Sitting of 10 May 1836

DUBLIN STEAM-PACKET COMPANY.
Mr. O'Connell: On behalf of the Dublin Steam-packet Company, I now move, Sir, for leave to bring in a bill, notwithstanding that the period has elapsed, when by the standing orders this should have been done. In this case a bill was some time since brought into the House, and upon the third reading it was rejected, on the ground that this body corporate were not individually responsible for the additional subscriptions to be made. On that account alone, I say, the bill was rejected. The Dublin Steam-packet Company had previously to this, entered into and made contracts to the amount of 137,000 l.; and the great object of those contracts was that of building more steam-boats for the purpose of increasing a special branch of their trade, connected with the naviga-
804
tion of the Shannon, by which party through Dublin a great trade is carried on; and no arguments have been raised against this measure, except that it would have the effect of creating a monopoly, which, however, I am confident was a construction not warranted by the facts of the case. The proposal which I have now to submit to the consideration of the House, and which I hope they will accede to is, that I may have leave to bring in this Bill; that every hon. Member may be put in possession of its object and its contents, and that no arguments may be urged against it, which are not to be justified and confirmed by its provisions. In moving for leave to introduce this bill, I have only to state that it is already printed, and will be deposited in the private bill office; when that is done, the House will decide whether they will entertain the measure or not. In the meantime, however, I must deprecate any premature discussion upon it before the facts and merits of the plan can be known. If, indeed, hon. Gentlemen raise a controversy now, they must do us the justice to suppose that the principle of the bill which we seek to introduce, has nothing in view beyond giving to the public this security— that every person who shall become a subscriber to this increased capital will be liable to the extent of his entire fortune, whatever it may be. Thus you will give an increased and unlimited security to those who may have any transactions with the Company. Under these circumstances, I do venture to hope that it is not too late to appeal to the House for its sanction to the introduction of this bill. The House objected to its principle, as it was before brought in, and this has prejudiced the interests of the Company. I repeat my hope that I may be permitted to bring in the bill, and that then hon. Gentlemen will dispose of it as they like; and let me add, I hope that no local jealousies of any kind will be allowed to interfere, or to bias the judgment of the House. I have only now to move for leave to bring in a bill, to authorise the Dublin Steam-packet Company to extend their capital, with an unlimited responsibility, for the purpose of building six additional steam-vessels.
Mr. Randall Plunkett:I rise to second the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. I believe that an opinion has gone abroad that in this instance the responsibility of the Dublin Steam-packet

805
Company is limited; but I have no doubt that all the bad parts or objectionable provisions of the former bill have been carefully expunged, and that each and every person who may become connected with this Company will be strictly liable to the whole amount of his property. I know it has been imagined that persons might be added to the new lists of subscribers, who being originally protected by the limited responsibility would continue in that favoured position. Now it is proposed that the former subscribers shall be allowed to become subscribers to this proposed additional capital, in which case they will take upon themselves the whole responsibility, and will be liable to the same extent as they would have been if the Company had never existed. I confess I cannot regard this case in a general way, as one involving the principle of a monopoly; because in the first place it is only proposed to allow the Company to obtain the power of increasing their capital for the positive benefit of the country —which if it be a monopoly, it is elsewhere obtained as in this instance, only by a successful competition. I conceive we are more especially called upon to regard the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin with a favourable eye, seeing that we have not many such advantages in Ireland, as this Company has already conferred, and will yet confer on the people more particularly who are resident along the banks of the Shannon and the adjacent country. I merely wish to conclude by observing that in consequence of the belief which has been entertained that a competition would be prevented in the conveyance of passengers and merchandize between Dublin and Liverpool, and that sufficient means of transport would not be found, this Company is now ready to build six additional steam-vessels to ply between those ports, for which they have entered into contracts, and are liable for a sum of 137,000 l. out of the 150,000 l. already subscribed. I repeat that every objectionable part of the former bill has been expunged.
Sir Michael Shaw Stewart—I am very sorry again to put myself forward to oppose the introduction of this Bill, but I am compelled to do so as a matter of public duty; and without following; the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or troubling the House by any lengthened observations in support of my
806
objections to this proceeding, I at once throw the question, and I throw myself, upon the rules and orders of this House, overwhelmed as we are with private Bills, and I ask whether the House is prepared to sanction the introduction, or rather the re-introduction of a private Bill, so many as ten weeks after the period prescribed by the standing orders? If the hon. and learned Member for Dublin meant to bring in a Bill involving the principle of unlimited responsibility, why did he not do so at once? No, he did not do this— but having brought in a Bill containing the principle of a limited responsibility, and finding that he could not obtain a monopoly, he moves us to set the standing orders and regulations of the House at defiance, and endeavours to bring in a Bill differently framed. The hon. Member for Drogheda, who seconded the motion, says that the present Bill does away with the principle of a limited liability on the part of the company; but I say that this very Bill sanctions the limited responsibility to the amount of 300,000 l. I oppose the motion altogether, and I rest my case upon the grounds which I have stated. I shall resist the motion by dividing the House upon it, and in so doing I feel that I am only furthering the legitimate interests of my constituents.
Mr. Mark Philips—I confess, Sir, it does appear to me after all that has been said, that this is a sort of nondescript liability, and that the result of passing this measure will be, that a great difficulty will be created in ascertaining in a satisfactory manner, hereafter, the difference which may exist between those of the shareholders who enjoy a limited or an unlimited responsibility; for the parties will be continually purchasing and exchanging their shares, and in that way both will be released from all responsibility. Now, I should like to have further information on this part of the subject. The powers sought for under the Act are extensive, and if vested in large companies like that now before the House, will be likely to retard the intercourse between the two countries by raising the passage money. This is the opinion which I strongly urged upon the committee which sat in the year 1833, upon the application then made to the House for a Bill connected with this company.
Mr. O'Connell—I beg to say in one

807
word, that there is no protection whatever given by this Bill to parties who may subscribe one sixpence to the new fund, and it is clearly shown by the provisions of the measure, that there is an unlimited responsibility to the fullest possible extent. On this account it is that I do implore the House to allow the Bill to be read a first time, in order that the case may not be viewed upon any man's ex parte statement; but, on the contrary, that we may have all the facts laid before us.
Lord Francis Egerton—I certainly feel that the explanation of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin has removed the chief objection which very properly attached to this Bill, and therefore I hope that the House will accede to the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am aware that in the instance of the introduction of some great measure, involving very complicated details, it would be a good and valid objection to urge the late period of the session, or the noncompliance with the standing orders of the House; but I confess I do not think that such a line of argument holds good in the present case. Now it appears to me, from what I know of the objects of the Bill, that the principle of non-liability does not extend to it, but that, on the contrary, the parties who may take an interest in the company under this new Bill will be fully and perfectly liable and responsible to an unlimited extent. When this company came before the House on a late occasion, they asked for permission to increase their capital on a limited responsibility; they did so in accordance with privileges which they already were in possession of. This was objected to by those who thought their interests might be affected by it, and the Bill was thrown out. Aware of the great private inconvenience it would cause, as respected contracts previously entered into, in expectation of no exception being taken to the measure, and also of the injury it would inflict on Ireland, the parties now come again before the House, removing, as they conceive, all grounds of objection, and now they are met with a like hostility to that which defeated the former Bill. Against such a mode of proceeding I do protest; and I confess it does appear to me to be somewhat inconsistent to hear hon. Gentlemen regretting the deficiency of capital in Ireland, and now, when it is sought to be introduced there by a company which it has been
808
admitted has already conferred so many benefits in the interior of that country, giving it all the opposition in their power. I am not going to make professions about my desire to serve Ireland, but I hold that the introduction of capital should be encouraged in Ireland, and with that feeling, and aware from my connexion with canal property in Lancashire, of the advantages which this company has conferred on both countries, I think it would be an act of injustice, even though the standing orders have not been strictly complied with, to refuse this motion, and I shall therefore give it my most cordial support. It may be urged, indeed, that the system which the passing of this measure will introduce may form a dangerous precedent, and that the principle may be carried too far, and that the company may override the interests of individuals. But if there be any point or force in those speeches which are continually made on Irish subjects, it is a great benefit to encourage the introduction of capital into Ireland. Now, I believe, and I am ashamed to say it, that this is almost a solitary instance in which this system has been brought to bear effectually upon the prosperity of that country, and it will be for those hon. Gentlemen who hear me, and who are connected with Ireland, to say whether I do not state the sentiments of the people at large. I do again implore the House to accede to the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.
Sir Henry Parnell: I do not see upon what just grounds we are called upon to accede to the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. I cannot conceive, Sir, upon what principle or how it is that we can pass one Act of Parliament, containing the principle of non-liability, and another Act by which we are to get rid of that responsibility. What is the construction to be put upon this Act? Much has been said of the advantages conferred on Ireland by this company. I may admit that fact; but it is my opinion, that if there had been no legislation whatever of this kind, there would have been no want of capital, or of the power of investing it for the promotion of steam-navigation in Ireland. The whole of such legislation is founded on false principles. The true principle seems to be overlooked—that where there is security for making profits, capital will be there employed, and it needs no encouragement.
Doctor Bowring: I trust that the House will not indirectly sanction a principle which they have refused to do directly. The hon. and learned Member has told us, that this company has entered into contracts for the supply of steam-vessels, which I contend they ought not to have done; and in spite of the representations of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, I am opposed to this measure. It is quite certain that in this case, a number of persons with unlimited responsibility are to be grafted on those who have the limited responsibility. I will not, however, at the present moment detail the objections which I entertain to this measure; but, under all the circumstances, I really think that the better mode of proceeding for this House to adopt will be, altogether to reject the Bill at once. Let the parties come before us again, if they think fit to do so, in the next Session of Parliament.
Viscount Sandon: I am one of those who are of opinion that all these matters are much better and more properly discussed whenever the Bill shall be brought fairly before the House, and I therefore hope that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin will be allowed to bring it in. When we consider the real benefits that this company has conferred upon Ireland, fulfilling what we have always in this House said should be done by encouraging the industry of that country, I think that we should regard it favourably. It appears to me that it would be rather hard to make the Company pay for any indiscretion they might have committed in regard to the former Bill by the rejection of this. The House rejected the former Bill because it allowed the Company to add 300,000 l. to their capital, and on the principal of limited responsibility. By the present Bill they seek only for an increase to half that amount, and on the principle of unlimited liability. The objection upon public grounds to the increase being thus removed, I shall vote for the motion.
Viscount Clementsconsidered the hostility with which the motion before the House had been met, was quite uncalled for. What were the facts of the case? This Company were desirous of increasing their capital for the purposes of their business, and in doing so they availed themselves of the privileges which they enjoyed under their Bill. That was dissented from, and their application was rejected. They then came before the House a
810
second time, and complied with what was required of them; and strange to say, they were again opposed. All who were acquainted with the interests of Ireland must be aware of the advantages conferred on it by the introduction of steam-vessels, which was mainly owing to this Company, who by their exertions and enterprise carried improvements into the interior of the country, particularly in those neglected districts adjoining the banks of the Shannon. It was argued by those connected with the interests of Scotland, that the Scotch companies should have similar privileges; but that was not objected to by this Company, who had not interfered with any other company. However, he could not avoid saying, that from the extent of the opposition directed against the Dublin Steam-packet Company, it appeared to him that the object was, to remove competition, that the Scotch companies might avail themselves of the advantages that would be gained by competitors being out of the field. This was no new company; it was a successful one, that had done much good in Ireland, and if the present motion were defeated, it would make a bad impression on his (Lord Clement's) side of the water, where the outlay of capital was so much sought for. He could not conceive how hon. Members could support every railroad humbug brought before them, and oppose such a measure of utility as that under consideration.
Sir George Clerksaid, the question before them was whether sufficient had been shown by the hon. Members who introduced and supported this motion for violating the standing orders of the House-Here was a Bill that was rejected by the House, and with a slight alteration introduced again at that late period of the session, with no other recommendation than the statements of interested individuals. If the House were to agree to such a proposition, as well might they legislate on the presentation of a petition. The Bill on the former occasion had been opposed by numerous influential parties, who had the trouble of attending, but who were not prepared for its being brought forward a second time. He thought there should be a minute inquiry instituted before the motion was acceded to. He would oppose the granting leave to introduce the Bill.
Mr. George F. Youngwas sorry that those who supported this motion did not follow the example and exercise the discretion of the hon. and learned Member

811
who introduced it. Either this Bill was or was not the same in principle as that which had been thrown out before by the House. If it was the same Bill, they could have little hesitation in rejecting it; if it was not, the promoters of it should show a very great necessity for introducing it at this late period of the Session before the House gave it their sanction, and that in direct violation of the Standing Orders. The object of this company was to increase their capital to a sum of 150,000 l.; and on the rejection of the Bill, they complain of the hardship of their case, as they had already entered into contracts for the building of steam vessels to the amount of 137,000 l. How that expenditure was to promote the internal improvement of Ireland he (Mr. Young) was at a loss to understand. The lion, and learned Member said, that it was necessary to build these vessels to enable the company to enter into competition for conveying the mails for the Post-office; he thought that would not be a sufficient reason for the House departing from the general rule laid down for the regulation of private Bills, and acceding to this motion.
Mr. O'Connell: the hon. Member accuses me of having stated that this company had entered into a contract with the Post-office, and that that was what induced them to build additional steam-vessels, one word of which never escaped my lips; but some observations were made during the discussion which would bear that import, but the hon. Member was so puzzled and confused that he could not distinguish one from another. He (Mr. O'Connell) considered that he had much reason to complain, and complain bitterly at the hostility he had met with on introducing this motion, which should have been reserved until the Bill was on the table, and then they might with propriety have stated their objections, and it would be his (Mr. O'Connell's) duty to explain and remove them. Let the Bill be brought before the House, and if it did not contain the principle of an unlimited responsibility on the part of every shareholder to the full extent of his property, reject it; but do not on mere form and technicalities defeat a measure calculated to impart so many advantages to Ireland. Hon. Members were often heard to indulge in what he (Mr. O'Connell) would not term "cant," about the introduction of capital info Ireland; here was an opportunity of doing so, not experimentally but practically, and he
812
would be glad to know on what substantial grounds they could refuse assent to it. He had not a particle of personal interest in the measure: his support was derived from his consciousness of the advantage it would be to Ireland. Complaints had been made, that sufficient notice had not been given of an intention to bring in this Bill, but that would not appear from the manner in which hon. Gentlemen opposed it from all sides of the House. All he would ask was for leave to place the Bill upon the table of the House, and he would give it up and allow of its being rejected the moment any hon. Gentleman said that it was not what he had described it to be.
The House divided: Ayes 106; Noes 65:—Majority 41.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

THE LADIES' GALLERY.
Mr. Grantly Berkeleyinquired whether it was the intention of Government to make provision for the accommodation of ladies in the Strangers' gallery, in pursuence of the report of the Select Committee, approved by the House, before the first of June, because in that case he should beg to withdraw the motion of which he had given notice, for an address to his Majesty on the subject this evening.
Lord John Russelldid not think it advisable that the question should again be submitted to debate and division, the resolutions of the hon. Member having been already twice acceded to by the House; and accordingly Government was ready to propose an estimate on the subject. Still it was out of his power to fix the 1st of June for the completion of the arrangements; indeed, he did not very well see how they could be completed before the recess.
Sir Edward Knatchbullhad the misfortune on this subject to differ in opinion from the hon. Member for West Glocester-shire; the question, he contended, should again undergo consideration in Committee, and when the estimate was submitted to the House, it would be quite competent for hon. Members to negative the whole proposition.
Lord John Russelldid not, of course, mean to preclude the adoption of that course. The view he took of the question was, that the House having twice affirmed the resolution that the gallery should be erected, the Government should, in deference to that decision, propose an estimate

813
on the subject, in order to carry into effect what he presumed were the wishes of the House in that respect; although he confessed (as might indeed appear from the votes he had already given), if he had merely followed his own judgment in the matter, he should most willingly have seen the hon. Member (Mr. G. Berkeley) in a minority.
Sir Robert Inglisexpressed a hope, that as the House had once negatived the proposition last Session, when it came to be re-considered in Committee, it would still meet a similar fate.
Subject dropped.

PAUPER LUNATICS—NEW POOR LAW.
Colonel Chichesterwas anxious to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which, although not on the all-engrossing subject of the ladies, was nevertheless of very great importance. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Government this Session to propose any measure for the better relief and maintenance of pauper lunatics in England and Wales—an un-fortunate class of persons, most inadequately and improperly provided for under the present system.
Lord John Russellwas quite ready to admit that the clauses in the new Poor Law Act with respect to pauper lunatics had occasioned some inconvenience, and perhaps not a little suffering, to that unfortunate class of persons; at the same time, until he had fully consulted the Poor Law Commissioners on the subject, he could not pledge himself to bring in any Bill during the present Session.
Sir Thomas Fremantlehoped the noble Secretary for the Home Department would answer another question he had to put, connected with the Poor Law Amendment Bill, with respect to money advanced to unions for the building of workhouses. He wished to know whether Government would extend the period for repayment from ten to fourteen or twenty years; and also whether they would allow a reduction of the interest payable on the loan below 4l. per cent?
Lord John Russellsaid, with respect to the latter part of the question, his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already reduced the rate of interest on any advances which might be made for the building of workhouses from 5l. to 4l. per cent, but it was not thought advisable to make any further reduction.
814
As to the time fixed for repayment, he had to state, that on an application of the parties, declaring their wishes to that effect, Government would have no objection to extend the period to twenty years.
Subject dropped.

PRIVATE BILLS.
The Order of the Day was read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Bill for regulating the expense of proving titles of land taken under the authority of private Acts of Parliament.
Mr. Peasesupported the Bill.
Mr. Tookeopposed it, and moved an instruction to the Committee "to introduce clauses for relieving, under proper restrictions, railway and other public companies from unconscionable contracts extorted from them by landowners as the price of their assent."
Mr. Humethought it would be better to refer the whole question to the Railways Committee.
Mr. Tookewithdrew his amendment.
An amendment was moved by Mr. Hume in the sense above described.
The House divided on the original question—Ayes 84; Noes 100: Majority 16.
Matter referred to the Select Committee on Railways.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Viscount

Grote, G.

Aglionby, H. A.

Handley, H.

Alston, R.

Heathcote, G. J.

Barclay, D.

Hector, C.J.

Bethell, R.

Henniker, Lord

Bewes, T.

Hindley, C.

Bramston, T. W.

Hodges, T. L.

Buller, C.

Houldsworth, T.

Duller, E.

Howard, P. H.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hutt,, W.

Cayley, E. S.

Jones, W.

Colborne, N. R.

Jones, T.

Corry, right hon. H.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Crawley, S.

King, E. B.

Crompton, S.

Knightley, Sir C.

Curteis, H. B.

Lambton, H.

Curteis, E. B.

Lawson, A.

Divett, E.

Lees, J. F.

Dowdeswell, W.

Lefevre, C. S.

Dunbar, G.

Lennard, T. B.

Duncombe, T.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Dundas, hon. T.

Maxwell, J.

Estcourt, T.

Miles, P. J.

Ferguson, R.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Finch, G.

Mosley, Sir O.

Forbes, W.

Neeld, J.

Forster, C. S.

Paget, F.

Freshfield, J. W.

Pattison, J.

Gaskell, J. M.

Pease, J.

Goring, H. D.

Richards, John

Greene, T,

Robarts, A. W.

815

Sanford, E. A.

Weyland, Major

Scott, Sir E. D.

Wilbraham, G.

Scott, J. W.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Seale, Colonel

Wilkins, W.

Sharpe, General

Williamson, Sir H.

Speirs, A.

Wilson, H.

Townley, R. G.

Wodehouse, E.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Wrightson, W. B.

Trevor, Hon. A.

Young, G. F.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Verner, Colonel

TELLERS.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Ebrington, Viscount

Wemyss, Captain

Harland, W. C.

List of the NOES.

Angerstein, J.

Maunsell, T. P.

Baillie, H. D.

Miles, W.

Baines, E.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Beckett, rt. hn. Sir J.

Neeld, J.

Bernal, R.

O'Brien, W. S.

Blamire, W.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Brocklehurst, J.

Palmer, General

Brotherton, J.

Parker, J.

Brownrigg, S.

Parrott, J.

Buckingham, J. S.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Byng, right hon. G.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Campbell, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Plumptre, J. P.

Cartwright, W. R.

Potter, R.

Childers, J. W.

Poulter, J. S.

Compton, H. C.

Powell, Colonel

Conolly, E. M.

Power, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Price, Sir R.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Pryme, G.

Darlington, Earl of

Pusey, P.

Denison, J. E.

Ridley, Sir M.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Roche, D.

Duffield, T.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Dundas, J. D.

Ross, C.

Ellice, right hon. E.

Rundle, J.

Estcourt, T.

Russell, Lord J.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Sheppard, T.

Fergus, J.

Smith, R. V.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hastie, A.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hawkes, T.

Thompson, Colonel

Heathcoat, J.

Tooke, W.

Hogg, J. W.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hoy, J. B.

Tulk, C. A.

Hume, J.

Villiers, C. P.

Jackson, Sergeant

Wakley, T.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Wall, C. B.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Warburton, H.

Lennox, Lord G.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Lennox, Lord A.

Whalley, Sir S.

Lincoln, Earl of

White, S.

Lushington, C.

Williams, W. A.

Lushington, rt. hn S. R.

Wood, Colonel

Mackinnon, W. A.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Maclean, D.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

M'Leod, R.

Yorke, E. T.

M'Taggart, J.

Mahon, Lord

TELLERS.

Mangles, J.

Steuart, R.

Marsland, H.

Maule, hon. F.

PARLIAMENTARY SURVEYS OF CHURCH LANDS.
Mr. Thomas Duncombesaid, that he did not feel disposed to accede to the suggestion of the noble Lord for postponing his motion relative to the Parliamentary Surveys of the Church Lands; preserved in the library of Lambeth Palace. Those documents were of the greatest importance now that the question of tithes was under the consideration of the House, inasmuch as they formed the connecting link between the value of that property to which they referred as given in the King's books and its actual value at the present time. They had been made by order of the long Parliament—consequently they were the property of Parliament, and moreover the Archbishop of Canterbury admitted, that they were deposited with him—that he was the keeper of them—for the Parliament. He thought it necessary that they should be in every hon. Member's hands, embracing as they did much valuable information on a subject under discussion in Parliament, in place of individuals having to pay two guineas for a single extract to the Archbishop's Secretary, which they were now obliged to pay He did not see how any objection could be made to his Motion, and he trusted he should have the House with him in making it. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a copy of the Parliamentary Surveys of Church Lands, preserved in the Library of Manuscripts at Lambeth.
Lord John Russellthought the Motion was unnecessary, as, according to his hon. Friend's own statement, these documents were not difficult of access to any one. In the next place, he saw no more reason for copying them at the expense of the country than he did for copying the parish registers of any part of the kingdom, or those documents of a similar nature in the Rolls Chapel, the Tower, and other depositories of them. If his hon. Friend's motion was acceded to, it would afford a plea and a precedent for other hon. Members to move for other records of the same character; and, in the end, all the records in the kingdom might be moved for by that means. The noble Lord concluded by moving, as an Amendment, that the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Tithes Commutation Bill, be read.
Mr. Humeexpressed his surprise at the disinclination of the noble Lord to consent

817
to the production of these papers. They were Parliamentary documents, and, therefore, ought to be in possession of Parliament. In his opinion it was extremely desirable that they should be produced.
Mr. Jervismaintained the expediency of producing these surveys.
The Attorney-Generalwould not deny that they were public records, but objected to their being printed by an order of that House. It would be equally reasonable for any hon. Member to move that Doomsday Book, which was public property, should be printed, and laid upon the Table of the House.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonopposed the motion, because he thought it absurd to call for the production of twenty quarto volumes, which must be copied and printed before they could be laid before the House, and which, if the information they contained were of any value at all, ought to be in the hands of Members at the present moment.
Mr. Thomas Duncombereplied, that his motion went merely to have the papers laid upon the Table of the House. He had no wish to cast a reflection on any one, particularly the Archbishop of Canterbury, but he thought that these public documents should be in the possession of the House. He felt that the production of them was of so much importance, that he should certainly take the sense of the House upon the question.
The House divided on the original motion—Ayes 40; Noes 99:—Majority 59.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Parrott, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Bewes, T.

Pease, J.

Blamire, W.

Philips, M.

Bowring, Dr.

Potter, B.

Brocklehurst, J.

Power, J.

Buckingham, J. S.

Rundle, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Scholefield, J.

Gaskell, D.

Strutt, E.

Grote, G.

Talbot, J. H.

Gully, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Harvey, D. W.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Trevor, hon. A.

Hodges, T. L.

Wakley, T.

Horsman, E.

Warburton, H.

Jervis, J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Kemp, T. R.

Williams, W. A.

Lushington, C.

Wyse, T.

Maher, J.

TELLERS.

Marsland, H.

Duncombe, T.

Mullins, F. W.

Hume, J.

Palmer, General

818

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Longfield, R.

Baring, F. T.

Lushington, Dr.

Benett, J.

Mackenzie, S.

Bernal, R.

M'Taggart, J.

Blackburne, I.

Martin, J.

Borthwick, P.

Maule, hon. F.

Brownrigg, S.

Meynell, Captain

Buller, C.

Miles, W.

Buller, E.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Buller, Sir J.

Murray, rt. hn. J. A.

Byng, rt. hon. G.

North, F.

Campbell, Sir J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Cayley, E. S.

Pelham, hon. C. A.

Chetwynd, Captain

Philips, G. R.

Childers, J. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Clerk, Sir G.

Poulter, J. S.

Cockerell, Sir C.

Powell, Colonel

Colborne, N. W. R.

Pryme, G.

Compton, H. C.

Pusey, P.

Crawford, W.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Crompton, S.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Curteis, H. B.

Robinson, G. R.

Curteis, E. B.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Denison, J. E.

Rooper, J. B.

Donkin, Sir R.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Dottin, A. R.

Russell, Lord J.

Eaton, R. J.

Sanford, E. A.

Ebrington, Lord

Scott, Sir E. D.

Elwes, J. P.

Somerset, Lord G.

Estcourt, T.

Stanley, E. J.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Stormont, Lord

Finch, G.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Thomson, right hon. C. P.

Fleming, J.

Folkes, Sir W.

Townley, R. G.

Forbes, W.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Freshfield, J. W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Gordon, hon. W.

Verney, Sir H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Vernon, G.

Greene, T.

Vivian, J. E.

Hogg, J. W.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Howick, Lord

Weyland, Major

Jackson, Sergeant

White, S.

Jones, W.

Wilbraham, G.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Wilkins, W.

Wood, Colonel

Knight, H. G.

Wrightson, W. B.

Knightley, Sir C.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Lawson, A.

Yorke, E. T.

Lennard, T. B.

TELLERS.

Lincoln, Earl of

Hay, Sir A.

Long, W.

Steuart, R.

TITHES COMMUTATION BILL.
The House resolved itself into Committee on the Tithes Commutation (England) Bill.
Lord John Russellplaced in the hands of the Chairman the 33d Clause, as it was proposed to be amended. It was in the following terms:—
"And be it enacted, that in every case in which the Commissioners shall intend making such award, notice thereof shall be given in such manner as to them shall seem fit; and after the expiration of twenty-one days, after

819
such notice shall have been given, the Commissioners, or some assistant commissioner, shall proceed to ascertain the clear average value (after making all just deductions on account of the expenses of collecting, preparing for sale, and marketing) of the tithes of all the tithe able produce of all lands subject to tithe in the said parish, according to the average of seven years preceding Christmas, in the year 1835; provided, that, if during the said period of seven years, or any part thereof, the said tithes, or any part thereof, shall have been compounded for or demised to the occupier of any of the said lands, in consideration of any rent or payment instead of tithes, the amount of such composition or rent, or sum agreed to be paid instead of tithes (including all unremitted arrears thereof), shall be taken as the clear value of the tithes included in such composition, demise or agreement during the lime for which the same shall have been made and the commissioners, or assistant commissioner, shall award the average value of the said seven years so ascertained as the sum to be taken for calculating the rent-charge to be paid as a permanent commutation of the said tithes; provided also, that in estimating the value of the said tithes, the Commissioners or assistant Commissioner shall estimate the same as chargeable to all Parliamentary, parochial, county, and other rates, charges, and assessments to which tithes are liable; and whenever the said tithes shall have been compounded for, on the principle of such composition being paid free from all such rates, charges, and assessments, or any part thereof, the said commissioners, or assistant commissioner, shall have regard to that circumstance, and shall make a fair addition on account thereof."
Mr. Humewished to ask the noble Lord whether this average was to be taken on a valuation of the last seven years' produce in all cases? If this were the intention of the clause, the consequence would be, that the commutation, which was to be made first in corn and then in money, would have a very injurious effect in a great number of instances. Suppose the price of corn to fall permanently, as it probably would, in that case lands of an inferior quality, which were now cultivated for the purpose of raising corn, would be thrown out of cultivation, and would probably be laid down for grass lands. It would then he extremely unjust to saddle such land with a permanent tithe composition, calculated when wheat was 6s. a-bushel, for when it was laid down in grass the rent would diminish from—say, 18 s. to 10 s., and wheat being then probably 5s. the bushel, the land would have to pay a permanent rent-charge of 5s., which was half the amount of the rent. This clause appeared to con-
820
vey to the Church half of the whole of this kind of land, and he therefore strongly objected to it.
Lord John Russellthought, that there would be no time at which a proposition could be made for a commutation of tithes when something of this kind must not happen. You might certainly suppose, that the produce of some land would be worth now 80 s., and the composition for tithe 3s., and that perhaps at some future period the produce of the same land would not be worth so much, while the 3s. would still remain as a rent charge upon the land in lieu of tithe. But, on the other hand, we might suppose, that land, whose produce was now worth 30 s., might, by the application of capital, in a short time be worth 50 s. or 60 s., and in these cases the commutation of tithe would be a great benefit. In attempting to carry a measure of this kind, it could not be avoided, but that some part of the country or other might suffer at a future period by the commutation of tithes; but the hardship which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Cumberland—namely, that individuals who had taken land of not a very good quality, and had been at a greater expense than their neighbours in improving it, should be subjected to pay a higher rate of composition—was very much done away with by the provision which had been inserted, that the valuation should be made by two applotters on the parish generally, and not on each particular piece of land. With respect to the possibility of loss referred to by the hon. Member for Middlesex, no arrangement that could be made with regard to tithes, either now or fifty years hence, could prevent a loss falling somewhere, but it would be more than balanced by the settlement of the question.
Mr. Hume: Will the noble Lord allow me to ask him whether his applotment is to be made once for all, or from time to time?
Lord John Russell: Once for all.
Mr. Humethought, then, that it was extremely unjust that an average of the last seven years should he taken as the basis of the rent-charge upon the land, not merely during the occupation of it by the present possessor, but ever after.
Sir E. Knatchbullwas not able to persuade himself, that an average for the last seven years, where it could be taken, would give that fair test which it was desirable to ascertain. It was quite clear, that such a standard must operate favourably or un-

821
favourably, according as the land was kept in a good or bad condition. He had said, that it would not give a fair test where the average could be taken, but there were many cases where it would be impossible to apply it. It was quite impossible to make a fair estimate of the value of produce in different parts of the country. He thought, that an attempt to legislate on this subject, by adopting any one general principle to which all must conform, could not be successful; and he should therefore move as an amendment, instead of the words, "valuation of the average produce for the last seven years," to insert, "having regard to the nature and quality of the land."
Mr. Blamireconsidered, that the plan proposed by the noble Lord was the best that could, under the circumstances, be devised, and in his opinion, that which the right hon. Baronet had moved by way of amendment was open to much graver objections. The principle of this clause had already been carried into effect in many voluntary compositions, that had been entered into in various parts of the country, but at the same time he must admit, that after all had been done that was possible to be done, there would be many cases that would press on individuals. But the hon. Member for Middlesex should also bear in mind, that some parties would be greatly benefitted by this settlement. Many lands which were about to be brought into cultivation would remain unimproved till this settlement was made, and the gain on these lands would be considerable. To be sure that would be no satisfaction to the man who should lose by the arrangement, but in the settlement of a great question, some such losses were unavoidable.
Mr. Plumptreobserved, that in the county which he had the honour to represent, some lands were over-cultivated, some were under-cultivated, and some were out of cultivation altogether. How was this plan to be made applicable to all?
Sir John Wrottesleyhad at first been disposed to think, that the valuation of tithes ought to proceed on the principle suggested by the right hon. Baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull), but subsequent reflection induced him to think, that the plan proposed by the noble Lord would be more equal and more just. He knew not, indeed, why the particular period of seven years should be selected as that on which the average should be taken. Seeing that the farmers throughout the country now generally pursued the system called four.
822
course cropping, he thought an average of eight years would be preferable.
Mr. William Milesapproved of the principle of the clause, as he supposed it was intended that the valuation should be made on the produce of land under good cultivation; but unless some alteration were made in the wording of the clause, the valuers would have to calculate the average upon the actual state of the land.
Mr. Lennardobserved, that in many parts of Essex there were lands now in the course of cultivation to raise wheat which the occupiers were on the point of relinquishing as corn lands, and if corn was reduced in price, they would be laid down in grass, and it would be an extreme hardship to impose on those districts a permanent composition for the tithe of land on the average of the last seven years, which afterwards might produce nothing more than a second-rate crop of grass. The only unobjectionable plan would be, to abstain from making this measure uniform, and in the cases he had referred to, to ascertain what proportion tithe had borne to rent, and to fix the composition accordingly—a plan which would not make the tithe a part of the rent.
Mr. Blamirewas glad to hear the hon. Member for Somersetshire admit the justice of the principle of the clause, and he thought his objections to the wording of the clause might be removed by a slight alteration in its wording.
Mr. Charles Buller, from what had passed during this discussion, had been more than ever convinced how great a waste of time there was in discussing the details of a measure before the House was agreed upon its principle. The wise and honest principle of the 33d Clause was rendered null and of no effect by Clause 34. If it were not for that clause, he should give the Bill his earnest support. What we wanted was, not to lower or raise, but to fix tithe, and this object the clause would effect. It took the voluntary compositions which had been made by different parties in the country, who might be supposed to have generally dealt fairly with each other, as a basis for a compulsory commutation. For these reasons it was, that he supported the principle of commutation. But the whole object of the present clause was defeated by the provisions of the next—the 34th Clause; and when that clause came under consideration he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon it. As to the amendment of

823
the right hon. Baronet, the Member for East Kent, he thought, that from the language which had been introduced being so vague and indefinite, the Bill would only prove beneficial to the profession to which he had the honour to belong.
Mr. Warburtoncould not understand the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard to the 34th Clause, which had for its object an appeal against the decision of the Commissioners. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say, that the determination of those Commissioners ought to be final without any appeal?
Lord John Russellwould not now discuss the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard to the 34th Clause. He had admitted the principle of the 33rd Clause, and had likewise admitted the necessity of modification of that principle. The House had first to discuss the amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet opposite, and afterwards discuss the amendment which he (Lord John Russell) had proposed in the whole clause. When the discussion as to the mode in which the whole tithe should be apportioned among the different tenants in the parish came to be discussed, he thought it would be quite right that some words should be introduced declaratory that that apportionment should be made with reference to the productive value and quality of the land, but the present was a very different question. The object of the present clause was, to ascertain the actual average value of the tithe for the last seven years on each estate; he did not, therefore, think that the amendment of the right hon. Baronet had any application whatever to that object.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he was strongly in favour of the amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Knatchbull), and that upon the very grounds upon which the noble Lord had said, that when they came to the clause for apportioning the whole tithe among the different cultivators of the parish, he would introduce words to the effect of those contained in the amendment of the right hon. Baronet. And why? Because the same reason which induced the noble Lord to adopt such a principle with respect to the apportionment of the charge of the whole tithe of a parish among the tithe payers was equally applicable as between parish and parish in the general application of the principle of tithe to the whole kingdom. For suppose a parish
824
should have been under corn cultivation for the last seven years, and the average of those years should be taken as a criterion of the amount of the future payment to be made by that parish in commutation of tithes, was it not quite obvious that that parish would have a permanent charge imposed upon it, much greater than the adjoining parish, if such adjoining parish should hitherto have been grass land? Then, if the land in this latter parish should at any future time be broken up and converted into corn land, was it not clear, that inasmuch as the occupiers of this parish would have a much less sum to pay as a rent charge in lieu of tithe, than the occupiers of land in the former parish, they would be able to undersell the cultivators of the land in the parish which had always hitherto produced corn?
The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 111—Majority 61.
Mr. Parrotproposed the introduction of the following proviso:—"That the said Commissioners shall make a deduction, after the rate of 10 l. for every 100 l. of the average value so ascertained, and shall award the average value so ascertained and reduced, as the sum to be taken as the amount of rent charge and permanent composition of the said tithe."
Lord John Russellopposed the amendment on the ground that it appeared to introduce a new principle into the Bill.
Amendment negatived without a division.
Mr. Richardsmoved the addition of the following proviso: — "Provided always, and be it enacted, that in case any part of the lands in the parish shall at any time be broken up and the surface destroyed and rendered unproductive, by the operations of raising and getting coal, iron, stone, and other mines and minerals, or for the erection of any works for converting the same, that the rent-charge imposed as hereinbefore provided, shall on the breaking up or converting of the surface of such land as aforesaid, abate in the proportion of the extent of land so rendered unproductive, and that such rent-charge shall accrue only on such land being restored and brought into cultivation."
Lord John Russellthought that it would be a violation of the principle of the Bill, if land under the circumstances stated in the proviso should be totally exempted from tithe. He might mention that it would be only in Staffordshire the proposed exemption would operate. And he did not

825
think it right for the sake of such a small district to make a complete alteration in the principle of the Bill.
The Committee divided on the proviso; —Ayes 171; Noes 54—Majority 117.
Clause agreed to.
The House resumed., Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of HADDINGTON, from Edinburgh, in favour of the Edinburgh. Poor-Rate Bill.—By the Earl of TANHERVILLE, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against the Punishment of Death for any Crime but Murder; and from Norfolk, Complaining of

791
Distress, and praying for Relief.—By the Earl of ROSE-BERY, from Weavers of St. Quivox by Ayr, for the Establishment of a Board of Trade to regulate their Wages.— By the Bishop of LONDON and the Earl of BURLINGTON, from Chesterfield and Woolpit, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

ENTAILS, SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Rosebery The Earl of Rosebery moved the second reading of the Entail Relief (Scotland) Bill. As the subject had been very frequently before the House, it was his intention to state very shortly the provisions of the Bill, and the reasons which induced him to suppose that, if carried into effect, they would prove beneficial to individuals and the public. The Bill embraced four general heads. The first gave a power of leasing entailed lands, under circumstances in which it was not at present allowed to do so. The second granted the power of conveying lands for building purposes, on reserved leases. The third conferred the power of exchanging entailed lands for other lands of equal value; and the last gave liberty to sell entailed lands for the payment of debts contracted by the entailer of the estate. With respect to the first point, the heir in possession was not allowed, under the existing law of entail, to let his lands beyond a certain and short term, nor for a less amount than was before received for them. He was, therefore, obliged either to proceed by public auction where he was allowed to proceed in that manner, or he was restrained from letting his lands, except for a short period—in some cases for seven years, and for not more than nine years. Under these circumstances, it was impossible to induce tenants of capital and skill to take land under such leases. The Bill proposed, therefore, to allow heirs of entail in possession, to lease lands which they held for any period not more than twenty-one years. The next provision was to allow the conveying of land for the purposes of building, for the benefit of the individual who owned the land, and of his family, from which, he conceived, much good, both public and private, would be derived. At present, under almost all entails, no such power was allowed, and individuals were deprived of the benefits which were likely to result from adopting such a course, unless they came to Parliament, and obtained, at considerable expense, the necessary power to enable them to proceed; therefore, the second part of the Bill allowed the person in possession to alienate lands for the purpose of building. The clause relating
792
to this object enacted, that unless the buildings were erected within a specified time, the bargain should be null and void, and no money be taken by the proprietor, unless a reserved rent were stipulated for himself and his successors. The next portion of the Bill gave an enlarged power: those possessing entailed lands or heritages, and having made a feudal title thereto, to exchange any portion of the entailed lands; and he believed that in many instances, great advantages would be derived from it. By the 10th George 3rd., called Molyneux's Act, a power was given to exchange lands, but in a very restricted degree. It was provided by the Bill, that where parties desired to effect exchanges between heirs of entail of two or more entailed estates, application should be made to the Sheriff, who, after proof made to him of notice having been given to such heirs, was to appoint skilful persons to inspect and adjust the value of the same; but if the entailed lands or heritages to be so exchanged should exceed fifty acres of arable land, or 1,000 acres of land, consisting of hills or other grounds incapable of culture, then the exchange of such entails must take place before the Judges of one of the divisions of the Court of Session;— the Judges being empowered to determine on the expense, and the general propriety of the exchange of the property. He had endeavoured to frame this clause so as to prevent any fraud on the part of those in possession, and care was taken that the heir-substitute should not be deprived of any advantage. The fourth great object of the Bill related to the investing those who held entailed estates, with power to sell a portion of such estates for the payment of the entailer's debts, or debts affecting the estate—a practice he understood prevailed, to a considerable extent in Scotland, which led him to think that this portion of the Bill was peculiarly necessary. As he was informed—and he had no doubt his information was correct—it was a common occurrence for a gentleman, on returning from the Colonies or the East Indies, where he may have made a considerable fortune, to be extremely anxious to buy an estate in his native country. For instance, a gentleman purchased an estate of the value of 80,000 l. paid down 50,000 l., mortgaged it for 30,000 l., and entailed it, and the consequence was, that his successor could not sell any portion of the estate for

793
the purpose of liquidating the mortgage-money. He only mentioned this circumstance, in order to illustrate that part of the Bill which he held in his hand. He admitted, that the power here given was generally granted on application; but he wished their Lordships to do that by a general law which they now invariably conceded to individual application. There were also other cases of debts charged upon the estate by the contractor, with respect to which no power existed to sell for the payment of these debts. He anticipated that he should be told that, inasmuch as Parliament very seldom refused a private Act to effect these objects, that mode of proceeding afforded sufficient relief. In that proposition, however, he did not concur. In the first place, he asked their Lordships to look to the expense which it entailed upon the parties, and the application could not succeed, unless it were sustained by a certain number of assents,—for if they were not obtained, the application was refused; and he thought that this was neither just nor equitable. He considered that the imparting this power would be received with great satisfaction, and would be doing a most important service to the people of Scotland. He had taken these four heads because he thought that very little, if any, diversity of opinion existed with respect to them, on the part of those whom he had considered it to be his duty to consult. He was convinced that the time would come—indeed, he believed it to be not far disant—when a much larger relaxation of the law of entail in Scotland would be required by those who held those entails, than that which was contemplated by this Bill. He also believed, that the time was fast approaching when the prospective creation of perpetuities would be put an end to; but whatever might be the case in this respect, with regard to entails, he was not prepared, at present, to go further than was contemplated by this Bill. But he was of opinion that their Lordships would, in a very short time, be called upon, and that irresistibly, to pass an Act, rendering it impossible to lock up in perpetuity any quantity of land whatever. Although this Bill was limited in its operation. He was not the less anxious that it should receive the sanction of their Lordships; because he was one of those who was content to obtain a little good rather than hold out, because he could not obtain all he desired. With these
794
impressions he solicited their Lordships' attention and assent to this Bill, believing it to be a measure that would prove beneficial to all individuals who were interested in entailed property in Scotland, and indirectly so to the public at large, inasmuch as it would increase the amount of capital expended on land, and would thereby afford employment to the labourers in agriculture. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
The Earl of Mansfieldsaid, as there is nothing objectionable in the principle of granting relief to heirs of entail, I shall not oppose the second reading of this Bill, although there are parts of it to which I have the strongest objections. Referring to the proceedings in this House, and to Bills of a more extensive description which had been formerly introduced, my noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) has abandoned them; and has restricted this Bill to the purpose of granting relief in certain cases—a general law, rather than by private Acts; but, I must say, that if I were unfavourable to entails, and had failed in an attempt to carry away the law by storm, I should think, that I was proceeding more prudently, and with as great a chance of success, if I were next to sap the foundation; and I think I can prove to your Lordships, that if this Bill were to pass as it is, it would make a very material alteration in the law. The principle upon which all Entails are founded would be destroyed; namely this principle, that any man may leave his estate, to a series of heirs, annexing such conditions and restrictions to the possession, as are within the limits expressly defined by statutes existing at the date of the entail. Inverting the order in which the clauses stand, here, at the end, is an enactment that heirs of entails in possession, may sell a portion of the estate for the payment of the debts of the entails, when the deed of entail has riot been recorded. This clause will require consideration in the Committee. To the clause as to executions, I have no objection in principle; but it appears to me that it will require some amendment, as the consent of the other heirs of entail is not required; and your Lordships will think it your duty to attend to their interests. The remaining enactments consist of three parts; the first gives power to the heir in possession, to grant leases of land for a term not exceeding twenty-one

795
years. Considering that a restriction to nineteen years depends much upon your Lordships' judicial decisions, and your construction of deeds of entail, and that your opinions might vary, I should not object to a clause fixing the exact duration by Act of Parliament. In coming to these decisions, your Lordships acted upon the presumed wish of the entailer, that each succeeding heir should participate equally in the income; and that at times, not too remote from each other, they should have the opportunity of making a new arrangement of terms, and a new selection of tenants. But this could not be advantageously done by an Act, unless the tenants had some term; as to what that should be, opinions have varied: some of the most prudent men in Scotland possessing their lands in fee-simple, but having a due regard for their successors, have given leases of two and even three nineteens. Some years ago, lands were universally let in Scotland for twenty-one years; in England, nineteen years would be thought too much. I should not, therefore, object to defining by Statute, the endurance of a fair lease, leaving to the Committee to decide whether twenty-one years should be adopted in preference to nineteen. To the power of granting leases of mines and minerals for thirty-one years, there appears to me to be no objection, considering the great outlay which is required, the difficulty of procuring tenants without the encouragement of a long lease, and that, in many instances, the existence of the minerals might not have been known to the entailer. But the most important feature of the Bill is the power which is given to the heir in possession; notwithstanding the express prohibitions and restrictions of the Entail, to grant feus of any portion of the estate for the purpose of building. My noble Friend assumes, that building must be an improvement (which I cannot admit without reservation), and he says, that he would have preferred giving the heir the power of granting long leases, but that he knows, and I can confirm the statement, that there is such a prejudice in Scotland in favour of feus, that they will not take leases of any length; and I have had occasion to know, that a person having taken a considerable quantity of land, for which he expected to receive 800 l. per annum on building leases, could not dispose of any part of it from the uncertainty as to the
796
renewal. A lease of even sixty years, however, would have been considered an alienation, but a feu is much more to be so considered. It is a virtual alienation; for though an income be reserved, though by this restriction, as to taking grassums, the emolument is distributed over the series of heirs, all the connexion between landlord and tenant, be it weak or strong, is broken. It creates a set of new proprietors, not always of the best description; it would add considerably to the number of that valuable class, which by the possession of the minimum of intelligence and property combined, as they are represented by 10 l., are entitled to vote for Members of Parliament; but over these, the superior has no influence. If their politics be similar, they may vote for the same candidate; but to his successor, should his politics be different, they would be most obnoxious neighbours, not entirely separated from the estate, but a nuisance within it. The restriction as to building houses of the value of 100 l. on each acre, affords no protection against the effect of subdivision and sub-tenancy; nests of paupers may be created for whom the proprietor may be hereafter called upon to provide, by paying his proportion of an assessment. I can appeal to some of the noble Lords, my countrymen here present, who will not think it an exaggerated statement. I can speak positively to it as within my own knowledge. I do not speak of this as the motive which induces my noble Friend to bring in the Bill, but as an inevitable consequence. It is very true, that those who possess estates in fee-simple, may feu and build as they please, and the Legislature would not, on the one hand, interfere to prevent it; but, on the other hand, I do not suppose that Parliament will be tempted to encourage that sort of building by overturning the law of entail. Now, upon what principle is this Bill grounded? Is it that the entailer omitted to give powers, from want of foresight, and that Parliament must repair the omission? The Bill does not apply to omissions, but to positive prohibitions. Indeed, though entails in Scotland may be of interminable duration, the heir is little restricted, as he can do that which he is not specially prohibited from doing; errors of omission, therefore, do not so much affect him. While in England, though the direction of the entail may be shortened, the heir cannot do that

797
which he is not specially permitted to do. Omissions, therefore, may be very inconvenient to him, and yet I have not heard that any such bill for the relief of heirs of entail in England is in contemplation. Is it because the restriction is objectionable? Why, if your Lordships pass the Bill, the person who shall the next day make an entail, containing the same restrictions, will leave it operative upon his successors, while a deed of entail executed last year will not be valid. My noble Friend may answer that, if this Bill should pass, a Bill to prevent such restrictions in future must follow; that is exactly what I expect, and it confirms me in my objections to the Bill, notwithstanding the unassuming title given to it by my noble Friend of a Bill for the Relief of Heirs of Entail. It is, in fact, part of a measure for restricting the powers of an entailer. This clause, my Lords, is to make a new will for a man to say, that he omitted to give powers, or that he knowingly inserted restrictions which, had he been as wise as the framers of the Bill, he would not have inserted. Now, if we were to admit this reasoning, could there not be some limit to the doubt as to the entailer's foresight in proportion, perhaps, to the remoteness of the time in which he lived? If he had existed a century ago, he might not have foreseen the great extension of buildings and other improvements; but if he had made his entail in 1834, would he not have witnessed part of that building, anticipated its extension, and knowingly, advisedly, deprecated it, and, as far as in him lay prevented it, for the benefit, and for the comfort of his heirs? The noble Earl seems to think, that it is better to proceed by a general law, than by private bills, which are seldom refused. I cannot agree with him; there may be cases of extreme hardship. An heir might be restricted from building upon land situated in the middle of a town, which he could not occupy or cultivate with advantage; and, for such a special case, the Legislature would grant relief. But such applications have been refused; in one instance, to my knowledge, where it was stated that the want of power to grant building leases was an omission in the testator. This was not proved, as he had, in anticipation of building, granted this power as it regarded one part of the estate, but had withheld it as to the other, and so the Bill was rejected. Upon these grounds, my
798
Lords, though ready to discuss all these points in the Committee, I shall oppose this clause. It is a subject of great importance to the people of Scotland, and I must express a hope that we shall on other occasions, secure the assistance of the noble and learned Lords, who are Members of this House, for whether the Law of entail shall remain as it is, or be subject to great alterations as proposed in this Bill, the adherence to the present law, or the introduction of such alterations will be much more satisfactory, if it be sanctioned by those learned Lords, to whom, in the exercise of your judicial functions, your Lordships always look for advice, and upon whose legal wisdom and experience the people of Scotland confidently rely.
The Duke of Buccleuchsaid, he felt very great apprehensions with reference to any Bill brought into that House, the object of which was to interfere with entails in Scotland. An ill-advised measure of that nature might be fraught with great danger to the whole of the entailed property in that country. Though the noble Earl said that it was necessary for the Legislature to interfere to prevent the locking-up of capital in Scotland, he, for his own part, could not see any such necessity; because sufficient opportunities daily occurred in Scotland for laying out capital on landed property. He would not oppose the second reading; but he hoped that in the Committee the Bill would be thoroughly examined, because there were some points in it which he conceived involved considerable danger. The noble Earl proposed to allow lands to be leased for twenty-one years; now he believed that, generally, lands were let on improving; leases for lives; and he found no difficulty whatever in procuring active and substantial tenants upon leases of that description.
The Earl of Kinnoullsupported the Bill, which he thought calculated to be very beneficial both to heirs and to persons in possession of estates.
The Earl of Aberdeencould not see any reasonable objection to the second reading of such a Bill as this. Although great difference of opinion existed on the law of entail in Scotland, he was convinced that all parties would best promote the improvement of that law, by paying a strict attention to this Bill, which, when modified in Committee, for he did not pledge

799
himself to all the clauses as they stood at present, would do more to confirm the Scotch law of entail than a resistance to such alterations as the state of the country imperiously demanded.
Bill read a second time.

BENEFICES AND PLURALITIES.
On the motion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Benefices, Pluralities, and residence of Clergy Bill.
On the Second Clause being proposed,
Lord Wynfordsaid, there were several propositions which he wished to submit to their Lordships. By the Bill, as it at present stood, no clergyman was allowed to hold two benefices that were distant from each other above ten miles. Now, he could see no reason for that restriction; and his first proposition would be, that instead of ten, the distance should be fixed at forty-five miles. It could not be contended that the duties might not be as effectually performed at a distance of forty-five as of ten miles; for the only function which in either case could be executed would be, that of control and superintendence over the curate, which might be discharged as well in the one case as the other. His other proposition regarded the provision, which fixed 500 l. as the amount of income which was to incapacitate an incumbent from holding two livings. He need not point out to their Lordships with what peculiar hardship that enactment would fall upon those whose income slightly exceeded that limit, and who would thereby be prevented from acquiring any increase of income; whilst others whose first living was within the required limit, would have the power of increasing it far beyond the amount of 500 l. He should propose, at the proper time, that 1,000 l. be the limit, instead of 500 l.
The Duke of Richmondtrusted, that the right reverend Prelate would not consent to the amendment just proposed by the noble Lord (Wynford). It appeared to him an extraordinary proposition that the duties of a living situated at the distance of forty-five miles from the residence of the incumbent, could be so effectually performed as those of a living only distant ten miles. He was confident the noble Lord must have been thinking of the railroads at the time when he made that assertion; for a railroad between the two livings most assuredly would be ne-
800
cessary, if forty-five miles was to be the distance fixed upon.
The Bishop of Oxfordthought the distance of ten miles would render it nearly impossible for any clergyman to hold two livings.
The Earl of Riponobjected to the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Wynford). He, for one, was not willing that the clergy of England should be subject to be thrown off a railroad, while on a visit of charity two or three times every week.
Lord Wynfordexplained. This was an attempt to abolish pluralities entirely by a side wind. He had no objection to the entire abolition of pluralities—that might be a very excellent measure; but then the Legislature should carry it into effect in a direct and intelligible manner.
The Bishop of Londondenied that this Bill was an attempt by any side-wind to get rid of pluralities. It was an attempt to confine them within as small a space as possible—that the livings might be under the control and constant inspection of the incumbents. It was an attempt also to get rid of the inconveniences arising from the present system. Unless an incumbent was a very conscientious person, he was scarcely ever seen at his second living, and there were cases in which incumbents were not known, except through their tithe-agents. One advantage he was quite certain would follow from the extinction of pluralities, that it would be an additional inducement to patrons to make an augmentation in the livings.
The Archbishop of Canterburydeclared that the object he had in view in proposing and supporting this Bill, was to put an end to a system which was decidedly contrary to the canonical law. It was his endeavour in this Bill to comply with that law, as far as it was possible. He denied that the restriction imposed in this Bill of precluding the distance between two livings being beyond ten miles, would be an absolute prohibition upon pluralities. If they looked to the south of England they would find that there were a great many benefices to be found included within the space of ten miles.
Lord Wynfordreplied, that he did not come to that House to argue for rectories. He felt great pleasure in saying, that the most reverend Prelate had convinced him he took an erroneous view of this point.
The Clause was agreed to.
On Clause 3 being put,
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that, however popular it might be in that House or elsewhere to do away with pluralities, he protested against the restricting of pluralities within the limitation of ten miles. Pluralities must be endured, and he was sorry to see an attempt made to put an end to them, even in deference to the feeling of the country, which he knew to be strong. If the system were carried to the extent proposed, there would be no probationary occupation for the clergy. In the south of Scotland, there were a variety of persons called probationers and ordained clergymen, of which number Dr. Chalmers had assured him that he himself had been one. He wished to see such clergymen as the meritorious rectors of the great parishes of the metropolis and other towns, endowed with small cures, at which they might take some months' recreation in every year from their painful duties. For men in such a situation assuredly 1,000 l. a-year was not too much, and in his opinion, their Lordships would do a great mischief by doing away with pluralities.
The Bishop of Londondenied that the Bill would do away with pluralities. It would only restrict them.
The Earl of Harrowbycontended it was not at all necessary to give a clergyman to each parish, for many parishes were not now sufficiently populous to require the exclusive attention of a minister, and noble Lords, he thought, would feel that this observation applied with more force when they recollected that emoluments in the Church were often in the inverse ratio to population and duties; it therefore became impossible to rectify these imperfections otherwise than by pluralities. Holding those opinions, he still thought it most desirable that arrangements should be made with regard to Church benefices, tending as much as circumstances would allow to equalize emoluments; but as to any other application of ecclesiastical funds—as to abstracting a shilling from the property of the Church, no man in his senses, who had considered the question, would seriously entertain such a notion, unless he contemplated the destruction of the Church.
The Archbishop of Canterburyobserved, that noble Lords should bear in mind that there were other parties than themselves to the passing of the Bill, and he hoped
802
they would also recollect that its failure would be most unfortunate.
On Clause 4,
Lord Wynfordobjected to it as very unequal. If a man held a living under the value of 500 l., he might hold another of nearly the same value, and thus have an income of nearly 1,000 l., while a clergyman, whose living was worth rather more than 500 l. could not hold a second living. He had a clause prepared as a substitute for the 4th Clause, and he therefore should move, That the clause be expunged.
The Archbishop of Canterburyhad no very material objection to the views of the noble Lord, as they coincided with those he had embodied into a Bill last year. He could not, however, consent to expunge the clause, for that would leave every clergyman at liberty to hold two or more livings.
Lord Wynfordwould adapt his amendment to the views of the most reverend prelate.
Lord Ashburtondid not wish to increase the dependence of the inferior clergy on the Bishops, and he would rather that the privilege of holding two livings should be conceded direct by Parliament, than that it should be dependent on the sanction of the Bishop.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, every clergyman could purchase a plurality of benefices, but he must be examined by the Archbishop who had the power to disqualify him. The clergy did not, he believed, think themselves disgraced by that power. He had ever found the clergy cordially disposed, and the intercourse between them and the Bishops was one of mutual liberality. All the scandal brought upon the Church was occasioned by a few instances of improper conduct which the Bishops had no power to punish. To enable the Bishops to punish such clergymen by depriving them of their property, or by some other means, was indispensable to preserve the Church free from scandal.
Lord Ashburtonhad been, he was afraid, misunderstood. What he desired was, to see the clergy subjected to law, instead of being exposed to what he might call the caprice of individuals.
The Bishop of Londonwished to see the clergy not dependent on the Bishops, but there must be some means of preserving discipline. He claimed on the part of the Bishops of the Church of England, the credit of having exercised the power intrusted to them, without abusing it. Plu-

803
ralities were altogether an innovation and an abuse, but as circumstances were at present in the Churchy they must be tolerated, and no persons were so fit to have the power of regulating them as the Bishops. He knew cases of clergymen holding, within a circle of ten miles, livings to the amount of 2,000 l., every one of which was under 500 l. a-year. That was a case for the interference of the Bishops; and if they had the power to object to such a state of things, but no power to alter it, unless the metropolitan confirmed the objection, he could not conceive that any but the most beneficial effect could arise.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas concerned that measures had not been before adopted to improve the discipline of the Church. A Commission had inquired into the subject, but no remedy for the abuses had been devised. He was convinced that it was necessary to preserve that part of the clause which gave increased power to the Bishops.
Lord Wynfordwould confine his amendment to altering the income, above which no person should hold two livings from 500 l. to 1,000 l.
The Committee divided on the original clause:—Contents 2.9; Not-Contents 7: majority 22.
The clause to stand part of the Bill.
The remaining clauses were agreed to; the House resumed, and the Report was received.