Sitting of 4 December 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Houses of Parliament Sites; Small Debts (Scotland); Rating of Tenements.
Petitions presented. By Captain PECHELL, from Brighton, and Mr. CHALMERS, from Montrose, for equalising the Rate of Postage.—By Sir WALTER JAMES, from Hull, for compensation for ships seized in Denmark.—By the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, from the City of London, for a uniform low rate of Postage; against the Duties on Life, Fire, and Marine Insurance Duties; and in favour of the Municipal Officers Declaration Bill.—By Mr. E. L. BULWER, from Lincoln, in favour of the Ballot.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from Edinburgh, for a uniform low rate of Postage; and for opening to the public, free of charges, all National Property, such as the Regalia of Scotland, and all Works of Art, etc.—By Mr. HUME, from Glasgow, to the same effect.—By Mr. HUME, from the Political Union at Deptford, for Vote by Ballot, Universal Suffrage, and Short Parliaments.

MUNICIPAL OFFICERS' DECLARATIONS.
On the motion of Mr. Baines, that the House resolve itself into a Committee upon the Municipal Officers' Declarations Bill,
Mr. Grotesaid, he believed that the present was the fit time for him to move that the Bill be extended not only to the Quakers and Moravians, but to all classes of her Majesty's subjects. In doing so, he desired to explain that nothing was farther from his intention than to interfere with the wishes of the hon. Member for Leeds, as regarded those two classes of Dissenters which were included in his Bill. He was of opinion that the principle of the Bill did not go far enough. It was impossible to follow this course of legislation without feeling that, from the passing of the Test and Corporation Acts' Repeal Bill, the principle of imposing tests had been abandoned. The imposition of civil disabilities on account of the party's religion he believed was now considered out of the question. The House could

509
not possibly apprehend anything like danger to the Established Church of England from the admission of Quakers and Moravians to the privileges sought for them; and certainly, if it were right that the Roman Catholics, a very powerful body, were admitted to these privileges, it was also proper that Quakers and Moravians should be admitted. He proposed, however, to carry the Bill of the hon. Member for Leeds by the instruction which he should move to the Committee, to the same point as was reached by the Bill which that hon. Member brought into the House in 1836, and which, after passing this House was carried up to the Lords, where he believed it was not rejected, but there not being time enough to allow of a full discussion of the principles it fell through. The objects embraced by that Bill, were precisely the objects he now had in view. His wish was to open the doors of Parliament and of the Corporations to every Dissenter of every denomination who would subscribe to the declaration, that he would not employ the power which he might obtain to the detriment or injury of the Church of England as by-law established. There was a very strong feeling prevalent in the constituency which he had the honour to represent, in favour of the concession of those privileges to the Jews, as had been shown that evening by the petition presented in their favour. There was a very great feeling of the inconsistency involved in the circumstance that the Jews should be disqualified from holding the offices of mayor and aldermen, and yet be eligible for the important office of sheriff. The House might possibly know, that two years ago, the office of sheriff was filled by a gentleman professing the Jewish persuasion. This year, the same office was filled by a gentleman of the same religion. Yet this creed, which did not prevent a Jew from filling the responsible office of sheriff, disqualified him from being either a Member of Parliament, or a member of a common council. Had the learned Recorder, (the Member for the borough of Cambridge) been in his place, he could have appealed to him, if those Gentlemen to whom he had already alluded, had not filled the high office of sheriff of the city of London with credit and advantage; and he certainly expected to have the hon. and learned Member's support of the proposition which he was about to make to the
510
House. He could not understand the principle upon which the hon. Member for Leeds intended to oppose his (Mr. Grote's) amendment. He would not rest his motion on the ground of special favour to the Jews, but on the broad ground that the time had arrived when the last remnant of those acts of intolerance which the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was intended to abolish, should be erased from the statute-book. He begged to remind the House that the very principle which he recommended was adopted by Parliament when it passed the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Leeds in 1836. If the hon. Member for Leeds should resist the present motion, he would doubtless be prepared to state the grounds on which he rested his opposition; but there was no ground he could urge which would not cut from under him the most powerful arguments in favour of his Bill of 1836. The hon. Member concluded by moving that it be an instruction to the Committee to extend the relief afforded by the Bill to persons of all religious denominations.
Mr. Goringseconded the motion, and contended that it was unworthy of this enlightened age and country to retain those laws which excluded Jews from civil rights.
Mr. Langdalewas not prepared to go along with the hon. Member for the city of London in his present amendment, and he would tell the House why. It was on this ground, and on this ground alone, that he conceived that the adoption of the present instruction would endanger the success of the Bill altogether. He was of opinion that this Bill ought to pass, because, if Quakers were permitted to make affirmations, instead of taking oaths, on matters of life and death, surely their declarations on accepting municipal offices ought to be considered sufficient for all practical purposes.
Sir J. Dukehoped that, as a new Member, he might be permitted to say a few words on the present occasion. As Sheriff of London, he bore testimony to the merits of both his successor and his predecessor in that office, who, as the House was well aware, were both Jews. His predecessor had retired into private life attended by the respect and approbation of all who witnessed his official exertions; and his successor, who was at present fulfilling the duties of his office,

511
would doubtless, when he retired, carry with him into his retirement the same favourable opinion from his fellow citizens. Both those gentlemen were liberal contributors to all public charities, and never inquired to what creed the directors and objects of those charities belonged. There were many other persons of the Jewish persuasion who deserved the same high character as the two excellent individuals to whom he had just alluded. He hoped that the House would gladly avail itself of the present opportunity to remove the barriers which kept those persons from the possession of their municipal rights.
Sir G. Strickland Sir G. Strickland, as a friend of the established Church, thought, that the best way of propping up that church was by removing all those heartburnings against it which were created by the religious exclusions which it had formerly considered necessary to its defence. He therefore hoped before long to see the time when all religious disabilities would be removed. The present, however, was a question in which policy as well as principle was at stake; and as he was of opinion that a prudent man ought to take all that he could get, when he could not get all that he might wish, he should oppose the amendment of the hon. Member for the city of London, lest by supporting it he should run the risk of losing the substantive motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Leeds.
Mr. Pattisonsupported the amendments proposed by his hon. Colleague. He was surprised to find opposition made to such a proposition on that (the Radical) side of the House, although he was quite prepared for it on the other side. He had a notice of a motion for that night, which he would not go on with if the House acceded to that of his hon. Friend. But if the proposition of his hon. Friend were rejected he should certainly bring forward his own. He wished to add the expression of his feelings and those of his constituents in support of the views and opinions expressed in favour of the Jews by his hon. Colleague. He would illustrate the estimation in which gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion were held in the city, by observing that when he left the chair as governor of the bank, a Jewish gentleman was proposed to fill it, and the seconder of that gentleman was Mr. Gurney, the Quaker. He gave the proposition of his hon. Friend his hearty support.
Sir Robert Inglishad great pleasure in
512
admitting all the high personal qualifications of the two excellent individuals who had been alluded to by Gentlemen on the other side. The present, however, was not a personal question, nor ought it to be embarrassed by personal considerations. It was a question of principle, and of principle only, and that question was, whether they ought not to exclude from all share in the government of England those who did not profess, like themselves, Christianity. The proposition of the hon. Member for Leeds was very different from that of the hon. Member for the city of London. The first was a proposition to relieve those who differed from the Church of England; the latter was a proposition to relieve those who differed from our common Christianity. He insisted that those who did not believe in our common Christianity should not be admitted to legislate for it. He reminded hon. Members that in the summons which called them together they were convened to consult, not only on the state and defence of the kingdom, but also on the Church. It might be perhaps said, that if the argument which he had just used proved anything, it proved too much; for there were already in the Legislature men who had no especial interest in the Church. But he insisted that even those men had an interest in our common Christianity, and hitherto the Legislature had excluded from it all who did not profess the faith of a Christian. He was sure that if the House should determine to admit such persons within its walls, it would be contrary to the feelings of the country, and would never be permitted by the other branch of the legislature. Having on former occasions opposed upon general grounds the introduction of Jews into that House, he could not allow them to be introduced by a side wind into the enjoyment of municipal offices. He should give his strenuous opposition to the instruction moved by the hon. Member.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that he knew the hon. Member for Oxford was on all occasions in the field against any propositions which were introduced as regarded the Jews. Now, he would not admit any argument which speculated on what might be done in the other House of Parliament. The question seemed to be, whether the principle should be established that no man, be his religion what it might, should be disabled from holding any civil office by reason of those religious opinions,

513
and it was his conscientious opinion that every loyal subject should be admitted to civil offices—that the question should be not of what religion any person was, but whether, should he be admitted to legislative functions, he would be dangerous to the State, in consequence of his political opinions? The hon. Member for Oxford always objected to the admission of Jews to civil privileges, and he was convinced he would do so to the end. But on what ground, he would ask, should they not be admitted? There were no men who were more loyal subjects; and as to their political opinions, it had been remarked that there was no instance of a person of the Jewish persuasion who had ever been convicted or accused of a political offence. It had been remarked that the good conduct and loyalty of the Jews as a body could not be established by two persons, but it was admitted that the conduct of all those who had been admitted to civil offices had been so unexceptionable as to have acquired the applause of both sides. In reference to the argument used by the hon. Member for Oxford, that he would oppose the motion because the parties referred to were not Christians, he remembered that the same hon. Member had been as vehemently opposed to the Dissenters, and that he had been always averse to the repeal of the Test Act. He had followed him in the debate on that question, and it struck him that if he carried out his principles there would be an end to any advance in religious toleration—to the Catholic Emancipation Bill what had been his objections? They were as good Christians as any other, and yet he objected to their participation in civil rights; and now, when the question was the admission of Jews to those privileges, his objection was that they were not Christians. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, he could see no objection to admit them to offices, to fulfil which they were capable, as could be evidenced in the City of London. There were thousands of that persuasion whose character and dealings acquired for them the respect and admiration of all with whom they were connected. He trusted, therefore, that the amendment would be carried, and that a great principle would not be given up upon speculation as to what might be done in another place.
Mr. Kemblesaid, if he understood the object of the bill, its purpose simply was
514
to extend to certain classes of Christian. Dissenters the same relief in respect of municipal offices which had been already granted to them by all Acts of Parliament regulating the conditions of admission to other places of public trust. This being the only question before them, he thought the amendment of the hon. Member for the City of London utterly irrelevant. It was hardly fair that the House should be called on to affirm a principle of an extent so wide as to sanction the admission of persons of the Jewish persuasion not only to municipal officers, but to seats in that House, in a bill of which the object was to relieve Quakers from an oath which they could not conscientiously take. He should feel it is duty, therefore, to vote against the amendment.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, the hon. Member for Surrey, in asserting that the amendment would sanction the admission of Jews into that House, as well as enable them to hold municipal offices, had confounded two objects totally distinct. The Jews were not excluded from municipal offices; the question was, whether they should continue to hold them under the absurd and anomalous tenure by which they are at present compelled to fill them, or whether a more sound and rational system should be introduced. Would any man maintain that a Jewish sheriff, elected by the citizens of London, and liable to a fine of 600 l. if he refused to serve, should be compelled to sign a declaration that he will discharge the duties of the office, "on the true faith of a Christian," or be subjected to heavy penalties, from which he could only be relieved by the act of indemnity annually passed? The object sought to be attained was merely to abolish this barbarous form of procedure, and if the House declined to relieve all who were placed in the position he had described, they would commit a positive act of injustice towards those who were excluded.
Captain Pechellremarked, that Mr. Salomons, a well-known member of the Jewish persuasion, had lately canvassed a borough in the county with which he was connected, and that the prejudices against him felt by many at first were entirely removed before the canvass was finished. He hoped the House would see the necessity of now granting an immunity, the concession of which was demanded by a vast majority of the nation.
Sir C. Burrellmust say, as Mr. Salomons, his late opponent at Shoreham, had been referred to, that he believed the character of that gentleman for respectability stood very high. Truth obliged him to add, however, that the supporters of Mr. Salomons were, with few exceptions, of an inferior class in the social scale; how their votes were obtained, he would not say. The conduct of Mr. Salomons' supporters during the election was not at all creditable to them. With regard to the matter immediately before the House, he should certainly give his vote against the amendment.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that if the constituency of Shoreham did not in future boar a very good character, they must ascribe it to the efforts of the hon. Baronet to set the House right on the point, as no one could have said anything against it but for the information kindly supplied by him. He could not content himself with giving a silent vote on this occasion, and the reason was, that the motion, as the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Kemble) said, involved a principle. The hon. Gentleman had used this argument against the motion of the hon. Member for the City of London, he (Mr. O'Connell) did not think in a legitimate way, for, by the hon. Member's manner of arguing, it seemed as if he would support the principle if it were separately laid down. It appeared to him to be a paltry and pitiful mode of legislation to be hair by hair and bit by bit admitting persons into offices without the exaction of religious tests. He did not know anything so derogatory to Christianity as those religious tests for admission to office; they became mere oaths of course; (here was no sanctity about them, and the flippancy with which the ceremony was gone through in the usual routine of office was really anything but creditable to the religious feelings of the parties. If religious feelings existed, what should be the foundation of them? Justice to every creed —noninterference with private judgment—permission to every man to enjoy the fullest liberty of conscience—the renunciation of all claim to dictate the religious opinions of others. No man in that House had a right to inquire into the religious opinions of any individual; conduct alone ought; to be regarded, and if it were such as to entitle a man to civil rights, the morn conscientious he was in refusing to take
516
an oath repugnant to his conscience, the greater title did he possess to the respect and esteem of his fellow-citizens. Instead of shutting the door to public eminence against such men, they ought to throw it open wider to their access. He would implore the hon. Member for Leeds not to oppose the amendment to the motion for going into Committee. The hon. Member had a particular object, but that to a certain extent involved a principle, and would be of small importance if it did not. Why not at once admit the principle, and accede to the amendment? Were any gentlemen more cherished in society than the class of Jews; were any persons better calculated to fill offices with credit; would it not be an act of injustice to exclude them from the benefit of this law? Municipal offices were at present held by Jews by a sort of trick and dexterity of law, and was it not most discreditable to say that we allow that to be done surreptitiously which is not done openly?
Mr. Humesaid, that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Inglis) had assented to the 87th section of the Act 3 and 4 William 4th, which enacted, that no native of British India, nor any natural-born subject of his Majesty residing therein, should, by reason of his place of birth, descent, or colour, be disabled from holding any place, honour, or emolument, under the East-India Company. Why should the hon. Baronet withhold the same privileges from the Jews of this country which he had consented to grant to every native of our Indian dominions? Why should he deny to natives of England those rights which were enjoyed by her subjects in a distant region?
Mr. Bainesrose, but gave way to
Lord John Russellwho said, his vote would be very much governed by the opinions held by the hon. Member for Leeds, who had prepared the Bill. With regard to the difference between the hon. Member for Dublin and the hon. Member for Surrey, he had no hesitation in declaring his support of the principle involved in the amendment; and if he thought, he could forward the progress of any measure by asserting that principle, he should be most happy to do so. But the question with respect to this Bill was of a different nature. when the Bill for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Act was before Parliament, it was returned from the House

517
of Lords with certain additions to the declaration proposed in it, which were adopted by the House. Therefore, if there was any discredit in giving way to a partial admission, as the hon. Member for Tynemouth contended, the House was then guilty of that fault, because while they maintained that the Test and Corporation Act should be repealed, they inserted in the declaration which was adopted, the words "on the true faith of a Christian," manifestly excluding the Jews. Certain other words were added to the declaration, which, as he understood at the time, were intended only to give it the character of greater solemnity. For that purpose the words "in the presence of Almighty God" were introduced, which gave to the form the character of an oath rather than a declaration, though they did not convert it to an oath. Now, in passing such a Bill as his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds proposed, it might be very well contended that the intention of the Legislature was not to admit Jews, but that it was not their intention to exclude persons having a conscientious objection to an oath by putting words in the. declaration tantamount to an oath. That was the principle on which the Bill of his hon. Friend was founded; but if, besides accomplishing this object, they could accomplish the object of admitting Jews, and if his hon. Friend thought the principle could be acted on in the Bill with advantage, he should be happy to embrace the opportunity, and assert again the principle he had asserted when Bills for the relief of the Jews were brought before the House by an hon. Friend of his now in India (Mr. Macaulay), and by his right hon. Friend near him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer.) But, if his hon. Friend were of opinion that the introduction of such a provision at this time was likely to be injurious to his Bill, then he should say the best course they could adopt would be to limit the relief to the parties for whom it was originally contemplated, and the argument for the future admission of the Jews would not be weakened, but strengthened, by the admission of another class of Dissenters. It was, however, entirely a question of policy, and he laid the matter before his hon. Friend and before the House with the assurance that his hon. Friend's vote should be guided by his determination.
Mr. Bainesthought, that both duty and
518
policy bound him to adhere to the course he had already marked out. On introducing this Bill he stated distinctly that it was his intention to relieve Quakers and Moravians from the obligation to take an oath in order to enable them to enter on a municipal office. That was his object, and beyond that he did not mean to go. He had no objection that relief should be given to the Jews; on the contrary, he thought it highly desirable that they should have relief, but he appealed to his hon. Friend the Member for London, and his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin, if the cause would in the slightest degree be prejudiced by the course he intended to take. If the House would permit him, he would introduce in the Bill after the word "Moravians," the term "Separatists," which would extend its benefits to another denomination of Christians.
The House divided on the Amendment: —Ayes 156; Noes 172: Majority 16.

List of the AYES.

Adare, Viscount

Dennistoun, J.

Ainsworth, P.

Divett, E.

Archbold, Robert

Duckworth, S.

Attwood, W.

Duke, Sir James

Ball, N.

Duncan, Viscount

Baring, Francis

Duncombe, T.

Beamish, F. B.

Dundas, Frederick

Bellew, Richard M.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Dunlop, J.

Bernal, R.

Easthope, John

Bewes, T.

Eliot, Lord

Blackett, C.

Erle, William

Blake, Martin Joseph

Evans, G.

Blewitt, R. J.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Blunt, Sir C.

Fenton, John

Bridgeman, H.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Brotherton, J.

Ferguson, Robert

Browne, R. D.

Fergusson, R. C.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Finch, F.

Bryan, G.

Fitzsimon, Nicholas

Buller, Charles

Fleetwood, P. H.

Buller, E.

Fort, John

Bulwer, Edward L.

Gibson, James

Butler, hon. P.

Gillon, Wm. Downe

Callaghan, D.

Goring, H. D.

Campbell, Sir J.

Grattan, Henry

Carnac, Sir J.

Guest, J.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Hall, B.

Clay, William

Harvey, D. W.

Clive, Edward Bolton

Hawes, B.

Codrington, Sir E.

Hawkins, J. H.

Collier, John

Hay, Sir A. Leith

Collins, W.

Hayter, W. G.

Copeland, W. T.

Herries, rt. hn. J. C.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Hindley, C.

Craig, W. G.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Crawford, W.

Horsman, E.

Curry, William

Howard, F. J.

Denison, W. J.

Humphery, John

519

Hutton, R.

Roche, William

Jervis, S.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Rundle, John

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Salwey, Colonel

Leader, J. T.

Scholefield, Joshua

Lennox, Lord George

Sharpe, General

Loch, J.

Standish, Charles

Lowther, J. H.

Stewart, R.

Lushington, Charles

Stewart, James

Lynch, A. H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Macnamara, Major

Strangways, hon. J.

Mahony, P.

Strutt, E.

Marshall, William

Talbot, J. Hyacinth

Marsland, Henry

Talfourd, Sergeant

Martin, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Melgund, Viscount

Thompson, Alderman

Morris, David

Thornley, T.

Nagle, Sir R.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Brien, Cornelius

Villiers, Charles P.

O'Brien, W. S.

Vivian, J H. E.

O'Callaghan, C.

Wakley, T.

O'Connell, D.

Walker, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wall, C. B.

O'Connell, Morgan

Wallace, Robert

O'Ferral, R. M.

Warburton, Henry

Paget, Frederick

Whalley, Sir S.

Parrott, J.

White, A.

Pattison, J.

Wilbraham, G.

Pease, J.

Williams, W.

Pechell, Captain R.

Williams, W. A.

Philips, Mark

Wilshere, W.

Phillpotts, John

Winnington, H. J.

Ponsonby, C. F. A.

Wood, Sir M.

Poulter, John Sayer

Wood, G. W.

Power, James

Wyse, Thomas

Protheroe, E.

Yates, J. A.

Reddington, T. N.

Young, G. F.

Rice, E. R.

TELLERS.

Rich, Henry

Grote, G.

Roche, David

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Thos. D.

Buller, Sir J. Yarde

A'Court, Captain

Burr, Daniel H. D.

Alsager, Captain

Burrell, Sir C.

Ashley, Lord

Canning, Sir S.

Bailie, H. D.

Cantilupe, Viscount

Bainbridge, E. T.

Cayley, E. S.

Baker, Edward

Chaplain, Colonel

Baring, H. Bingham

Chapman, A.

Barneby, John

Chichester, J. P. B.

Barrington, Visct.

Christopher, R. A.

Bateman, John

Clive, Viscount

Bateson, Sir R.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Bell, M.

Colquhoun, Sir J.

Bethell, Richard

Conolly, E. M.

Blair, James

Courtenay, P.

Blake, W. J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Blennerhassett, A.

Damer, D.

Boiling, William

Darby, George

Borthwick, Peter

Davies, T. H.

Briscoe, J. I.

D'Israeli, B.

Broadley, Henry

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Brownrigg, S.

Duffield, T.

Bruce, Lord E.

Dugdale, W. S.

520

East, J. B.

Marton, George

Eaton, R. J.

Maunsell, T. P.

Ebrington, Viscount

Meynell, Captain

Egerton, Wm. Tatton

Miles, W.

Elliot, hon. John C.

Miles, P. W. S.

Ellice, Captain A.

Morpeth, Viscount.

Ellis, John

Muskett, G. A.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Packe, C. W.

Estcourt, T. H. S.

Paget, Lord A.

Farnham, E. B.

Pakington, J. S.

Follett, Sir W.

Palmer, Robert

Forbes, William

Palmerston, Viscount

Forrester, hon. G.

Parker, J.

Freshfield, J.

Parker, M.

Gladstone, W. E.

Patten, John Wilson

Gore, J. R. Ormsby

Paul, H. S.

Goulburn, H.

Pemberton, Thomas

Greene, T.

Perceval, Colonel

Greenaway, C.

Pinney, William

Grey, Sir G.

Powerscourt, Visct.

Grimsditch, T.

Price, Richard

Grimston, Visct.

Pringle, A.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Pusey, P.

Halford, H.

Rae, Sir Wm. Bart.

Harcourt, G. S.

Ramsay, Lord.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Richards, Richard

Hastie, A.

Rolleston, L.

Henniker, Lord

Rose, Sir George

Hillsborough, Earl of

Round, C. G.

Hodgson, F.

Round, John

Hodgson, Richard

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Hogg, James Weir

Rushout, George

Holmes, hon. W. A.

Russell, Lord J.

Holmes, William

Sanford, E. A.

Hope, George W.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Hope, Henry T.

Seymour, Lord

Horsey, S. H.

Shaw, Frederick

Houldsworth, T.

Sheppard, T.

Houstoun, G.

Shirley, Evelyn J.

Howick, Viscount

Sibthorp, Col.

Hughes, W. B.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Smith, Abel

Ingham, R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Irving, John

Stanley, Edward

Jackson, Sergeant

Stanley, Lord

James, Sir W. C.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Jenkins, Richard

Stewart, John

Johnstone, Hope

Stuart, H.

Kemble, Henry

Strickland, Sir Geo.

Kerrison, Sir Edward

Style, T. C.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Sugden, Sir E.

Knight, H. G.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Langdale, hon. C.

Trevor, hon. G.

Law, hon. C.

Tufnell, Henry

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Turner, William

Litton, Edward

Verner, Colonel

Lockhart, A. M.

Wilberforce, William

Logan, Hart

Williams, Robert

Lygon, General

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Mackenzie, T.

Winnington, T. E.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Wood, C.

Mackinnon, W. A.

TELLERS.

Maclean, Donald

Baines, Edward

Mactaggart, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

The House went into a Committee on the Bill. The word "Separatists" was

521
inserted. The clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

WILLS ACT.
Sir Edward Sugdenmoved for leave to bring in "a Bill to suspend for three months, from the end of December, 1837, an Act passed last Session for amending the law relating to wills." His object in making the motion was to give the Government an opportunity of amending the Act passed during the last Session. Any amendments should, in his opinion, emanate from the Government, and he felt inclined to leave to them the introduction of such as may tend to improve the Act. He merely asked the House to grant time, in order that Government might consider what amendments were necessary, and in doing so, he would declare that he was not actuated by any feelings of party policy or personal hostility. He felt much pleasure in bearing testimony to the diligence and skill of the property Commissioners, on whose report the Bill was founded; and he also thought that Mr. Tyrrell, and a noble Lord in the other House, the Master of the Rolls, were entitled to much praise for the zeal and judgment they had displayed. Few measures had received so much attention as the one which was then under the notice of the House. It had been referred to two Committees of that House, and had been twice before the House of Lords. It had received the most calm and judicious consideration. But he still maintained that the act could not meet all the objects for which it was framed. No man was more desirous than he to see those objects carried out, and he felt how important it was to have the measure free from any objections. The most desirable object, in his opinion was to establish security for the transfer of property. The rules for this purpose were few and simple. The leading rule was to leave well alone; and he thought that legal as well as medical practitioners acted wrongly in interfering with it. Another, and very important rule was, not to run counter to the habits and general opinions of the people in making any alterations. There was, however, an instance of this in the Bill to which he referred, for there he found that no man could dispose of property personal or real, without having two witnesses to the execution of his will. Since the time of George 1st, it had been understood that personal property could
522
be disposed of without two witnesses, but not stock or funded property. What, then, would be the consequence of this law? Why, that without two witnesses such will would be invalid, and yet, from not being known, it might never be attended to. It was impossible to turn the current of public opinion in matters of this nature; and the only result arising from this Act would be to bring wholesome laws into disrepute. Another rule was, not to put an arbitrary meaning on words that did not admit of a fixed signification. Some had said, in respect of this, that they did not like judge-made law; but if they did not approve of the judge's putting such construction on the words as he should think right, he (Sir E. Sugden) must say, that he differed from them. Upon this point it had been once said by Lord Camden that it was not in the power of penmanship to meet all questions by any distinct form of words; that rules of construction, therefore, must be framed to cover the defects of human learning, and that, where differences of opinion might exist, the construction of the judges should be received. He thought that it was good reason not to interfere with the judicial power of the judges in what cannot be made certain and fixed. It might be said that the moment you form a system, everything should be made to bend to that system; but the rule he had just mentioned was, he thought, important, and yet had by this act been violated. There was another rule, too, that for the purpose of correcting casual inconvenience, a fixed law ought not to be made. In the Statute of Frauds, the Legislature had imposed various conditions, in order to guard against fraud, which might have been beneficial had they been universally known. The necessity for an alteration of this kind might have been thought strong ground, but surely many more wills had been overturned by it than fixed. There were two other rules also which were worth noticing. The first is, not to alter the existing contracts of wills. This he need only point out to the House, and they would judge for themselves what would be the operation of this new measure. The second is, not to attempt too much by one Bill. When the grasp is too great much may be lost which might have been gained by a more limited effort. It is impossible, in one Bill, to admit of all provisions. For this purpose, the language

523
must be distinct, and the provisions should be made for every case. This could not be done in one Bill, and, therefore, much as in the present one, would be left unexpressed and unprovided for. He could, however, bear testimony to the talents, learning, and efficiency, of the Gentleman who had brought forward and had supported this measure, and if it had miscarried in securing its object, it had not miscarried from any want of care or attention on his part. But he would just consider the effect which this Bill would produce. He had pointed out different rules that should be observed, and it would be seen that this Bill was not in accordance with them. It did not leave well alone. It did run counter to the habits and opinions of the people generally; it did put an arbitrary construction on words that admitted of no determinate meaning; it did make a fixed law for correcting casual inconveniences; it did alter the existing contracts of wills, and it did attempt much more than was practicable in one measure. He thought, therefore, it must operate injuriously, and that it would be an universal clog. It might perhaps be, that too much care had been paid to the measure, or, perhaps that too much change had been made in the; original Bill, and that this Act, as now passed, was very different from that which the noble Lord (Langdale) had introduced into the other House, and that it was, therefore, open to several objections. But although many alterations had been made in the measure in the House of Lords, yet, on its being returned to the House of Commons, it had not met with too much care or received too much change, for no alteration had been made in passing it! through that House. It must be in there- collection of the right hon. Speaker, that in the course of addressing her Majesty on the Throne, at the end of the last session, he had spoken of this Act, and '. said it was to introduce different rules as to the construction of wills, and that he hoped its operation would be satisfactory, because it tended to promote the happiness and comfort of the country, by giving better security in the disposal of property by will. Now, if he (Sir E. Sugden) had thought the measure did answer this object, he would not wish to condemn the operation of some of its clauses. He admitted that there were many which he! approved of— no objection could be made
524
to them; but there were others which he highly condemned, and which he thought would act most injuriously. He would, therefore, without further preface, call the attention of the House to those parts which, in his opinion, required amendment, and would state his reasons for thinking; so, as otherwise he should not be justified in making his present motion. He had called the attention of the House to them in connexion with the other parts of the Act, by stating his general opinion upon the measure; but he would now speak to those parts which should be considered and altered. The first alteration was with regard to infants. In times past, infants had been allowed to make wills of their personal estates, so that any person of seventeen years of age might bequeath his personal estate to whomsoever he pleased. But, by the present law, this was not permitted. If this clause were introduced into the measure, there should have been some restrictions as to its operation. Now, in the case of illegitimate children, it was very hard that a young person who might possess a large fortune should be prevented from providing, if he wished it, for those who were dear to him, although he were not twenty-one years of age. In all preceding times he might have done so, but by the present law he cannot. Again, he may marry and have children. Suppose he has: to whom does his property go if he dies before he is of age? His property goes to the Crown. Now, why take from him the disposal of his property. Why take from him his right, and give it to the Crown? This alteration he thought had not been judicious. There should have been some qualification. Another great point which required amendment was the way in which wills were to be executed. Immediately after the Restoration an Act was passed giving to an infant a right of appointing by will guardians to his children. What objection, then, should there be now to his still appointing by will? They had waited patiently for a century and a half, and why should the law be altered now? Unless he was under a mistake, and he believed he was not, this law certainly took from infants the powers which had been conferred on them by the Act of Charles 2nd, and without any necessity. He objected to removing the powers which existed under the old law. Again,

525
there was section 9, which related to the mode of the execution of wills. It was there said that;— "No will shall be valid unless it shall be in writing, and executed in manner hereinafter mentioned (that is to say)—that it be signed at the foot or end thereof by the testator, or by some other person in his presence, and by his direction; and such signature shall be made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time, and such witnesses shall attest and shall subscribe the will in the presence of the testator, but no form of attestation shall be necessary." By this law great alteration had been made as to the number of witnesses necessary for the bequeathment of a personal estate. The law makes it necessary to have two. Formerly it required three for real property, but personal property might be disposed of without. This no doubt was a great inconvenience, but how stood it now? No man could leave even a legacy of 10 l. without, having two witnesses, and adhering to all those forms and instructions which were requisite for the disposal of a large property. He must say he could not understand why this should be. He was sure that numbers of legacies would not be given now in consequence of this difficulty. He was not dealing merely with men of property or intellect, but with every small shopkeeper in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, whose property was as dear to him, small as it might be, and his disposal of it of as much consideration to him, as that of the Gentlemen who heard him was to them. Could he be acquainted with the law? Could he know the different forms that he must adopt in order to leave his property as he wished? It was true that the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department had taken great pains to circulate this Act, that extracts from it had been posted on different public buildings throughout the kingdom, and no slight praise was due to the noble Lord for having done so. But could they understand it, even if they saw this? He must admit that he himself could not. He had not read it hurriedly, but with all his care, and he must say, with that experience and advantage which it might be well supposed that he had had, he could not understand it, and he believed no other person could. He by no means understood what the construction
526
of the law was to be. How, then, could the common tradesman understand it? Where was he to get two witnesses? Where could he learn how to make his will? He might be told there was the Act of Parliament; but of what use would that be if he could not understand it? He thought this Act would introduce into the country a sort of pettifogging agent, something between a schoolmaster and an attorney's clerk, either to make wills or pick flaws in them when made. He believed that although from the time of George 1st. to the present moment two witnesses had been required to a will by which real property was bequeathed, no Gentleman in the House was cognizant that he might dispose of his personal estate by will without such witnesses, except funded property or stock. Why was this? Because they had gone with the stream of general opinion, and had not questioned the matter. He had no hesitation in saying that this measure would strike at the root of the disposition of property of thousands of persons who would not think it was beneficial. If they looked to the courts of equity in this country, in the case of a will where two witnesses were required to have signed it, and some omission had taken place, the feeling was so strong, that the court look the circumstances into consideration, and if other proofs of the covenants could be given, the will was allowed to stand. He thought it was impossible that this part of the Act could remain without alteration. He had an observation to make with respect to codicils of wills. Formerly, by the Statute of Frauds, if a person executed a will, properly signed and attested, and added a codicil, signed only by himself, and without witnesses, it was nevertheless valid. Now, however, this could not be done; but every time an alteration is made, there must be in attendance an. attorney and his two clerks to witness the will. The point required great consideration. But again, suppose the two witnesses were there, how was it to be executed? He was by no means certain of the construction of the law, and it was not likely that a country lawyer would be. The clause said, the signature should be made by the testator, in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, and such witnesses should sign in the presence of the testator. Now, in the Statute of Frauds the testator must sign

527
in the presence of three or more witnesses, who should attest or subscribe in the presence of the testator. There must be actual presence of the witnesses at the time, but why should two constructions be admissible? The judges had held that the witnesses need not sign in the actual presence of the testator, but if they did it where he could see them, it was enough. Now, a man dying, and having signed his will in the presence of witnesses, the witnesses afterwards having gone to a table in the same room to sign it, it was held that the terms of the Act had been fulfilled, because the testator might have seen them do it. There was another case, too, of a lady who called at a lawyer's in Lincoln's-inn to execute a will, and, having signed it in her carriage, as the witnesses were signing it too, the coachman backed the horses, and thus moved her from seeing them; but the judges were induced to say that she might have seen them sign it, and therefore the will was good. There was also the case of the late Duke of Roxburgh. Now, all these questions were left in this Act, and with increased difficulty. Instead of clearing them, they were now surrounded by greater difficulty. The Real Property Commissioners, on whose report this Act had been brought forward, did not propose that witnesses should sign in the presence of the testator, and not in the presence of each other. This was too dangerous; but they suggested that they should sign in the presence of each other, and not in the presence of the testator. When he was in the House before, he had brought in a Bill, which he could not unfortunately carry, which had met this objection in a business-like manner. In that Bill he had proposed that the testator should sign before the witnesses, but if the witnesses signed so as to make it a bonâ fide transaction before they left the House, it should be sufficient. Many authors had written on this Act—he thought no less than nine—and yet, most singular to say, if this Act be so clear, they most of them differ in their construction of it. Now, suppose it necessary for both witnesses to sign in the presence of the testator. A gentleman in his library signs it before his two servants. When he has signed it, they consider the testator's part done, and they then leave the room and sign it elsewhere. This might happen a thousand times. Again, one perhaps signs it, hears
528
a knock at the door, leaves the room, and during his absence the other signs. And yet on these accounts such will would be invalid. He could not say what the true construction of this clause was. It was in his opinion absolutely necessary to strike out the words "in the presence of the testator," and determine in some other satisfactory and more practical way the manner in which the two witnesses should sign. Lord Mansfield, in reference to the same clause in the Statute of Frauds, had said, that was encumbered with difficulty: but this clause is more ambiguous than that. He now came to an important part of the Act,—namely, that which related to the character of the persons who were to be witnesses to the execution of wills. By the Statute of Frauds it was required that the witnesses should be credible witnesses, and a felon or an insane man was not held to be a credible witness, for to make an insane person testify to the sanity of a testator was an absurdity, which it was left to the Act he was now commenting on to commit. A man receiving advantage from a will was likewise considered not to be a credible witness with regard to the execution of that document; and an Act was passed which, in order to render his testimony valid, made void the legacy in his favour. This part of the law, though in point of practice inoperative, was yet consistent. But how did the law stand under the Act to which he was now drawing the attention of the House? Would the House believe that by that Act credible witnesses were not required, and that a madman or a felon might be a witness to the execution of a will? The law provided that no incompetent person should be a witness, and this Act declared that no incompetent person should be examined, and thus all the advantage which might otherwise have been obtained in favour of justice from the contradictory testimony of fraudulent witnesses was lost. It was his opinion that by the Act he was alluding to, the execution of wills was rendered very difficult, and in some cases impracticable. A great evil arising out of the Act was, that by it all existing powers under wills were obliged to conform to the provisions of the new law; and that a court of equity was prevented from giving aid to a defective execution, even in favour of a man's own wife or child. A very grave question also arose

529
under the Act with regard to the revocation of wills; for it enacted that a man' marriage should revoke his will. There used to be an excellent law, which was now repealed, which committed no such absurdity as that. Formerly, when a man married and had a child, his former will was thereby revoked, but it was not revoked until he had a child. But, by the present Act, marriage of itself revoked the will; and though a man might have made a will in contemplation of his marriage, bequeathing certain property to his wife, yet as soon as he married, that very document which he had caused to be drawn up in anticipation of his marriage became null and void. The present Act also threw difficulties in the way of the cancelling and destroying of wills. There were also other clauses of the Act which he thought required revision, but to which he would not draw the attention of the House at any length. The clause relating to persons dying without issue, to whom real or personal property was devised, required re-consideration, as well as the clause relating to any real estate devised to a trustee. On this last clause there was a great difference of opinion amongst those who had written on the Act, and that difference of opinion was an argument in favour of its revision. The next clause to which he would call attention was that which provided, "that when any person being a child or other issue of the testator to whom any real or personal estate shall be devised or bequeathed for any estate or interest not determinable at or before the death of such person shall die in the lifetime of the testator leaving issue, and any such issue of such person shall be living at the time of the death of such testator, such devise or bequest shall not lapse, but shall take effect as if the death of such person had happened immediately after the death of the testator, unless a contrary intention shall appear by the will." Now, the meaning of that clause was very ambiguous, and he found that four persons who had written on the subject held that in such a case the property went by substitution. In that opinion he did not agree, but the various opinions expressed as to the meaning of the clause showed that it required revision and alteration. The clause regarding legacies was also ambiguous, and required re-consideration. There was another point to which he wished to call attention. The provisions of the
530
Bill were not extended to the colonies; and the consequence would be that a man having an estate, say in Jamaica, would find that property in that island, given in the very same words as an estate in this country would be given, would not have effect. This was a defect which certainly ought to be remedied, and the same law ought to be extended to the colonies as was enacted for this country. He had now gone over the various points of the Bill which he thought required revision; and he would say, in conclusion, that he had brought forward his motion solely from a sense of duty, and from a desire to give to the community a clear and simple rule for the transmission of property. He wished to afford the Government an opportunity of re-considering the Act of last Session, and he was ready to give every assistance in his power to make that Act perfect. No harm would result from the old law remaining in force for a few months longer; but if this Act went out to the country as a perfect law, it would be found not to meet the wants of the people. He wished again to say, that he made no imputation against any man; for the Bill had been altered here, and altered there, and he well knew the difficulty of framing a law of this description. He had spoken with the best feeling towards hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, as his only aim was to have the Act re-considered, and so important a measure rendered as perfect as possible.
The Attorney-Generalknew, that whatever fell from the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon any legal question was entitled to the highest consideration, and he had no doubt whatever, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had brought forward this question with the purest and most disinterested motives; but at the same time, he must say, that the course proposed to be taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was wholly unprecedented, and, as he thought, wholly unjustifiable. He did not complain of the want of courtesy that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave him no notice, nor even conveyed to him any communication whatever that could afford him the most distant conception in the world of the course which the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended to pursue; but, setting that aside, he thought he might complain a little that the House should now be called upon to appoint a

531
Committee to sit upon the details of an Act after it had become the law of the land, and to enter into a verbal criticism of particular clauses and particular terms, the tendency of which would be to defeat the great and beneficial operation of what he would venture to call an excellent law. If this Act were not properly framed, he confessed he despaired of ever having an act pass the Legislature that could be called perfect. The principles of the bill and all its main enactments were recommended first by the ecclesiastical commission, and secondly by the real property commission. Many of those points of the bill to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had most strongly objected, especially those clauses which placed real and personal property upon the same footing, were recommended by the ecclesiastical commission, consisting, as the commission did, not only of several bishops, but of the heads of the courts of justice in Westminster-hall, of all the ecclesiastical judges, and many of the most eminent members of the bar. The real property commission followed. He had the honour of presiding over the deliberations of that commission, and, after a most painful investigation, after taking all the means in their power to come to a just conclusion, the real property commissioners concurred in the opinion pronounced by the ecclesiastical commissioners, and confirmed the recommendation of those principles upon which the bill was framed. They also approved of every one of the provisions which almost, clause by clause, constituted the bill as it now stood. Before the bill was presented to the House it was printed and circulated amongst all the conveyancers and chief legal practitioners both in London and the provinces. The framers of the measure were most anxious to receive suggestions and recommendations from every quarter, and in consequence of the course they took prior to the introduction of the Bill, they received many most valuable communications of which they availed themselves. The Bill was not introduced into Parliament until rather late in the Session of 1834. It was read a first and second time, and then referred to the consideration of a Select Committee. Every lawyer in the House was a Member of that Committee, and they gave to the Bill a most careful and most anxious consideration, going through
532
it clause by clause, and maturely weighing every one of the provisions contained in it. Unfortunately the House was not, at that time, enriched with the presence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Sugden), and the Committee was, in consequence, deprived of the advantage of his great talent and experience upon these matters. The Session of 1834 concluded before the Bill could be brought to a third reading. In 1835, the Bill was again introduced—again read a first and second time, again generally approved of, and again referred to a Select Committee. It would be remembered, that at the commencement of the Session of 1835, the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) opposite was in office, and that Lord Lyndhurst was Chancellor. Lord Lyndhurst, at that time, wrote to him (the Attorney-General) stating that he entirely approved of the Bill, and that he should be ready to bring it into the House of Lords. With hardly a single exception, the Bill then stood in exactly the same shape as that in which it was subsequently passed into a law. Having been introduced into the House of Commons, and read a first and second time, it was, as he had already stated, again referred to a Select Committee. Upon that Committee sat Sir Frederick Pollock, Sir William Follett, Mr. Sergeant Jackson, Dr. Lefroy, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Hogg, Mr. Pemberton, and all the most eminent members of the English and Irish bar. The Committee so appointed went through the Bill clause by clause, and most carefully considered every one of the points which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to, and partially discussed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had, in fact, started nothing new; every point that he had raised had been thoroughly discussed in the Committee. Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, because he was not at the time a Member of the Legislature, now to come forward and ask the House, after all its labours, to stultify itself, and to declare that an Act upon which so much pains had been exhausted should not be allowed to come into operation? The discussion in the Committee occupied so long a time, that the Bill could not pass in the Session of 1835. In 1836, it was introduced into the House of Lords by that great judge, Lord Lang-dale. It was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Lords, composed,

533
amongst others, of the present Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Denman, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Wynford, and Lord Abinger. Those noble Lords took the whole of the measure into their consideration, but could not. make up their minds upon several most important clauses. They thought that some further time was required for consideration, and, consequently, the Bill did not pass in 1836. In the beginning of 1837, it was again introduced by Lord Langdale, who in the recess had paid the greatest attention to all its details, having consulted every one within his reach who could give any information or advice upon the subject. It was again referred to a Select Committee, which sat day after day, bestowing the utmost attention to every part of the Bill. Some few alterations were made; but the effect of those alterations was to restore the Bill to exactly the same state as that in which it had originally passed the House of Commons. In 1837, the Lords sent down, without the difference of a single line, the very Bill that was sent up to them by the Commons in 1835. The Bill formed a very leading topic in the speech of the Speaker, when that right hon. Gentleman announced to her Majesty the business of last Session; and it was rash, if not cruel to say, that the very topic upon which the right hon. Gentleman then expatiated was one that would do a great deal of mischief, that it would create nothing but annoyance and confusion; and that her Majesty's Ministers would rue the day when it was passed. Under these circumstances, could the House agree to suspend the operation of the Act, in the belief that it was mischievous—that it wanted amendment? It might want amendment; and whatever his right hon. Friend might hereafter propose with that view would, of course, be most seriously considered. Let him bring in a Bill to amend any of its clauses, and not only would he (the Attorney-General) not oppose it, but would give his right hon. Friend all the assistance in his power; but to say that the Act should be suspended for three months because his right hon. Friend did not approve of it was most extraordinary. He would not follow his right hon. Friend through the several provisions of the Act. His right hon. Friend had said, that the law of wills, as regarded the form of attestation, ought to be left unaltered. The law, as it at pre-
534
sent stood, was a most incongruous and barbarous law,—a law that was never maintained in any country: it was quite a disgrace to any civilised society A will for the disposal of freehold land, however insignificant in value, was required to be executed in the presence of three witnesses; but if the property were copyhold, it did not require any witness at all; and with regard to personal property, any kind of memorandum was construed into a legal disposition of the property. In fact, no man could say what was a will or what was not one. The courts at Doctors' Commons had, for years past, been chiefly occupied in deciding what was and what was not a will; and was it not proper that this state of things should be put an end to, and that there should be some definite criterion as to what was or was not such an instrument? He thought it was; so thought all the ecclesiastical commissioners; so thought all the real property commissioners; although so did not think his right hon. and learned Friend. But then his right hon. Friend said, that they ought not to interfere with the interpretation of words. Now, the great object of the law was to give effect to the intention of the testator; but by the construction of the courts of justice that intention was constantly violated. Where the testator meant to give an estate for life the courts had given the devisee an estate in fee-simple, and è converso. It was for this reason that certain clauses had been inserted in the Act. His right hon. Friend had alluded to forfeitures incurred, and to property devolving to the Crown. He had had the honour to be a law-officer of the Crown for five years, and he could say that whenever any property devolved to the Crown under the circumstances stated by his right hon. Friend, the Crown had always acted merely as a trustee for those who would have been the objects of the bounty of the testator. He asserted that this was the case. Suppose a man died intestate without next of kin, but leaving illegitimate children, the Crown always gave the property to them. His tight hon. Friend had dwelt upon the difficulty of obtaining on all occasions the presence of two witnesses; but he did not conceive that any such difficulty existed. His right hon. Friend had said, that whenever a person desired to make a will, he must now, by this Bill, send for an attorney and two clerks. There was, however,

535
no necessity for the presence of an attorney, much less of two attorney's clerks; because the nurse and the apothecary, the servant or a neighbour might be called in, and fulfil that office abundantly well. He was aware that his right hon. Friend had in a former Session brought forward a measure, the leading principle of which was, that the attestation of the will should be part of the same transaction with the making of the will itself. But who in the name of goodness could tell what was part of the same transaction? Suppose there should be a knock at the door, and the servant went before witnessing the will to answer it? That might put an end to the transaction. Though there might be some difficulty in the operation of the present Act, he could only say the Bill proposed by his right hon. Friend would have been much more liable to difficulty. His right hon. Friend might feel a little disappointment, he (the Attorney-General) would not say irritated, at the circ um-stance, but the fact was, that his Bill had gone into oblivion; whereas the Bill of another has become the law of the land. Another argument of his right hon. Friend was, that under the present law a will might be witnessed by incredible witnesses. What was the sum and substance of this objection? Why, that a will should not be valid unless attested by credible witnesses; that was, unless they were known to the testator as credible witnesses. But it might happen that a man in the service of the testator might many years before have committed perjury unknown to the testator, who for years had known him only as a meritorious servant. Yet according to his right hon. Friend a will attested by such a person would be absolutely void. It was thought that such an objection ought not to be taken against such a witness, and that having attested that which had actually taken place, the will ought not to be rendered void on account of any such circumstance. Another objection made by his right hon. Friend was, as to the mode in which powers were to be executed. Now, he avowed that of all the clauses in the Act that which was the most valuable was the clause regarding the execution of powers. He was quite aware that that clause would render of no importance many decisions of the courts respecting the execution of powers, and he was sorry to say also that it would render of very little value some
536
excellent treatises that had been published upon that subject; because the law had certainly by the new Bill been very much altered, and he thought very beneficially altered. The donor of a power sometimes annexed the most fantastic conditions as to the mode in which the person who was to execute the power was to carry it into effect. The donor might, for instance, say that it should be executed in the presence of seven witnesses, all of whom should have yellow hair, or should have only one eye or one leg. It might then become a question in a court of law whether the hair of the witnesses was yellow, or whether each of them was blind of one eye, and should it turn out that one of the witnesses had brown hair, or had both his eyes, it was quite clear that the power was not well executed. With a view to put an end to this, the law required only certain formalities, which were easy of observance, and which would avoid infinite evils; for his right hon. Friend knew that many persons were deprived of property intended to be given to them because powers were not effectually executed. Again, the terms of the attestation had been heretofore held to be material. This was now altered. Contradictory decisions had occurred on this point. Some decisions required that the words "signed, sealed, and delivered," should be used in the attestation, while others held that they were not material. He was himself counsel in a cause now pending, in which Sir Francis Burdett was interested, where that very question arose. The witnesses to the execution of the power did see it signed, sealed, and delivered, but it was not so stated in the attestation, and the disposition of a very considerable estate depended upon that defect. Now, if the law of last Session had been in operation, the question never could have arisen. This question had been in litigation for four years, and would in all probability go to the House of Lords before it was decided. The case of Fox v. Marsden had been argued by Sir William Follet for three days before fourteen judges, as to the admission of parol evidence with respect to a will republished subsequent to a marriage. Whether the judges would admit parol evidence he could not say, but he would venture to assert, that all the judges would with one voice condemn the present law. A marriage ought either not to revoke a will

537
under any circumstances, or it ought in all cases to invalidate it. It was indispensably necessary to lay down a rule, and the Legislature had accordingly declared that a marriage in all cases should make a will previously executed void. He must, in conclusion, ask the House to have confidence in what had already been clone. Let the House have confidence in the Legislature, in the report of the ecclesiastical commissioners, in the report of the real property commissioners; let them have confidence in Sir William Follett, Sir Frederick Pollock, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Langdale, Lord Abinger, and Lord Brougham, although the right hon. Gentleman opposite might happen to differ from these high authorities. Let not the House suppose that because his right hon. Friend was a great lawyer, that he was the only great lawyer of which this country could boast.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid if the House were so perfectly satisfied with the alteration in the state of the law as it appeared to be, he had no objection that the country should have the benefit of the change. He had done no more than his duty in stating his objections to it. He would only beg just to observe that he had not been guilty, that he was aware, of any want of courtesy towards his hon. and learned Friend, in not communicating to him his (Sir Edward Sugden's) objections to the Act, because a book had been published which his hon. and learned Friend must have well known was published with his (Sir Edward Sugden's) approbation, which contained all the objections he had tonight stated to the Bill of last Session. A copy of the book was sent to Lord Lang-dale, but he thought it would have been an impertinent obtrusion on his part, and by no means beneficial, if he had forwarded a copy to his hon. and learned Friend. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that he should carefully watch the operation of the Act, and time would decide whether he was right or not in his opinion respecting it.
Motion negatived.

DANISH CLAIMANTS.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that many Members who had been instructed by their constituents to attend to this question were about to leave London, it was therefore impossible for him to postpone it. Let the House look to the enormity of the sufferings of those whose
538
interest he now undertook to advocate. He did not feel that he was justified in putting off the question. In order that no objection might be made in any subsequent period of the debate, he would read the terms of the motion with which he intended to conclude. He did so, because he understood from his hon. Friend, the Secretary of the Treasury, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to object to the form of his motion. His motion would be
"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to be graciously pleased to give directions to the Commissioners to whom it was referred, to examine the claims of certain British subjects for losses sustained on account of book debts, and other property confiscated by the Government of Denmark in the year 1807, that they shall examine the claims for losses sustained on account of seizures by the said Government in the said year, and for the subsequent confiscation of merchants' stores, and which claims, or evidence by which they are supported, may not have been delivered into the said Commissioners before the 12th of February, 1835, and that the said Commissioners shall report on such claims to the Lords' Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad no objection to the form in which the hon. Member meant to bring forward the present motion, but he would tell his hon. Friend the mode in which he intended to meet it, namely, by calling for the production of all the minutes of the Commissioners and of the established rules under which the money had been distributed by them; and when the House was in possession of these minutes, and knew what had been done, it would be able to say whether it acquiesced in it or not. If they discussed the question at that time, he had no objection to the form of the motion if it were meant to be restricted to the application of the money which had been already voted; but if it were intended to include any application for a new grant, then he undoubtedly did object.
Mr. Warburton: The motion did not include any application for a fresh grant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer, under such circumstances, had not the least objection to offer on the mere matter of form.
Mr. Warburtondid not intend to imply that he might not require a vote after the report of the Commissioners had been

539
made, for when the Danish Commissioners had made their report, it would be referred to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to deal with as they might think proper. He felt compelled to bring the matter forward, either by a motion for papers, or for a Committee of inquiry, or by a reference back to the Danish Commissioners, because, in consequence of the directions of the Treasury, they had been prevented from going into several of those claims; and as the original commission was still in existence, he thought it best to refer the subject back to the Commissioners, who had already investigated a portion of those claims, and had only been precluded from entering into the whole in consequence of the limitation put upon their powers by the Treasury. As there were many new Members in that House— indeed, they had been told the other night that there was the large number of 150 who had not been in the previous Parliament—he would briefly narrate the grounds on which he rested the claims of the merchants whose petition had been so lately presented. In the month of August, 1807, England sent a secret expedition to Copenhagen. The town was bombarded; we seized the Danish fleet and naval stores. His Majesty's cruisers were ordered to scour the seas for Danish vessels; many prizes were brought into our ports and merchantmen were seized. The whole value of the property thus taken amounting to l,397,000 l. As a matter of course the Danish Government made reprisals, and on the 7th September issued orders for the confiscation of all vessels and cargoes afloat, of all merchandise on shore, and of all book debts, from British to Danish subjects. The hon. Member for Sheffield in the year 1834, presented a petition to the House in which the claims of the British subjects whose property had been thus confiscated were plainly set forth, and the plain statement of the facts made such an impression on the House and the Treasury that Lord Althorpe, who was at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, that it was impossible to resist the claim, and that if the hon. Member would withdraw his motion for a Committee, the Treasury would make a satisfactory arrangement. This referred to the sufferers for losses by the confiscation of the book debts; and in the July of the same year the Government referred their investigation to the Commissioners, and a notice
540
was issued by them requiring parties who had suffered losses to deliver in the particulars of their claims within three months. It was contended that the claims for merchandise seized were in precisely the same situation as those for book debts. The Commissioners reported the doubt upon this point for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and four days within the expiration of the first three months another notice was issued stating that the Government would not only entertain claims for the book debts already claimed, but also granted a further three months for the delivery of other claims for book debts or other property. By the Parliamentary returns of 1835 it appeared that the Treasury intended by the words "other claims" to extend the term for merchandise on shore; but at the end of the notice there was a paragraph in which it was stated that this extension was not. to be treated as an admission of the right to compensation till the question had been mentioned in Parliament. By this proceeding, however, the sufferers by the confiscation of the book debts were allowed an additional three months, making together six months, but the sufferers by the loss of merchandise on shore had only the three months granted by the last notice. Yet by the admission of the Government, and by the vote of a sum of money by Parliament, the claimants for merchandise had participated in the second vote of 78,000 l. allowed to the sufferers; and all he would ask of the House was, that the owners of the confiscated merchandise should be placed in the same situation as were the losers by book debts. Why, having admitted them to send in their claims on the sum granted as an indemnity, were they not to be allowed the same terms as the other claimants? Why were they not to have all the advantages of the six months, especially when they considered the greater difficulty of collecting evidence to substantiate the claims for merchandise than there was in proving the loss of book debts? The Danish Government ordered all the book debts to be paid into the public treasury, and a correct register was kept, from which all the necessary evidence was easily supplied; but the direct contrary was the case with respect to the other class of claims. The merchandise was scattered very widely in Altona, Holstein, and Norway, and it was confiscated not only in warehouses, but

541
also in transitu, and there was, therefore, very great difficulty in collecting the elements of claim. Why did they not at least extend the same facilities to claims for merchandise as to the other subject of indemnity? These were the arguments of the petitioners whose case he then re-presented to the House. But was there no precedent for entertaining those claims, and, instead of shortening the period in which they were to be made, ought it not to have been extended? He applauded the Government for the limitation of time in the first instance, because he knew full well how easily papers might be discovered and bad claims made if great time had been allowed; but when they discovered that great injustice had accrued from the course adopted, were they within a reasonable period to act over rigorously? This was the history of the case; he would not enter upon the question of the justice or injustice of the war, but the works of all writers on the law of nations had held that parties situated like these claimants were entitled to relief from this nation, This case was clearly within the doctrine; the seizure of the Danish ships entitled the Government of that country to retaliate, and confiscate the British ships and cargoes afloat and the merchandise of Englishmen. The seizure by England took place before any declaration of war; England was bombarding Copenhagen and fighting against a friendly ally, in order, as it was said, to save the fleet of Denmark from the French; and though the idea of self-preservation might justify the attack, yet it did not take away the right of the British subjects to compensation. The declaration of war was on the 4th November; the seizure by the English Government was in August; and the confiscation by Denmark was on the 7th September. The inter-national law was clear. If an injury were done by one nation to another, the nation injured might seize upon the property of the other, whether it belonged to the state or to the private citizens of the country perpetuating the injury. Vatel laid down this doctrine, and added that compensation ought to be awarded by the state to those subjects on whom the reprisals fell. This he laid down as the general rule for injuries received, whether there was or was not property seized by the other nation; and so if no money had been received from the seizure of Danish property, and if no fund had arisen from it, England was bound to in-
542
demnify her citizens for their losses. In the years 1807 and 1808 claims were put in by the sufferers; and what was done with the Danish property seized? It was not treated as droits of the Admiralty. Mr. Perceval then Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated in that House that the produce of this property was paid into the public treasury, and that this had been done because several merchants had sent in claims for compensation on account of the losses which they had sustained by reason of the extraordinary circumstances under which the war was commenced. Such were the claims of the parties under the law of reprisals. They had put in their claims at the earliest period; the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day had stated that the produce was not treated as droits of the Admiralty in consequence of that claim; and would that House allow the lapse of time which had taken place to be pleaded against and defeat the parties who were entitled to the indemnity? But another ground might be taken under which to rest these claims. Under the then existing treaties between Denmark and England, if war broke out between the contracting parties, six months' notice was to be given to the citizens of each country to remove themselves and their property. Denmark seized the British book debts and merchandise in direct violation of this stipulation in the treaty. Did this country call upon Denmark to account for this breach? He did not know why this had not been done; but perhaps the circumstances under which the enemy had been laid prostrate, and considering that England had taken the brightest jewel from the crown of Denmark—that she had been despoiled of Norway, England was prevented through very shame from demanding redress; or it might not be convenient to seek reparation, because the whole amount of British property confiscated did not amount to more than 500,000 l., whilst, including what was taken at Copenhagen, England did not seize less than three millions from Denmark. But if the Danish government were not called to account, were the sufferers to be, therefore, despoiled of their property without compensation? Why were they not protected by the government? He had only repeated the facts and recapitulated the arguments which had been adduced on former occasions, but he had done so that all the present Members of that House

543
might fully understand the true state of the case. He begged to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to one circumstance. All the evidence of the class of cases to which his motion referred was already collected by the parties, and if time were only given them—two or three days was all he would ask—to put in their claims, he would be contented. But it might be inquired whether that was all—(the right hon. Gentleman need not be alarmed lest he should be going to demand a further sum)—all he required was, that the claims of all those persons whose demands were already prepared might be received, or that some measure might be taken to ensure justice to them. The justice of their claims was admitted; and surely the neglect of the claimants in not sending in their demands ought not to operate so seriously against them. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the motion, and he waited to know any reason which could be given why one class of claimants should be relieved while the demands of another class received no attention.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerregretted that the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat had not granted him the indulgence which he had requested, for he feared that not having had an opportunity of inspecting the various documents on the subject, his explanation to the House might not be so full, so clear, or so satisfactory as hon. Members had a right to expect. The case was certainly not a new one, and the House would not consider that it was a party question at all, and if he argued against the motion of the hon. Member for Bridport, he should do so as being connected with the Treasury, and on account of his duty to resist any claims on the public purse which he might not consider to be well-founded. He was a mere individual Member of that House, and whether its Members chose to vote 150,000 l. for the Danish claims, was a question solely for their consideration, and one in which he, otherwise than as a Member of the Government, was not interested. It was a question relating to the property of British subjects, and it was for the House to consider whether such a case had been made out as would entitle them to make a demand upon the public funds. The hon. Member had drawn rather largely upon the supposition that there were very few Members who were acquainted with
544
the subject and he had taken care to explain to them the nature of the Copenhagen expedition, together with the law of nations and the other points affecting it. But upon those points there was no issue. The hon. Member had dwelt on the circumstances attending the expedition, and had shown that there were some which inflicted great wrongs on some individuals; but, as in all such cases, the injury fell on the wrong-doers. He had proved the deed to be atrocious, no doubt; but what that had to do with the real question, he should take the liberty of inquiring. Now, if there were any young Members in the House, he would put them in possession of two facts which the hon. Member had almost put out of sight. At two different times there had been votes of the House of Commons for the benefit of the claimants; the one for 113,000 l., and the other 78,000 l., making in all 191,000 l. It was true that these were not for the same persons; but they were in satisfaction of the results of wrongs committed. If any claimants had been told before these votes were passed that a vote for 200,000 l. would be granted by the House to meet their demands—demands which, from the year 1807 to the year 1835 had been in abeyance—there was not one who would not have been too glad, too grateful, to have closed with the proposition; but now, having obtained that, they turned round and made a new demand, after one of a precisely similar description had already been discussed. Every party who had a claim was actively employed in bringing it forward from 1807 to 1834, and in 1834, for the first time, they were entertained by the Government, for Lord Stanley said that he was willing to look into them. In that state he had found them, the inquiry still going on. He took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the claims which were made, as to whether the Acts on which they proceeded were done against the law of nations, and he was told that the two first, the book-debts, and the property on shore, had been confiscated contrary to the law of nations, and that if the nation allowed its subjects to suffer a wrong, and did not procure a remedy for it, it was in justice liable to satisfy, from its own funds, the injured parties. It was on that ground that he put the grants to Parliament, and on that ground that they were voted. Now, what would be the fair and legitimate

545
construction to be put on the argument of the hon. Mover? That six months were given to the claimants of book-debts, and that three months only having been given to those who required satisfaction for goods seized on shore, to send in their claims, the time for the latter should be doubled. But this was not so, the motion was to extend the time to all classes of claimants, not only those who had already been allowed only three months, nor to those who had had six months, but to those who had had, from the year 1834 to 1837, to prepare the evidence of their demands. He repeated that this was no party question, nor was it one in which he was not bound to act; for otherwise he might have easily got rid of the whole affair, of the motion of the hon. Member, and of the great mass of correspondence which took place on the subject, by saying, "Let it be looked to by the Committee." He was bound to act in his capacity, however; and he would say that more than the amount already voted would be claimed if this motion were to be allowed by the House, and of this fact the hon. Member was aware. [Mr. Warburton: Indeed I am not.] The hon. Member said that all the parties were ready to prove their claims, and he therefore had the means of knowing the amount, but yet he would not wait until he could ascertain what it was. Was it meant that the House should vote an address to the Crown, and that there should be no given sum named, and that the House could not afterwards be bound in honour to vote the sum necessary to meet the claims? It was admitted by the hon. Member that false claims might be got up, that claims might be fabricated, if any long time were given for them to be made, and yet he now came forward with such a suggestion as that contained in his motion. If the House of Commons chose to go into these claims, and accede to them, it might, but it would be their act and not his. This case did not apply to Danish claims alone; there were other claims, French claims, and would it not be equally proper that they should be opened, and quite as just that a petition should be presented to the House with respect to them to-morrow? He could only, on sitting down, warn the House of the great inconvenience, of the great peril, which the course suggested would entail upon them. It was not the case of 1834—then there was a distinction
546
drawn and laid down; but the House was now called upon to give their sanction, not to claims the amount of which was specified, but to undefined claims on the subject of which they knew nothing. On this ground it was, that he felt bound to oppose this motion, and he had again to express to the House his regret for the imperfect manner in which he had stated the case, but he repeated that he felt it to be his duty not to consent to an undefined liability being admitted.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he thought the deficiency of the right hon. Gentleman did not consist in his being unprepared on the subject, but in the matter which had fallen from him. The facts of the case were clear enough. There had been three kinds of property confiscated, namely book-debts, goods on shore, and goods afloat; in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown the seizure of the two first-named species of property was in violation of the law of nations, while those which were afloat did not come within the same description. There were thus two classes of property, for one of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the parties should be indemnified by the Government. The sum which was seized by England was not paid over to the parties whose goods had been taken by Denmark, and who were entitled to the protection of the British nation, in order to obtain redress. So the parties stood until 1834, when their claims were first recognised. Some of them were admitted, and how were the others forfeited? By some delay only, which was brought forward against those who urged them. Thus the British nation, from 1807 to 1834, improperly resisted the claims: they were postponed by the default of the Government; and was it not a very small objection, to say the least of it, now to turn round and say, "We, who represent the British Government, have been guilty of a laches in not attending to your claims until 1834; but you have also been guilty of a laches in not bringing it forward until now, and therefore you have lost your remedy." The notice was first confined to the book debts; it was a notice that the parties might come in, and if they could prove their claims within three months, that they might obtain compensation. Now, was it likely that the claimants would incur the expense of sending messengers to Denmark, and exert themselves in other ways to establish their

547
claims at a considerable cost, under circumstances which made their success a mere speculation? No man in his senses would do so. And what was the consequence? They were turned round on and told that though they had a right, still, because it had slept for twenty-four years, no other delay having occurred than that for which they were not accountable, they should be excluded forever from establishing their rights. Was that the way in which a British House of Commons would deal with the claimants? Some said that the amount claimed was great, others that it was small. If it was great, he was terrified by the amount of the injustice they were inflicting. That was just the reason why the claim ought to be allowed. A country like this should shrink from permitting a great injustice to be suffered by its subjects. Economy was a good thing, but justice was better. It was well to see the public purse taken care of, but not at the expense of the just claims of individuals. He would say that no case had been made out for refusing to allow these people to come before the Commissioners and prove their claims.
Mr. Macleanfelt, that, if he refused the claims of these parties, he should be doing an act of injustice. What was the matter of fact? There were certain individuals proving that, by no act of their own, having sustained a severe loss, they had been excluded, by a Treasury minute, from the benefit intended to be conferred on them by a solemn resolution of the House of Commons; for he did not find that it was the intention of the House that the benefit or been should be conferred on those claimants alone who had lost their book-debts, but that it should be extended to goods that were confiscated on shore. What was the course taken by the Treasury? They gave notice that proof as to the book-debts alone should be received for the space of three months. Subsequently the notice was extended to cases of loss of goods on shore; but the time given was three months only, which rendered it impossible in many cases that the proof could be obtained in time. Suppose any of the parties had gone to the East or West Indies? and he knew of such cases. It would have taken a month or five weeks to carry the notice that the Treasury had conceded so far as to admit the proof's, and it would have taken live or six weeks to return with the proofs.
548
The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, warned them that if they embarked in that inquiry without knowing the amount which might be claimed, they might be launching on a sea of troubles, which they would find it exceedingly difficult to get well over. He would ask, what was the amount compared with the justice of the case? Whatever the amount, they were pledged by the vote of 1834 that the money should be paid. Lord Althorp then said, "He begged to state that measures should be taken to pay such of the claims as might be found to be just." That engagement was not confined to book debts. The noble Lord began, as did the right hon. Gentleman opposite, by warning the House; but in this case, he said, he felt it to be impossible to resist the justice of the claims. He said his principle was, that if a subject of her Majesty was injured by an act done by a foreign power, contrary to the law of nations, it was the duty of the Government, by war or by negotiation, to obtain redress; but if not, at least to indemnify the party. Did these individuals ask that taxes should be imposed to indemnify them? Certainly not. In this case 1,200,000 l. had been confiscated for the very purpose of their indemnification. That sum became droits of the Admiralty, it was true; but these claimants had a lien on it. Out of the 1,200,000 l. received by this country to satisfy these claims, not more than 200,000 l. had been paid. He was as anxious as the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the public interests should be protected, but he thought that they were never better protected than by acceding to the claims of British subjects for justice.
Mr. Babiesinferred, from the tone in which the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken, that he did not mean seriously to oppose these claims. If in the year 1834 it was right that these claims should be granted, the claimants ought not to be satisfied now with the mere payment of their debts, inasmuch as the amount of their debts would be doubled if they received common interest on them for the period the payment had been delayed, viz.: thirty years. Surely, then, these parties were entitled to great indulgence. To allow only three months to collect proofs of claims which had slept for so long a period was not, in his opinion, a sufficient time. He hoped that

549
the right hon. Gentleman would not put the House to the necessity of dividing on this motion; but that, with the generosity of disposition which belonged to him, he would acquiesce in it;
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, it was not his intention to occupy much of the time of the House, but he trusted that as a new Member some indulgence would be extended to him when he stated that he rose on the present occasion at the earnest request of his constituents, who begged the House to give effect to the declaration which had been made by Lord Althorp, in his place as Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking of the justice of these claims. If it were long since this debt was incurred, the greater the injustice of further deferring it. If the amount claimed was large, the greater was the right which he appeared to advocate. The question was one of principle, and the principle had been settled, and he did not think that the House would yield to the argument of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he stated that they might find the amount more than they expected, and that the claimants might be glad to compound—to compound with the failing credit of a country like this, and to have taken originally the 200,000 l., abandoning all further demand. If he understood rightly, no less than 1,400,000 l., derived from the confiscation of Danish property, had gone to swell the droits of the Admiralty, and why a portion of this sum should not be made available for the liquidation of the just claims of the parties now before the House he could not understand. He could not see the distinction between goods seized in the ports and goods seized on land. In conclusion, he earnestly entreated the House to render the claimants justice.
Mr. Warburtonreplied, that the sum which the claimants had received, did not amount to more than 3s. in the pound of the sum that had been paid into the public treasury. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked, would they now let the claimants in after a year had elapsed, though only three months were allowed? but the answer to this was, that at the end of the three months the door was closed. All the parties asked, was a single week to prove their case. He understood that the whole of the evidence was here. As regarded the amount, Lord
550
Althorp did not seek to limit it; he stated that he would grant all that was just. What he required of the House was, that they would do in this case what they did in the case of the admission of the book debts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, no one individual of the House having sustained him in the effort he had made to resist these claims (and a very painful and disagreeable duty he could assure the House he had found it), he felt that he had no alternative but to propose to the hon. Gentleman, that he should leave the matter in his hands, and he would bring the question before the House after the cases had been investigated. He took the liberty of saying, however, that this must be considered as the proposition of the House, and not his. He objected to it on principle, and if he thought he was likely to be supported in his opposition to it, he would resist it still; but the debate having been proceeded with exclusively on the part of the claimants, no one individual, on either side of the House, this being a matter in which party considerations did not enter, having supported him in the view he had taken, he felt that he should be conforming to what appeared to be the desire of the House, in directing an examination to be instituted, and in engaging to bring the subject hereafter under the consideration of the House. He must again express his hope, that the House would not throw on him any of the responsibility of pursuing this course.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, as in the case of Mr. Palmer's motion, the matter was left in the hands of Lord Althorp, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, so he now committed the case to the hands of his right hon. Friend.
Motion agreed to.

MINUTES.
The Royal assent was given by Commission to the Commission of the Peace Bill.
Petition presented. By Lord BROUGHAM, from a respectable and numerous meeting assembled at Exeter-hall, for carrying the provision of the Emancipation of Slaves into full effect.