaw that it would prove alike injurious to the church and unsatisfactory to the country. He did not profess himself to be a friend to the Church; but he would repeat, that, in the ungenerous sense of the term at least, he did not wish to be considered its enemy. Although much opinion had been expressed that evening on the subject of the measure before the House, it appeared to him that the measure did not appear to be well understood, and he certainly thought that the more discussion it received the better. He was of opinion that this measure would determine who were the

713
friends of the people and who were not. He intended that night to take the sense of the House upon the objections which he felt bound to offer to this Bill. He would ask, was it to be expected that the people would consider as in any way beneficial to them, a measure which would go to put 4,000,000 l. a-year into the hands of the landlords of the country, without the least regard to the advantage of the great bulk of the people, to whom a portion of those tidies were originally devoted? Whatever there was venerable in the character of tithes was associated with their antiquity. It was only in their antiquity that their true history, and the nature and objects of their original institution was to be found. Those tithes had been diverted from their original purposes, and a large portion of them became the prey of the usurpations of lay impropriators. Let it not then be said, that in that House those who had large and extensive personal interests involved, had endeavoured, as far as they could, to shield their own possessions. He trusted, in conclusion, that in any settlement of this question they should legislate with a just sense of the interests of those for whose advantage a large portion of those tithes was originally intended.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonwas understood to say, that he must protest against the observations which had been made respecting the measure before the House. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the measure went to sacrifice all other interests to the advantage of the landlord. That doctrine had been often enunciated in that House, that any deduction from the amount of tithes was for the benefit of the landlord; but he must say, that in the observations which the hon. Member had thought fit to offer on the measure before the House a more un can did statement of the principle of any Bill had never been put forward. The hon. Member had said that this was a measure for the exclusive advantage of the landlords. It was quite clear, however, that the hon. Gentleman had considered the measure with very little attention, and certainly not with his usual ability. There was no such thing in the Bill as valuation in the first instance. The valuation was to be determined by the valuation for the previous seven years. One of the principles of the Bill was, that if any individual felt that he was overcharged, or that he was called, on to pay more than
714
he considered the value of his tithes, in such case any person so circumstanced would have the right to apply to the Commissioners for a new valuation. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to contend that this part of the measure was perfectly free from objections, and was so framed as to be conducive to the mutual interests both of the tithe owner and the tithe payer. He explained the machinery of this portion of the measure, and endeavoured to maintain that the principle on which it was founded was one not only perfectly free from objections, but entitled to the fullest approval both of the House and the country. The hon. Member for Southwark had inveighed against the measure as one in which the interests of the landlords were alone consulted, and at the same time he asked what benefit did the occupying tenant, the tithe-payer, derive from this measure? Bui, he would ask, in reply, did not the tenant derive more advantage than the landlord? What did the landlord gain? The tenant would be merely called on to pay the amount of his rentcharge; the benefit of the reductions would go entirely into the pockets of the tenant, and the landlord would not derive the advantage of a single farthing during the term of the existing tenant's lease. Nothing could be more unfounded injustice than the condemnatory manner in which the hon. Gentleman had spoken of this part, of the Bill. But if any advantages were held out to the landlord could there be any thing unreasonable in that? Let them consider the increased responsibility which the landlord undertook. Let them consider the situation in which this Bill would place him. The landlord would, under the operation of this Bill, stand in the situation of a person liable to be distrained for the payment of the tithes. The tenant would no longer be liable to be applied to for the payment of this charge, and the clergyman would have the great advantage of the security afforded him by the liability of the landlord. There was this additional consideration, that the landlord was likely to lose in the payment of the tithe; for he was bound to pay the full amount of whatever demand the clergyman became entitled to, and he might not perhaps be able to collect that amount from the tenant. With respect to the deductions of twenty-five or forty per cent., he considered that as the clergyman would have increased security, and would receive his money without

715
trouble or expense, it was but reasonable that some deductions should be made. He believed that would be admitted on all hands. Wherever the valuation was not considered to be fair, the Commissioners would have a right to make a new valuation, and the amount of the reduction would vary from twenty-five, to forty per cent., in proportion to the difficulty that might be found in collecting the arrears. He considered that the Bill would be satisfactory to all parties, and have a fair and just regard for the preservation, upon a fair basis, of all the various interests concerned. The principles of this Bill had been most clearly and satisfactorily explained in the admirable speech of his noble Friend, in which be showed the superiority of this Bill to any Bill that had ever before been brought forward on the subject. There was one point, however, which bad not been mentioned, namely, that there was to be a personal agreement, as well as a periodical agreement, as to the amount of commutation. The Bill enacted, that if any person found fault with his valuation, and thought that he was overcharged, he would have a right to appeal. The great object of the framers of the Bill was, to do injustice to no person. The measure, in his opinion, was fair and honest towards all parties concerned, and was by far the best and fairest measure that had ever been proposed for the commutation of tithes. It would be advantageous to the tithe-owner—it would be advantageous to the landlord and to the tenant. The great advantage to the tenant would be, that there, would no longer be a tax upon his industry and capital. At present the tenant could not place increased capital in the improvement of his land, but it became liable to have a portion of the increased produce taken for the payment of tithes. That would be the case no longer, and the tenant would thus be released from a very annoying and disadvantageous impost. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to contend that this measure, if carried, would be of the greatest possible advantage to the country. He referred to the fact that no tithe-system existed in Scotland, and he attributed a great portion of the prosperity of Scotland to that circumstance, and he expressed a confident expectation that the measure before the House would, in its beneficial operation, vindicate itself, from the objections urged against it, and
716
confer the most extensive and valuable benefits upon the country.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the House were to consider whether there had been such a primâ facie case made out in favour of the principle of the Bill as would warrant them in permitting it to be read a second time. Its leading principle was, that in certain circumstances compulsion might be admitted. To that he did not object, provided it was arranged upon principles perfectly just and equitable towards both the landowner and the tenant. In the course of the Bill's progress through the Committee, the hon. Gentleman opposite would have the power of fulfilling the declaration he had made, and of moving an Amendment to the effect that one-tenth of the gross produce should in every case be taken from the occupying tenant, since it appeared that nothing less would satisfy him—that no deduction from the amount of the sum which in strictness of law the occupying tenant should pay would satisfy him. The hon. Gentleman also proposed that a portion should be set apart for public purposes; but, even with that appropriation, he doubted whether the measure would give satisfaction to the occupying tenant. He had listened to the lucid speech of his Majesty's Solicitor-General, but he could not say, that the argument it contained was so conclusive to his mind as to induce him to join in the unqualified panegyric passed on the Bill by the hon. Gentleman, He would, however, give his consent to the second reading of the Bill; when it reached the Committee, he should facilitate, by any suggestions which occurred to him, the passing of the Bill, upon principles which should appear to him fair and reasonable. The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Harvey) was fatal to any attempt at a commutation of tithes upon any principle whatever, and he must say he never heard reflections mere unjust than those thrown out by the hon. Member against the landowners who had seats in that House, merely because they were willing to consider the subject freely, with a view to attempt a satisfactory settlement of this intricate question. As to whether 75 or 60 per cent, were a proper sum to adopt as a maximum or minimum, he would give no opinion whatever, and, should he see grounds for coming to a different conclusion, it would be perfectly

717
competent for him to propose the adoption of any other sum in Committee. The hon. and learned Member opposite (the Solicitor-General) had stated that the Bill included the two principles of voluntary agreement and compulsion, and seemed surprised that any objection should be taken against a measure which combined both. Now, there might be cases in which voluntary agreement might be proper, and cases in which compulsory agreement might be proper; but it did not follow that a Bill which united both should receive unqualified assent. The hon. Gentleman said, that the Bill which he had formerly proposed must fail upon this account—that the prospect of voluntary settlement held out by it was so vague, that it must necessarily prevent the question from being speedily set at rest. Now, he had said nothing whatever against the ultimate adoption of the principle of compulsion; but what he did say was this,—he thought when they came to apply that principle, the experience they would have then gained, by the previous attempts to effect a voluntary agreement would suggest better principles of compulsion than they could at first lay down. He believed, the peculiarities of various parishes, with respect to tithe, to be so great, that it was difficult to prescribe in what cases the principle of compulsion could be with advantage applied; but expecting, as he had expected, that there would be many cases of voluntary agreement under the Bill which he had introduced, if he did not define at first the principle of compulsion to which he meant to have recourse, it was because he thought that they might afterwards discover those principles which would be most consistent with equity, and most suit the infinite variety of complicated cases they would have to consider. The noble Lord said, that this Bill first allowed a voluntary agreement, at the option of the parties interested, and then, in the event of that alternative being rejected, made the commutation compulsory. Now, could the noble Lord show him any case in which there could be a voluntary agreement under this Bill? The compulsory principle was to come into operation at the end of six months. Certainly this arrangement would favour one of the two parties, the tithe-owner or the tithe-payer. Why should either seek to come to a voluntary agreement when he knew that in six months another principle would be en-
718
forced which would be attended with results much more profitable to him? How very improbable, then, that the voluntary principle would be adopted in precisely the same terms as those laid down by the Bill. If a compulsory settlement were effected, one party would be benefitted at the expense of the other; how, then, could they be expected to consent to a voluntary settlement? So far from the compulsory principle being likely to lead to a satisfactory adjustment, if the principle to be eventually applied were uncertain, that very uncertainty would be much more likely to lead to a voluntary adjustment in the mean time. The next proposal which the Bill made was, that there should be parochial agreements, and that the consent of a certain proportion of the tithe-holders should bind the rest. In his opinion this was the best part of the Bill. That failing, the main principle of the Bill, that of compulsion, was next to be applied. This part of the Bill, though far the most important one, he did not exactly understand. He thought the object of the noble Lord had been to provide some principle by which, ultimately, the payment of tithe would be abolished. But that object it was impossible the present measure should effect. The Bill did not, strictly speaking, apply compulsion. After six months have elapsed, the Commissioners would not be entitled to proceed, unless there should be an application from some party in the parish. Should this not be made, the tithes would remain precisely upon their present footing. He confessed he thought the noble Lord meant, that upon an application from a certain number of inhabitants, possessing the greater part of the tithe property, the Commissioners should be authorised to proceed to the valuation of the tithe upon whatever principles they might agree to adopt. But the plan of the Bill was this:—After the expiration of six months, if no voluntary agreement, and no parochial agreement, in consequence of the decision of the majority, should be effected, the powers of the Commissioners would then come into operation. And in what manner? Any landowner might write to the Commissioners and require, not a compulsion for the whole parish, but a compulsory arrangement for his individual holding in it. The parish might consist of 10,000 acres, and any man holding a single acre might apply for a compulsion

719
to it. So that, though he admitted he was supposing an extreme case, it might be that this principle of compulsion might be applied only to a single acre. Supposing half the parish agreed in applying to the Commissioners, in that case the principle of compulsion might be employed with effect. There might be proprietors in a parish whose land, now subject to a corn tithe, had not been arable for the last six or seven years. The tithe-owner would then apply to the Commissioners to have the compulsory principle applied, and would select the cases in which it would be for his interest to obtain it. But what confusion and disputes would arise from these applications of individual landholders! It would be infinitely better, if the noble Lord had determined what proportion of the holders of land interested in tithe should have had the power of obtaining from the Commissioners the application of the compulsory principle to the parish. But the case of selecting individual landholders, and applying it to each, did appear to him to be introducing into each parish an anomaly in tithe, and he feared, that instead of reconciling conflicting opinions, it would lead to greater animosities than before, In every instance in which the award of the Commissioners was objected to—in every case there must be a valuation of tithe, a just principle in itself; but did the noble Lord consider what the difficulty would be in the great majority of cases of compulsion? How could the gross amount of tithe paid within the last seven years be discovered? If it had not been paid in kind, there might be a record; but where this had been the custom, he did not see how they could proceed to determine its gross value for that period. In order to form a just valuation, the Commissioners must know the nature of the crop of every year, the produce of the land; and if their decision were not in conformity with justice, their award must necessarily produce great dissatisfaction in the parties subject to it. In every case where the award was not satisfactory he did not see how the noble Lord proposed to ascertain the value of the tithe on an acre of land during the last seven years. These were the principal doubts he entertained with respect to the measure before the House, which might be removed on further application and further inquiry, but of which, some hon. Member? having already alluded to
720
them, he had not yet heard any satisfactory solution. He advised the noble Lord not to be too sanguine that his measure would meet with universal approbation. The extreme difficulty there was in coming to a satisfactory settlement of this question induced them to receive with favour any attempt to overcome these obstacles made in the spirit of fairness. The measure before them had at first appeared to him exceedingly plausible, but when he came to examine it minutely, defects presented themselves that had escaped a more cursory observation. For instance, with regard to the power of levying tithe in kind for non-payment of tithe, as the landowner possesses the right of distress for nonpayment of rent, since the former right was not affected by this Bill, the liberty of levying tithes in kind might be continued for a long series of years. The Bill had, in the course of the debate, been denounced by some hon. Members as the Clergyman's Bill, by others as the Landowners', and he confessed he heard the first objection with much more satisfaction. He did hope that no Bill would receive the assent of that House which did not render full justice, in every particular, to the rights of the clergy. It would be not only inconsistent with justice, but also detrimental to the honour and character of Parliament, if this Bill passed without containing some such provision as that which he had just recommended. Considering our peculiar situation as landlords, and also considering that the parties interested are the clergy, who have no direct representatives amongst us, it is required, no less by a due sense of our own interests than by a proper regard to the protection of the rights and privileges of the clergy, that we should not appear to sanction any principle which we are not satisfied is consistent with justice. To require the whole 100 per cent, for the Church would be an insuperable bar to any-commutation whatever. He had no hesitation in declaring that a fair deduction from the nominal amount of tithe must be made, for it was evident that to exact the whole 100 per cent, would be unjust both to the landlord and to the occupying tenant. He did not wish to have it understood thereby that he meant to agree entirely to the proportion fixed by the noble Lord. As he said before, he would not oppose any objection to the principle of the measure, but would hold himself at liberty to modify it hereafter, as might seem most desirable

721
to his sense of justice; for the main consideration by which he was actuated was a desire to satisfy the Church and the country that, in attempting the commutation of tithe, the House did not intend in any way to affect the interests of the clergy.
Lord John Russellcongratulated the House that the discussion on this Bill had been managed with great fairness by all who had taken a share in it. He could assure hon. Members that the Bill had been framed by himself and his colleagues in the same spirit in which it had been hitherto discussed. Some hon. Gentlemen might say, like his hon. Friend, the Member for Wiltshire that the Bill was a Clergyman's Bill, although, being just, he did not mean to object to it on that score. Others might say, like the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, that it was a Landlord's Bill, and therefore gave undue advantage to that portion of the community. He could assure the House that the Bill had been framed without any bias to either of those parties; that it had been drawn up in its present shape in order to produce a fair settlement of a question which was the cause of much dissension and evil; that it had been intended, on the one hand, to secure to the clergy a fair income proportional to what they had a right to claim as due to their rights and position in the country, and, on the other, to free both the landlord and the occupying tenant from a burden which was grievous to those who were anxious to employ their skill and capital on the land. Having framed the Bill in this view, he was not surprised to find that the objections urged against the Bill from different quarters of the House were so various and contradictory to each other. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, objected to the Bill as being compulsory. The hon. and learned Member for Ripon objected to the Bill because it was not compulsory enough. One hon. Gentleman considered it too favourable to the tithe-owner, another considered it too favourable to the tithe-payer. Thus, as might naturally be expected from the Bill being drawn up without any bias, it was opposed by the extreme parties on both sides—a proof, as he contended, that those who had steered a middle course between them had devised a measure which ultimately would be satisfactory to all parties. The right hon. Baronet the Member for
722
Tamworth had not objected to the former-part of the Bill, which established a voluntary commutation of tithe; nor to the latter part of it, by which three-fourths of the tithe-owners might agree with three-fourths of the tithe-payers, so as to make an arrangement compulsory upon the rest of the parish. But the right hon. Baronet had stated more than once that the advantages would be greater if the commutation were made voluntary at first, and afterwards, if voluntary commutations were not made, introduce a Bill to make compulsory commutations. Now, his expectations differed much from those of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet was obliged to admit that we could not remain long—that was for many years—without corning to a compulsory commutation. The question, therefore, was, not whether a Bill should be introduced authorising voluntary commutation and leaving ail parties in the belief that no other commutation would be effected, but whether they should pass a Bill for the voluntary commutation of tithes, leaving all parties to presume that a compulsory commutation would follow,—so leaving it to one party to say, "the rights of the church are such, that a larger sum than is now paid will be due to it," and to the other to allege, "What is now paid to the church is too much, and a reduction in the amount of the payment must be made." In proposing a Bill for voluntary commutation, under such circumstances, they would find that both parties would be unwilling to make voluntary commutations, and would reserve themselves for a later Bill, in the hope that a compulsory commutation would be more favourable to their interests. In such a state of things, though some instances of voluntary commutation might happen, he was far from thinking that they would be sufficiently numerous to serve as a guide to the country in making a compulsory commutation. He thought that such instances of voluntary commutation would be rare and singular—that they would only occur where the parties were on amicable terms with each other—where either the owner or occupier of the soil was ready to grant more than the tithe-owner received at present, or where the tithe-owner received less than his due from the farmers of his parish. Under such circumstances he must contend, that if there were a voluntary commutation,

723
it would not supply anything like a safe guide to direct us in making a compulsory commutation for the whole country. The right hon. Baronet had also said, that there would be great difficulty when we came to make a compulsory commutation in finding a value for the tithe of every acre in the kingdom. His (Lord J. Russell's) feeling was, that the power of making a voluntary commutation, coupled with the prospect of being obliged to submit to a compulsory commutation if a voluntary one were not made, would lead the parties to make fair terms with each other. If they would not, then there would be meetings of three-fourths of the tithe-owners with three-fourths of the tithe-payers to make arrangements, and where those arrangements were made satisfactorily they would be binding on the whole parish. He thought that to such meetings the voluntary commutations made between individual tithe-payers and the tithe-owners would form some guide as to the value of the tithe. He thought it necessary, nevertheless, that in any Bill for accomplishing a compulsory commutation of tithes there should be a provision providing for a just and equitable valuation of the tithe, and he had accordingly inserted in this Bill such a provision, which he trusted would prove satisfactory. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Kent had thrown out two observations, which were well deserving of attention. He would apply his consideration to the two cases which the right hon. Baronet had mentioned, and would see whether some provision could not be devised to meet them. With respect to the observation made by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge respecting the claims of rectors and vicars, he thought it applied very strongly to the case of hops. Some provision he thought might be framed to meet that case. The hon. and learned Member for Chester had found fault with the Bill, because it contained no provision for a commutation of those tithes which did not arise from land, as for fish, milk, &c. The difficulty rested in this case upon the fact, that the parties to whom these payments were made were not always sufficiently known. With respect to the objections which had been made upon this occasion, as upon other previous occasions, by his hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford—objections in which no one had
724
concurred save the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, with whom his hon. Friend had had a great but unusual accord of opinion—he must say, that his boa. Friend had not stated the case fairly when he represented the owner of tithes as having a right to the whole tenth of the produce of the land without any deduction. One very obvious reason why the tithe-owner ought not to have a right to the whole tenth was, that the person who paid the tenth of the produce was not obliged to cultivate his land as the tithe-owner pleased. On the contrary, if his tithe were valued at too high a rate, he might escape from the difficulty by changing the cultivation of the land, so that tithe might either be paid to another person or not paid at all. He would illustrate what he meant on this subject by a short statement of a fact. A friend of his paid for a certain number of years a fixed sum for tithes to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich. At last the Dean and Chapter took it into their heads, that they were entitled to a larger sum, and demanded it from his friend. He thought that they asked much more than they were fairly entitled to, and in consequence refused payment of it. They persisted in their demand, and the result was that his friend changed the cultivation of his land. He planted every acre of it, to the great amusement of the neighbourhood, and no tithe had been paid on it for the last twenty-one years. Here was a clear proof that the clergyman had no actual right to the whole tenth of the produce of the land. When, therefore, he said that in some cases 60 per cent. only should be taken, he was not alluding to those cases merely where there had been leniency shown by the tithe-owner, but also to those cases in which the cultivation might, and perhaps would, be changed, so as to affect the income derivable from tithes. He would not enter further into the details of the Bill at present. In the Committee he would meet any suggestions that might be made to him, and discuss them with the utmost fairness. From the manner in which this discussion had been, conducted, he was rejoiced to find that that there was at last some prospect of settling this important question, and that the House was most anxious to lend itself fairly and impartially to a satisfactory arrangement of it. For his own part, he thought that it would be much better to enact a Bill which was fair and impartial

725
to all parties, even with some errors, than to go on for two or three years longer without accomplishing any settlement of it at all.
The Bill was read a second time.

PENSIONS' DUTIES BILL.
On the Order of the Day being read for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Granville Harcourtrose to present a petition from the Duke of Marlborough praying to be heard at the bar of the House by counsel against the passing of this bill, which has been introduced for the purpose of reimposing upon all pensions the tax, which was virtually repealed by an omission in the Pension Act of last Session. He reminded the House that all pensions now granted for great and illustrious military services were paid to their holders free from any deduction whatever, and argued that it never could have been the intention of the Parliament of Queen Anne, which granted to the great Duke of Marlborough, for his victories at Blenheim and Ramillies, the pension which his descendant now enjoyed, to diminish its amount by submitting it to a tax of 27½ per cent., which for some years past had been levied upon it. He did not know whether he was in order in offering to present this petition now. He had not been a party to the presentation of it. If his advice had been asked, he should rather have suggested the propriety of introducing some clause into the bill to exempt the case of the Duke of Marl-borough's pension from its operation. He hoped that this bill would, at any rate, offer an opening for some discussion of the noble Duke's case. Considering the change which had taken place in the value of money since the reign of Queen Anne, and considering also that the Parliament of that day evidently intended that the Duke of Marlborough should in all future time receive the full amount of the pension granted to the illustrious hero on whom it was first bestowed, free from all taxes and deductions whatsoever, he thought that the subject-matter of the petition was well entitled to dispassionate attention. Living as he did in Oxfordshire, and representing as he did that county, of which the park and castle of Blenheim were such distinguished ornaments, he might perhaps be forgiven for stating that that noble monument of national gratitude was in some risk of not being sufficiently attended to, and of not being kept in that state of,
726
conservation which Parliament would naturally desire. After several other observations, which Were quite inaudible in the gallery, the hon. Member, as we understood him, asked leave of the Speaker, if it was not contrary to the rules of the House, to bring up the petition which he held in his hand.
The Speakersaid, the hon. Member might adopt a more regular; mode of proceeding than that of presenting the petition.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersuggested that the proper course for the hon. Member would be, to propose a clause in Committee to effect his object.
Petition withdrawn.
Mr. Goulburnthought the House ought to have some information as to the grounds of making that a permanent duty which, from the period of its imposition, had been only annual. The preamble of the bill, which stated that doubts had arisen as to the right to levy the duty after the 5th of July, 1835, was perfectly unfounded, for nothing could be clearer than that the duty could not be levied after the expiration of the Act under which it had been granted. The subject admitted of no doubt.
Mr. Francis Baringassured the right hon. Gentleman that an impression did exist, till recently, that the duty might be levied, notwithstanding the expiration of the annual Act, and-that to remove all doubt, and clear the matter up, the present bill was brought in. As to the right hon. Gentleman's objection to rendering that perpetual which had been hitherto granted annually, if he would take into account that the duty amounted to no more than 10,000 l. a-year, the right hon. Member must perceive that there were no great grounds for jealousy on the subject, as no very considerable check was taken out of the power of Parliament by the alteration.
The bill was read a second time.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord SHAFTESBURY, from Lewes; and by the Earl of DEVON, from Exeter, against the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.—By Lord HOLLAND, from the Protestant Dissenters of the three denominations, for a Redress of Grievances.

RAILROADS.
Lord Wharncliffehad to present a petition on a subject which not merely concerned the agricultural interest, but which affected also those persons who resided in towns and cities. The petition related to the formation of railroads. Their Lordships must be aware that many bills for the formation of railroads had been introduced into Parliament, and the public attention had been strongly directed to this subject. The tenour of the petition which he rose to present was, that, inasmuch as railroads were projected in various parts of the country, it was important that they should be confined, as much as possible, to the line of the existing turn pike-roads. He did not approve of that principle, but he would suggest to noble Lords in his Majesty's Government that when a railroad bill came into that House, some inquiry should take place prior to its being read a second time, as to the line on which it was adviseable that such rail road should proceed. There were at present between Brighton and London no less than three projected lines of railway. Now, he apprehended that no man in his senses could suppose that more than one railroad was necessary between Brighton and London. According to the newspapers, however, the shares in all these undertakings were at a premium. This was a most extraordinary fact. He had himself considerable experience on this subject, having sedulously attended a Committee which sat for a long time to investigate the circumstances connected with a rail-road of very great importance. They had heard evidence for many days with reference to that railroad—evidence in many instances of a directly contradictory nature. Knowing, therefore, the difficulties by which the subject was surrounded, he would suggest to his noble Friend opposite, that a Committee should be appointed to ascertain, in the first instance, the best line that could be adopted for any given railroad; and which should take especial care that no proposition for a railroad should be countenanced if its projectors did not adopt the best possible line. He made these observations, be-

671
cause he felt that it was Government alone that could with propriety take up this important subject.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished to say a very few words on this question, as he was connected with a county in which those railroads had grown up in a most extraordinary manner. He alluded to the county of Durham. Five or six years ago, application was made on this subject to Parliament, and one individual particularly exerted himself on the occasion. He succeeded in his attempt to carry a railroad bill. Two or three years afterwards, some opposition having been given to his plan, he got up another railroad, parallel to that which he had first projected; and, strange to say, the same individual had again succeeded in forming a third railroad. Here, then, were three railroads running nearly parallel to each other. Of the first—the Stockton and Darlington railroad—he believed the profits were much overrated. The shares were perhaps at par. With respect to the second, it was entirely bankrupt—and Government would find it necessary to take possession of it. As to the third, he believed that it would never pay. Such was the situation of three railroads projected in the county of Durham. Was it possible, he would ask, that these railroads were projected for the public service, when they had turned out such miserable speculations as he had described? No—they were got up merely that certain joint-stock companies might reap advantage. The consequence of this system was, that the estates of gentlemen were rode over in every direction. It was now proposed to create a great northern railway to Edinburgh, which should pass through the county of Durham. This might be very desirable, as the bill for forming a great Western Railroad had passed; and he should be inclined, indeed he should be most anxious, to support it, as beneficial to the county of Durham. But a certain party by whom the Stockton and Darlington railway had been projected, preponderated in the county; and that party, which was composed of Quakers, insisted that the Northern railroad should come out near the Darlington and Stockton railroad, by which they would be enabled to give, for a profitable consideration, a portion of their railroad to the Great Northern railroad. The individual who represented a portion of Durham in another place (and
672
who was a member of that religious persuasion to which he had alluded) brought forward this plan, in order that a great part of the Darlington and Stockton railway might be available for the great Northern railway. Others, however, denied that such was the true line, and that the Great Northern railway should enter Durham in such a manner as to render available a great portion of the Clarence railway. Thus they had one party contending for the Darlington and Stockton line, and another for the Clarence line. Now, unless his Majesty's Government, seeing those difficulties, came forward with some general principle as to the formation of railways, the greatest mischief and confusion must follow. There was really, at the bottom of these railroad speculations, a strong desire to serve private speculating interests, but nothing whatever for the benefit of the public. That was entirely lost sight of. He thought much good would be effected, first, if the compulsory clause—obliging individuals to give up their property when experiments of this kind were made, whether they would or not, were to be omitted in future; and next, if it were enacted, that after a certain period, the capital and interest of money expended on such undertakings having been paid, the railways should revert to the public. This, in his opinion would check the rage for speculation.
The Marquess of Lansdowneentirely agreed in the observations made by the noble Lord (Wharncliffe), both as to the importance of the subject, and as to the necessity of its being taken up by Government. He was of opinion, that when Bills of this description were introduced, some preliminary or some concurrent inquiry ought to be instituted—there ought to be placed before them the evidence of some impartial authority—before they were allowed to proceed. He undoubtedly felt very strongly the necessity of taking this course, because this was not a case of individual interest merely, but one so general and extensive in its operation, that the Government of the country was bound to notice it. The immense magnitude of the capital required for these projects, and the various and important consequences, connected with them, which affected every branch of industry throughout the country, called for the most serious consideration. This would appear at once, when, he stated to their Lordships, that even at the

673
present moment there were applications before the other House of Parliament, for carrying into execution projects for railways, which involved the expenditure of little short of 40,000,00 l. of money; certainly between 35,000,000 l. and 40,000,000 l. Entertaining this opinion, which, he believed, was supported by the concurrent opinion of their Lordships, he was happy to state, that this very day a proposition would be made in another place, having for its object to refer the consideration of the subject to a Committee. That Committee, after receiving proper information, would report their opinion to Parliament on the important subjects that would be referred to them, and the public would thus have a certain security that nothing would be recommended but that which, upon examination, appeared to be intrinsically good. Petition laid on the Table.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
Lord Abingerpresented four petitions from Norwich and places in Norfolk against that part of the Ecclesiastical Courts Consolidating Bill which confines the taking out probate of wills to the proposed Central Court in London.
Lord Wynfordsaid, if there were no other objection to the clause than that which related to the expense which parties would be put to in taking out probates of wills, it could not be maintained; because he believed that, in point of fact, the expense would be less, if the probate were taken out in London, than if it were taken out in the counties.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, much attention had been paid to this subject by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of whom he had the honour to be one, and there was a strong impression on his mind that the expense of taking probate in London would certainly be less than it would be if sought for in those inferior courts.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, there was a great deal of the bill of which he entirely approved; but he undoubtedly thought it advisable to preserve, for the general convenience of individuals, the right which they now possessed, of taking probate of wills in the different counties, instead of being obliged to visit London for that purpose. There would, at the same time, be no great difficulty to preserve in London a general index. He thought that the Committee on the Bill, which would follow
674
the second reading, might take its general provisions into consideration, but that this particular part of the measure ought to be referred to a Select Committee. They would have a fair opportunity for devising a proper remedy in the case to which the complaints of the petitioners referred. He should either now or hereafter propose such a committee, and would in the mean time put their Lordships in possession of the names of the noble Lords. His Lordship then read the names of those whom he wished to form the Committee.
The Lord Chancellorwas most anxious that this subject should undergo mature consideration. At the same time he felt it right to state, that he conceived it to be impossible that any inquiry which might be made could lead to the result which the petitioning parties wished for. Several reports had been made on the subject of the ecclesiastical law; they had been submitted to their Lordships' consideration; and they all agreed in the necessity of this specific alteration. This point had commanded the serious consideration of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The subject had been, in fact, before the Commissioners for one whole year. Some of the Commissioners thought that it would be wrong to leave to the local court the right of granting probate. This, however, was met by a contrary opinion, which was held by other members of the Commission. The subject was, therefore, much considered; and it was at last found, that the preservation of this convenience was utterly unattainable, concurrently with the consolidation of the Ecclesiastical Courts which was contemplated. It was never contended that these local courts should exist for the purpose of deciding serious questions—whether, for instance, wills were valid or not, or whether individuals, in disputed cases, should be allowed to take out administration to estates. Then came the difficulty which attended applying for probate in a court which had not the power to decide ultimately on the matter litigated. If the claim were contested, all the expenses incurred in the local court, which could not decide the matter, were entirely thrown away. Even, after probate granted, ail the expense incurred might turn out to be useless. Thus, if probate were granted in one diocese, and the deceased person had possessed property to the amount of 5l. or 10 l. in another diocese, the local court, which al-

675
lowed probate, having no jurisdiction in the latter diocese, its proceedings were worth nothing, and the money expended was lost. Another difficulty was, as to where the parties, who might wish to oppose an application for probate, were to address themselves. There must, if the old system prevailed, be at least twenty-six courts, one in each diocese, and a party might find it extremely difficult to discover in which of these application for probate had been made. Suppose the rule to be, that probate should be applied for in the court of the diocese where the party died. In many instances, persons having an interest in the property might not be able to discover exactly where the individual died. This subject had been laboriously investigated by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, by the Real Property Commissioners, and by a Committee of the House of Commons, and their decided opinion had been, that it was impossible to effect a due improvement in the Ecclesiastical Courts, leaving to the local courts the power of granting probate. If they looked to the large dioceses, they would find that it was more difficult to proceed there than it would be to apply to a central court in London. He would refer to the diocese of Lincoln, and he would ask how much more easy would it be for a party interested to receive information from London, if a central court were established there, than it could be procured in the former place.
Lord Denmanexpressed a hope that this measure would be passed without delay, and that all the differences which seemed to exist on the subject should be reconciled. Some arrangement, he thought, might be made for having an index in the country without interfering with the general probate in London. Never was there a measure which came so recommended to Parliament. His noble and learned Friend who now sat on the woolsack was the third Lord Chancellor who had taken up the principle of this Bill. The recommendations of the Commissioners who were appointed to inquire into this subject (and whose generous sacrifice of the patronage which they enjoyed, in order to promote the object of such a measure as the present ought never to be forgotten) were embodied in a measure which had been introduced by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) who gat on the woolsack
676
in the year 1833, and the principle of that measure had never been lost sight of by any subsequent administration to that of which the noble and learned Lord was a member. Sir Frederick Pollock had introduced a Bill into the House of Commons, similar in its nature to the present; and the present Attorney-General had also brought forward a measure, of which the Bill then under their Lordships' consideration was a transcript. He might, perhaps, he allowed to add, that the present Bill embraced one of the many great improvements which were brought under the consideration of Parliament in the year 1828 by his noble and learned Friend, to whom he had already alluded, in his luminous and comprehensive view of the changes in the law which were then required. Great benefit had already resulted from the adoption of one of those suggestions in the courts at Westminster, and he hoped they would be productive of still further advantages; but there were certainly none of these advantages greater than those which this Bill was calculated to effect, and than it would effect, he trusted, in a very short time.
The petitions were laid on the Table. The Bill was subsequently read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, which, on the motion of Lord Ellen-borough, was appointed.