Sitting of 1 August 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal; Mines Registration.
2o. Arms (Ireland); Debtors and Creditors; Transfer of Property.
Reported.—Art Unions.
3o. and passed:—Savings' Banks; South Sea Company; Fisheries (Ireland); Merchant Seamen.
Private.—1o. Duke of Hamilton and Brandon's Estate.
2o. Lord Cranstoun's Estate.
Reported.—Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore's Estate; Gervis's Estate; Lord Lovat's Estate; Hough's Divorce.
3o. and passed:—Wilson's Estate; Ladbroke's Estate; Passingham's Estate; Werrington, etc. Curacies; Bowyer's Estate; Tralee Navigation and Harbour; Devayne's Estate; Bishop of London's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Ashley, from Welby, against Dissenters Chapels Bill; and from St. Anne's, Limehouse, for better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. P. M. Stewart, from Burry, and Glasgow (2), for Legalizing Presbyterian Marriages (Ireland).—By Mr. Mangles, from Stewart Marjoribanks, Esq., and Colonel Elphinstone, for Production of Petition respecting South Australia.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from J. Young, and others, against Art Unions Bill—By Captain Pechell, from Lieut. Green, for consideration of Petition.—By Colonel Gore Langton, from Bath, against Insolvent Debtors Bill; and by Mr. T. Duncombe, from the Queen's Prison, in favour of same.—By Mr. Mackinnon, from Medical Officers of Horse and Foot Guards, against the new Charter of College of Surgeons.—By Sir H. Campbell, from Lauder, Dunse, Churnside, and Jed-burgh, for Ameliorating Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).

SAVINGS' BANKS.
On the Question that the Savings Banks Bill, which had been read a third time, do pass,
Mr. Humeproposed two Clauses, to the following effect:—
"That whenever the sum standing in the name of any depositor shall amount to one hundred and fifty pounds, principal and interest included, that henceforth no interest shall be payable on such deposit."

1653
"Clause (after 20th November 1844, Trustees not to receive, from any present or future depositor, any sum or sums, exceeding twenty pounds in any one year.)"
The hon. Member said, that his object was to confine the provisions of the Savings Bank Act to those small depositors for whose benefit it was originally intended. Large depositors placed their money in those hanks as a profitable investment of capital, and would withdraw it at once if they saw any more profitable way of employing it. He looked upon this Bill as defective in many respects, but still he considered it as an improvement upon the former state of the law, and hoped for further improvement next Session.
Clauses brought up and read a first time.
On the Question that the Clauses be read a second time,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconsidered the Clauses altogether inexpedient, and defended the policy of allowing deposits of sums larger than 20 l., and up to 30 l. This rule was found of great advantage to sailors, who received their pay in a lump of more than 20 l., and if they had not such means of deposit as the Savings-Banks afforded, they would run the chance of being plundered of it by some of the worst characters to whose society they were exposed. He objected to the second Clause, on the ground that the Act contemplated the extension of its provisions to a higher class of depositors than those who now sent in small sums.
Mr. Aglionbyconcurred in the view taken of the Clauses by the hon. Member for Montrose, and contended that the original Savings Banks were intended to benefit mechanics and others of the humbler classes by encouraging the deposit of small sums.
Mr. Divettconsidered that the persons whose deposits amounted to 150 l. were exactly those kind of industrious depositors whom the Bill was intended to serve. It would be hard to deprive them of interest.
Clauses negatived. Bill passed.

MARRIAGES, (IRELAND.)
On the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair for the purpose of House going into Committee on the Marriages Ireland Bill,
Colonel Rarvdoncomplained of the late period of the Session at which this Bill was brought in, and said, that no gratitude was due to the Government for the manner of its introduction. At the same
1654
time, on the part of the Presbyterians of Ireland, he expressed his approbation of the Bill, which would remedy an existing defect in the law.
Sir J. Grahamadmitted and regretted the delay which intervened between the first introduction of the measure elsewhere and its being brought into that House; but that delay was unavoidable in consequence of the communications which it was necessary to hold with the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland. As to the Government not having the gratitude of the Presbyterians for this Bill, he presumed that the same thing might be said of any Government with respect to any measure. Government did not want the gratitude of the Presbyterians or any other class of the community. It was its duty to attend to the reasonable wants and wishes of all classes of the community without reference to their gratitude, and in the present Bill every thing had been done which could satisfy their wishes on this important subject.
Mr. Bouveriethought the Bill rather late, but still he considered it important, and likely to be beneficial. He should like to see it connected with some general system of registration in Ireland.
Lord J. Russellthought, that full time should be given to the House of Commons to consider with due attention the enactments of such an important measure, and he did not see why the Bill should not have been introduced at a much earlier period of the Session, nor why the House should at length be driven to the alternative of either rejecting important and useful measures, in which class he would admit this Bill must be included, or of passing them without having time to deliberate on their details. This remark would apply also to other important measures which had come before the House towards the close of its Sessional labours. Such a practice, if continued, would tend to render one branch of the Legislature, a mere register of the edicts of the other. In fact, it would be tantamount to allowing the Ministers of the Crown to embody their wishes on particular questions in Bills to which the House of Commons would be compelled to give its formal sanction.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas surprised at the observations of the noble Lord, and the more so as coming from one who had conducted the public business in that House. Did the noble Lord mean to say, that when measures went up from that

1655
House to the Lords at a late period of the Se ion, the latter were merely registering the edicts of the House of Commons? Or, would he say the same thing with respect to measures coming late into the House of Commons from the Lords? There were many and important measures sent late up to the House of Lords, such, for instance, as the Poor Law Amendment Bill. Would the noble Lord apply his principle to that Bill, either that it must be abandoned or passed without due consideration? He would admit that the present Bill had come late into that House, in consequence of the long time occupied in its full consideration in the other House; but would the noble Lord, at the end of a Session, cavil at an important measure because it happened to be brought in unavoidably late?
Lord J. Russellexplained, that he had said by the practice of allowing the early part of the Session to pass away without the introduction of important measures, the Parliament was, at the end of the Session, driven to the alternative of either rejecting useful measures or of passing them without due consideration. To that opinion he still adhered.
Bill passed through a Committee: to be reported.

BISHOP OF LONDON'S ESTATE BILL.
On the Motion that the Bishop of London's Estate Bill be read a third time.
Mr. Wakleyobjected to passing the Bill when it had been before the House only five days. The title of the Bill gave no idea of the nature of its contents, and the public knew nothing whatever about it. Who could suppose for a moment that this Bill was one for regulating the property of Paddington? Even the persons on this property knew nothing about the Bill; at the Great Western Railway nothing was known of it. This Bill would give the Grand Junction Water Company the entire monopoly of the supply of water to all the houses which were to be built on the property. He asked the right hon. Baronet to allow the adjournment of the debate to Wednesday or Thursday next, so that inquiry might be made into the real nature of its provisions. Who would suppose, from the title, that it was a Bill for regulating water-works? Again, there were great complaints made as to the situation of the terminus of the Great Western Railway. At the time of its being built it was stated that it was intended to be only temporary,
1656
and that the water-works were meantime the obstacle to its being brought nearer to the Uxbridge Road. Now, what did the public know of the provisions of the Bill as affecting this matter? The Bill made provisions for reserving sites for an hospital and a church. It said that the Bishop of London and the trustees might grant a site for an hospital—they were authorised to do so—but they were required to grant a site for a church. He should be glad to see the grant of a site for an hospital made peremptory too. Finding that the provisions of this Bill were so multitudinous and complicated that it would take some days to comprehend them, and that nothing was known of the subject; finding that they were grounded upon an agreement made in May last, of the nature of which information was necessary, he thought that opportunity should be given to inquire into them, and ascertain what their effect would be upon the district if enacted into law. If the right hon. Baronet objected to postpone the third reading, it was his opinion that the House ought to reject it. He should move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a third time on Tuesday next.
Sir W. Claysaid, this was solely an Estate Bill; there was not a Clause or a syllable in it that could in the remotest way affect the public. It had gone through all the usual forms to which Private Bills are submitted, and had been carefully examined by a Committee of the House of Lords. Its only object was to give the owners of land in the vicinity of Paddington a valid title in selling their own property. With respect to its alleged bearing on public interests, his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury was under an entire misapprehension. It was not true that it would give an exclusive right of supply to any Water Company every Water Company had an equal right by law, nor did this Bill alter in the smallest degree the existing law. As to the advantage of removing the terminus of the Great Western Railway to a more convenient spot, this Bill would place no obstacle in the way of the purchase of land by the Company for that purpose. The fact was, he believed, that the Railway Company had had the means of obtaining that land for three or four years past, and that they had declined to purchase it. He appealed to the House whether it was a justifiable ground for postponing the Bill, that a third party should be allowed the opportunity of purchasing the ground at some future period. He could assure hon. Members

1657
that not a day had been lost in bringing forward this measure, and any one who knew the care with which Private Bills were investigated by Committees of the House of Lords, might be satisfied that it had been thoroughly examined. Neither the Church nor the Paddington trustees had the slightest interest in the property; as to granting a site for a Church, it was part of the agreement. It was most essential that the Bill should pass; if it did not, very great inconvenience would be experienced. He could assure the House distinctly, that the Bill meddled with no public right. Under the circumstances, looking to the great expense which had been incurred, and no valid objection being brought against it he threw himself on the House not to postpone the Bill.
Mr. Greene, as Chairman of the Committees, had carefully examined the Bill, and could see no objection to it. It was intended to regulate the property which was leased out in the last century by the then Bishop of London, at Paddington. Part of the ground was occupied by the reservoirs of the Water Company, and it was now wished to apply the space to the original purpose of building.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, though the Bill was called a private one, it applied to the property of the Church. He thought that they ought to have had this measure much sooner before the House. He must complain that no breviate had been delivered before the second reading, and he thought the Bill ought to be printed, and some days allowed that Members might be acquainted with the contents. It was because this property would be more valuable if built upon that the Bill was introduced; certainly a Church, and perhaps an hospital, was a sop to the public. It should be made imperative to build an hospital.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, he was on the Standing Orders Committee, and upon inquiring how far the Bishop of London was interested in the measure, was informed that he had only the interest of a peppercorn rent. The Bill, he understood, had no connection with the Church.
Amendment withdrawn.
Bill read a third time and passed.

PENITENTIARY SYSTEM.
Mr. M. O'Ferrallwished to ask, seeing that the Penitentiary system, as practised in the Pentonville prison, had been so successful, whether it was the intention of the Government, during the recess, to consider the
1658
propriety of erecting a similar institution in Dublin?
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that an arrangement had been made in Ireland, as well as in England, on this subject, to which he attached great importance. All persons sentenced to transportation were brought to a central prison before the sentence of transportation was carried into effect, so that an opportunity was afforded to the authorities of investigating the previous habits and characters of such persons, so as to enable them to decide to what settlement it would be most proper they should be sent. Arrangements of that nature had been completed in Dublin, and in this country the arrangement had been effected by abolishing the penitentiary character of the prison at Millbank, and converting it into a prison for persons under sentence of transportation. His confidence in the success of the experiment now carrying on at Pentonville was so great, that as far as he was individually concerned he would be glad to see it extended to Ireland; but it would be premature in him to state what might be the intentions of the Government on that subject. It would be the duty of himself and his Colleagues to watch the experiment, and if it turned out as he hoped, and was anxious it should, he thought it would be extended to Ireland.

CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
On the Order of the Day being read, for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) Bill,
Sir James Grahamwas anxious to explain two or three Amendments which it was his intention to propose during the progress of the measure through Committee. Considering the vast amount of Roman Catholic charities which would come under the control of the Board to be constituted under this Bill—and considering also that five of the ten Commissioners to be nominated by the Crown would be Roman Catholics—it had been felt expedient that a gentleman of the Roman Catholic religion should be appointed to act us joint secretary for the Roman Catholic members of the Board. It might be erroneously presumed, considering the large powers given to this Commission, that judicial powers, independently of the Supreme Courts, were conferred upon them; and in order to remove all doubts on this subject, he intended to move that a proviso be added to one of the Clauses, enacting that nothing

1659
contained in the Bill should be construed to limit or affect the jurisdiction of any Court of Law or Equity with reference to these Bequests. But these alterations were of less importance than one he intended to propose in Clause 13. The House would recollect that when this Bill was last under discussion, he stated that there was an obvious legal imperfection in this Clause, as it came down from the other House. As the Clause now stood it failed to carry out the announced intention of the Government. The Government had declared it to be their wish to give facilities for voluntary endowments, not only for dignitaries of the Church of Rome, but for the parochial priesthood of that Church; and not only for those now in office, but also for those who might be their successors. The Clause, as it now stood, gave effect to the former part of this intention, with respect to the clergy now officiating; but it did not give effect to the intention of the proposers of the Bill, with regard to the successors of the present dignitaries and parochial clergy of the Church of Rome. It would, therefore, be necessary to alter the phraseology of that Clause. The Government, in framing this Bill, had been most anxious to avoid using any phraseology which could be offensive on the one hand, or which might fail to be explicit on the other. Some comments had been made the other night as to the omissions in this Bill of the titles "Archbishop" and "Bishop," with reference to the Roman Catholic Clergy. He believed, and he still thought that the words "persons in Holy Orders in the said Church of any higher rank or order than priests," did include, in a manner most unobjectionable, the higher dignitaries, Archbishops and Bishops. If, however, any feeling of dissatisfaction was entertained on this subject by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was bound to say that looking back to the Statutes of this country from an early period, there had been a recognition of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Rome; and the Church of England, with reference to many of her most solemn rites, admitted the authority of the Archbishops and Bishops of that Church. He had demurred, and he still demurred to the right of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Rome claiming titles as affixed to certain localities and districts in Ireland; but hoping to conciliate the feelings of those who were deeply interested in this measure—and having no other desire than, as far as was
1660
consistent with the maintenance of sound principles, to tender that which might be acceptable to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects—the Government were anxious to make such tender in the form and in the terms which might be most satisfactory. He would, therefore, propose the omission of these words in Clause 13, line 5:—
"In trust for any Priest in Holy Orders of the Church of Rome, or for building a residence for his use, so long as he shall have the pastoral superintendence of any district, or of any congregation of persons professing the; Roman Catholic religion, or in trust for any person of the said Church, of any higher rank or order."
And he would propose to insert, in their stead, the words:—
"Or for any Archbishop or Bishop, or other person in Holy Orders of the Church of Rome, officiating in any district, or having pastoral superintendence of any congregation of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion; and for those who shall, from time to time, so officiate, or succeed to the said pastoral superintendence; or for building residences for such persons."
The Government had gone the utmost length in their power, consistently with the principles they must maintain, in order to meet the wishes of the Roman Catholic, and having made these concessions he must add that it would be their duty to resist any further alterations.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. G. Vernonexpressed his gratification, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was prepared to make the concessions he had now announced. In his opinion, the Protestant Church of this country could have no objection to recognize the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, so far as their spiritual functions were concerned.
Lord J. Russellsaid, when he read this Bill he considered that it was a very useful measure, intended to secure a very desirable object; though some words were introduced which he regretted, and there were some omissions which, in his opinion, rendered the Bill imperfect. At the same time he must say, that it did not appear to him that the words to which he alluded were introduced with any offensive intention. They seemed to him rather to be mistakes which had occurred in the drawing of the Bill; and he was glad that the right hon. Baronet intended to propose the alterations he had mentioned. With regard to the

1661
first alteration mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, he never conceived it could be the intention of the Bill that power should be given to secure an endowment to a single priest, so long as he held a particular charge, and that when he ceased to hold that charge it should not descend to his successors. The right hon. Baronet had, however, intimated his intention to propose the insertion of words which would secure such endowment to the successors of the person to whom it was originally granted. He could not understand why words should not be introduced into this Bill simply and plainly mentioning the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Rome, for they could not be ignorart that there were Archbishops and Bishops of that Church, who had always been acknowledged in their spiritual character. With respect to the question of giving Roman Catholic Bishops titles derived from their dioceses, he would not raise that point at the present moment, but there might, he conceived, be easily devised means of assigning them titular districts in Ireland which would neither interfere with nor offend other parties. He entirely coincided in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Baronet, that it would not have been wise to insert any such matter into the present Bill, which had been framed for certain purposes, and it was very wisely limited to those objects, namely, that of giving effect to Roman Catholic endowments, and for granting to the Archbishops, Bishops, and other persons connected with the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland a more perfect enjoyment of such property than they at present possessed. He trusted, after the observations that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, and the spirit in which the proposed Amendments were offered to the House, that the measure would now be acquiesced in.
Mr. M. O'Ferrall, as one of those who had objected to the Bill in its original state, begged to tender his acknowledgments for the concessions that had been made by the Government, which he accepted most cheerfully, and which he valued more on account of the spirit in which they were offered than on account of the alterations in the Bill itself—though they possessed some importance. It was, he trusted, an unfounded fear that any captiousness would be shown towards the measure after the speech of the right hon. Baronet; but at the same time he hoped the House would believe that in a matter so deeply interesting to the religious feelings of a people as
1662
the Bill was, it was not only excusable, but also highly necessary, for those who represented that people to call the attention of the Government and the country to those portions of it by which their feelings were wounded.
The O'Connor Donhad felt it his duty to vote against the second reading of the Bill, though he did so with great reluctance, being convinced the Government had brought it forward solely with a view to promote the interests and consult the feelings and wishes of the people of Ireland. He now entirely approved of it, and he accepted the alterations that had been proposed in the same conciliatory spirit in which the right hon. Baronet had offered them. There was still one objection, however, which he entertained, and which was insurmountable as far as it went, and that was, to the interference of laymen in matters which they were by the very first principles of the Roman Catholic Church prohibited from touching—namely, questions affecting the doctrine, discipline, and tenets of that Church. He most earnestly wished to hear it announced by the Government, that some members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland would be nominated by Her Majesty to act as Commissioners, and introduced as such amongst the laymen who were to be selected from amongst the Roman Catholic body, as by this means the only remaining source of jealousy and disaffection towards the Bill would be removed.
Mr. P. Howardhad heard the remarks of the right hon. Baronet in proposing the Amendments to the Bill with great satisfaction. The concession that had been made was valuable in point of feeling, but to render it so in point of practice the Government ought to nominate on the Commission one or more of the Roman Catholic Archbishops or Bishops, by which means efficiency would be given to the whole measure. Or, if he might suggest an alteration in the Bill, he would propose that the words "other dignitaries" be introduced in the Clause relating to that subject, by which means Archdeacons, Deans, &c, might become members of the Board of Commissioners.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that it would be more in consonance with the feelings of the House and with the manner in which its acceptance of the proposed alterations in the Bill had already been signified, if it were to be left in the state in which those amendments would leave it, and if

1663
the Crown also were to be suffered to remain entirely unfettered as to the Commissioners who were to be appointed in the same manner. That was observed with respect to exclusively Protestant Commissions; and it, he conceived, might very reasonably be anticipated that if, in the operation of the Commission, it were found that the nomination of a Roman Catholic Church dignitary would tend to increase its efficiency or utility, the Crown would regard this necessity with favourable eyes, and not render it necessary for the Parliament to exhibit such distrust as to bind it down by itself to make such nomination. He hoped, therefore, the House would consent to accept the alterations as the Government had proposed in the measure without exacting concessions that ought hardly to be demanded. All he could say at present on the subject was, that the same spirit of conciliation and desire to consult the feelings and welfare of those concerned which had already been manifested by the Government would influence the nomination of the Commissioners, and he trusted this assurance would be deemed satisfactory.
Mr. Shawsaid, that objections to the Bill after the proposed Amendments had been made, might, in his opinion, have been looked for from a very opposite quarter to that in which they appeared likely to arise; he, however, accepted the measure in the spirit in which it was offered, and should make no remarks hostile to that spirit, or calculated to discompose the feeling of harmony which had been exhibited on the other side of the House. He thought that there was an objection which still remained to the measure, and he made that observation with distinct reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet below him, as to the expediency and propriety of leaving the Crown unfettered in its power of appointing the Members of the Commission to act under the Bill. He objected on this ground to the second Clause of the Bill, by which five Roman Catholic and five Protestant Commissioners were to be preremptorily nominated as members. He considered that this enactment would fetter the operation of the Bill, and create difficulties by keeping up distinctions which, it was professed, ought to be abolished, and which might occasion some one person in the Commission to take a different religious view of questions coming under its consideration from that adopted
1664
by another. Practically also the compulsory nomination of five Roman Catholics might be found extremely inconvenient, if not impossible to carry into effect, for a case might arise in which the Government would not be able to find five Roman Catholic gentlemen who were qualified and willing to act on the Commission, and how, under such circumstances, would the enactment be complied with? It would be far more in accordance with the conciliatory spirit which had been manifested towards the measure if the Government were to be left entirely unfettered as well on one side as on the other, giving the Crown the power of nominating such Roman Catholics to act in the capacity of commissioners as might be found willing and able to perform those duties.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, were such as to do him credit. He would not break in upon the general feeling of harmony which prevailed on all sides with respect to this measure, but he lamented that he could not coincide in the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw), seeing that Ireland was in such a state as to render it expedient for her to secure her Jury, if it were within her power to do so. With reference to the adoption of the titles of Archbishop and Bishop into the Act, it was a mistake to suppose there was no precedent for the acknowledgments of those dignities in the Roman Catholic Church in the Parliamentary Records. In recent estimates, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec was distinctly provided for under that title, and if it were objected that Canada was a Roman Catholic country, then he would point to Newfoundland, which was a Protestant settlement, the Roman Catholic Bishop of which place was likewise named, for a small sum to be sure, in the estimates; so that in two instances precedents for the Parliamentary acknowledgment of the title existed. The Roman Catholics of Ireland hoped that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would grant them a majority of ecclesiastics as their representatives at the Board of Commissioners. He had intimated that some ecclesiastics of that creed should form part of the Commission, but the Roman Catholics would greatly prefer a majority of them there. They had it in the case of Maynooth, and why not the present case? There existed on this subject a very strong feeling both amongst Roman Catholic laymen and the

1665
hierarchy of that Church in Ireland. He had received a letter from a Roman Catholic Archbishop on the subject, where in the writer declared that the 6th Clause of the Bill was an infringement on the tenets of his Church, such as no Roman Catholic layman would venture upon. It might be regretted that such was the constitution of his Church, but the fact could not be altered. To any fiscal interference the Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood could entertain no reasonable objection as far as laymen were concerned, but where doctrinal matters and questions affecting the discipline of their Church were to come under such supervision, the objections which they had to such proceedings were insuperable on both sides.
Mr. D. Brownehad been informed by his own diocesan, that the Bill did interfere with the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. As a member of that Church, he could not do otherwise than believe this statement, and consequently he must oppose the 6th Clause, whereby a power was granted to certain persons to declare who were the Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, and Priests of the Irish Roman Catholic Church, a power to which no person but one had hitherto ever laid claim, and which that person would never consent to see exercised by any one but himself. He hoped, therefore, the Government would not force a measure upon Ireland which the people there not only disavowed as a boon, but positively regarded in the light of an injury.
Mr. Wyse, for one, was of opinion that it was impossible for any civilized country to leave its charities and its charitable institutions without any control. It was, therefore, wise and a provident proceeding of the Government to adopt and to enforce some general form of proceeding under which the charities of the nation were administered. But there was likewise a species of charity distinct from, and totally unconnected with, that class to which he had referred, and which fell under the denomination of religious endowments, which consequently could not fall within the cognizance of the General Board of Charities established by the Government. He had no objection to the first portion of the Bill, but at the same time he carefully guarded himself against expressing any approval of parties individually put upon the Committee. He thought it would be advisable to make exceptions in favour of
1666
religious orders which were established solely for the promotion of Christian charity, and that they should have endowments.
House in Committee.
On the 6th Clause,
Mr. Sheilmoved as an Amendment, that of the five Commissioners being Roman Catholics, to whom questions of doctrine or discipline concerning that Church shall be referred, three shall be Archbishops or Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. He thought this an important principle, and he wished to obtain for it a legislative sanction.
Sir R. Peelwas against fettering the discretion of the Crown. He assured the Committee that the subject should receive from Her Majesty's Government the fullest and the fairest consideration, but he thought that the decision and the selection on the subject should be left in the hands of the Crown, as a matter of grace and favour.
Mr. D. Brownewas determined to take the sense of the House on it.
Mr. M. O'Ferrallsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had plainly intimated that three Bishops should be appointed, and he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that whether they decided against the Government or not could be to them a matter of no importance; for if they had no confidence in the advisers of the Crown the insertion of such an Amendment could afford them no protection, seeing that Ministers might, if they should feel so disposed, appoint three Prelates the least acceptable to the great body of the Irish people.
The Committee divided on the Question that the words proposed be inserted:—Ayes 14; Noes 36. Majority 22.

List of the AYES.

Archbold, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bellew, R. M.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bernal, Captain

Somers, J. P.

Blake, M.

Williams, W.

Browne, hon. W.

Wyse, T.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Esmonde, Sir T.

TELLERS

Howard, P. H.

Sheil, rt hon. R. L.

McGeachy, F. A.

Dillon, R.

List of the NOES.

Beresford, Major

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Courtenay, Lord

Borthwick, P.

Cripps, W.

Bowles, Adm.

Duncan, C.

Brotherton, J.

Eliot, Lord

Clerk, Sir G.

Escott, B.

1667

Forman, T. S.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Polhill, F.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Pringle, A.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Rawdon, Col.

Greenhall, P.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Herbert, hon. S.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B.C.

Hinde, J. H.

Spooner, R.

Hope, hon. C.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Humphery, Ald.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Jermyn, Earl

Wawn, J. T.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Lincoln, Earl of

TELLERS

Meynell, Capt.

Young, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Clauses to Clause 13 were agreed to, with verbal alterations.
In the 13th Clause,
"Persons or bodies may by Deed vest lands, &c. in the Commissioners, in trust for building any Chapel or place for religious worship, of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, or in trust for any Archbishop, Bishop, or other person in Holy Orders, in the Church of Rome, &c and such estate, interest, or property, in such lands, &c. shall vest in and be holden by the said Commissioners, subject to the trusts of such Deed, without any writ or license other than this Act."
Colonel Rawdonmoved to insert the following words:—
"Provided always, that if any question shall arise as to who is the Roman Catholic priest, or other Roman Catholic clergyman entitled to the benefit of any such Grantor Bequest as aforesaid, the same shall be determined by a certificate or other evidence from the Roman Catholic Bishop who is the ecclesiastical superior of the person who may be so entitled."
The Committee divided on the question that these words be inserted:—Ayes 19; Noes 38: Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Archbold, R.

Mitchell, T. A.

Bellew, R. M.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bernal, Capt.

Plumridge, Capt.

Blake, M.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Brotherton, J.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Browne, R. D.

Somers, J. P.

Browne, hon. W.

Stewart, P. M.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Wawn, J. T.

Duncan, G.

TELLERS.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Rawdon, Col.

Howard, P. H.

O'Connell, M. J.

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P.

Broadley, H.

Beresford, Major

Clayton, R. R.

Boldero, H. G.

Clerk, Sir G.

Borthwick, P.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Bowles, Ad.

Cripps, W.

Brisco, M.

Eliot, Lord

1668

Escott, B.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Farnham, E. B.

Knight, H. G.

Forman, T. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Polhill, F.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Rumbold, C. E.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B.C.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Greenall, P.

Spooner, R.

Henley, J. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Herbert, hon. S.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Hinde, J. H.

Hope, hon. C.

TELLERS.

Jermyn, Earl

Young, J.

Jones, Capt.

Pringle, A.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 14,
"No Donation, Devise, or Bequest for pious or charitable uses, shall be valid to create or convey any estate in lands, tenements, or hereditaments, unless the Deed, Will, or Instrument be executed three calendar months at least before the death of the person executing the same."
Mr. D. Brownemoved, that it be omitted.
Lord Eliotsaid, the effect of the Clause would be, to place the Roman Catholics upon a better footing than any other class of Her Majesty's subjects. It did not affect personal property, and was only a relaxation of the Statute of Mortmain.
Mr. Sheilopposed the Clause. It seemed to be very absurd that a man could leave 10,000 l. to a Roman Catholic priest a few minutes before he died, but could not leave five acres of land. There was no real distinction between leaving money and leaving land in trust.
Mr. T. B. C. Smith(Attorney General for Ireland) defended the Clause. The distinction referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been recognized in this country for a lengthened period.
The Committee divided on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 48; Noes 9: Majority 39.

List of the AYES.

Allix, J. P.

Duncan, G.

Beresford, Major

Eliot, Lord

Blackburne, J. I.

Farnham, E. B.

Boldero, H. G.

Fellowes, E.

Borthwick, P.

Forman, T. S.

Bowles, Adm.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Brisco, M.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Broadley, H.

Gladstone, rt, hn. W.E.

Brotherton, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Clayton, R. R.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Hale, R. B.

Cripps, W.

Henley, J. W.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Herbert, hon. S.

1669

Hinde, J. H.

Round, J.

Hope, hon. C.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Howard, P. H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hutt, W.

Spooner, R.

Jermyn, Earl

Stewart, P. M.

Jones, Capt.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Thesiger, Sir F.

Knight, H. G.

Wawn, J. T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

TELLERS

Polhill, F.

Young, J.

Rawdon, Col.

Pringle, A.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Bellew, R. M.

Somers, J. P.

Browne, hon. W.

Wyse, T.

Esmonde, Sir T.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, M. J.

Blake, D.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Browne, D.

Clause agreed to.
Clauses to the 19th also agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Piccadilly Improvement; Slaughtering Horses; Clerks to Attorneys; Tralee Navigation and Harbour; Spirits (Ireland); Savings' Banks; Woods and Forests Accounts; Grand Canal (Ireland); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
2a. Militia Pay; Joint Stock Companies Remedies at Law and in Equity; Poor Law Amendment; Joint Stock Banks Regulation; Criminal Justice (Middlesex); Municipal Corporations; Customs (New South Wales); Books and Engravings; Protection of Purchasers, etc. (Ireland).
Reported.—Railways; Turnpike Trusts (South Wales).
3a. and passed:—Transfer of Licenses (Post Horses); Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal; Law Courts (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions; Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
Private.—Reported.—Duke of Hamilton and Brandon's Estate; London and Croydon Railway; Swansea Improvement.
3a. and passed:—Duke of Hamilton and Brandon's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Banbridge, and Stranorlar Unions, against the Poor Laws (Ireland).—From G. C. Rapier, of Newcastle, against the Poor Law Amendment Act; and from Guardians of Holywell Union, for Alteration of Bastardy Clauses.—From British-born Jews of Portsmouth, for Removal of Disabilities.—From Debtor Prisoners in Durham Gaol, and Queen's Bench, in favour of the Debtors and Creditors Bill.—From Bishop, Clergy, and Lay Members of the United Church of England and Ireland in Dioceses of Down and Connor, for Educating the Children of the Poor in the principles of the Established Church.—From Guardians of the United District of Montgomery and Pool, against any Alteration of the Local Acts of said District.

THE COURTS OF COMMON LAW PROCESS BILL, AND THE COURTS OF COMMON LAW (IRELAND) PROCESS BILL.
Lord Campbellwished to draw their Lordships' attention to the Amendments made by the Commons in these Bills respecting the right of suing parties residing abroad for debt, which had been sent down from their Lordships' House and were now returned. The first Amendment, as it merely explained more fully what he considered the intention of the Bill to be, namely, that the Act should apply only to parties who were actually domiciled abroad, he did not object to, and he would advise their Lordships to agree to it. But the second was a very strange one, and excluded persons domiciled in Scotland from the operation of the Bill. In this he could not conceive that there was any reason, and he therefore should recommend their Lordships not to agree to it. He supposed that a conference with the other House would be necessary.
First Amendment agreed to; a conference with the Commons to be requested as to the second.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS.
Lord Brougham(on presenting a Petition) said, that in consequence of the expectation which prevailed for some time past, that a Bill would immediately be passed for the alteration of the laws affecting Insolvent Debtors, many persons had neglected to give the necessary notices, under the existing law, and they were now under the impression that they would be obliged to remain in prison until December next, before they could obtain relief. The best way to dissipate the apprehensions of these poor people would be to make public the effect of the Bill which had passed their Lordships' House, and was now in progress through the House of Commons. Under its provisions, there would be no necessity for any person to remain several months in prison, as it would only require a sheet of paper and a stamp for a statement of any case, which being sent to the Commissioners would insure
1642
a hearing. All the debtor would have to do, under this measure, was, to frame a petition, and to send it in to the Commissioners. All the rest would be done by the Commissioners, without any expense at all. He should draw up a short statement of this nature, and have it printed and universally circulated through the press, in order that parties might not suffer any hardship through ignorance of the fact.

THE GAME ACT.
Lord Lilfordsaid, he had given notice of his intention to put a question to the noble Lord opposite, in reference to a letter addressed to the governor of the gaol of Northampton, by the Secretary for the Home Department, requiring a statement of all summary convictions under the Game Act, which had taken place in that county. That letter had created considerable observation; and he wished to know under what circumstances it was written, and whether it was intended to cast any imputation on the Magistrates who had made these summary convictions.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, certainly no such intention existed. That letter had been addressed to others besides the governor of Northampton Gaol; he believed, indeed, that it was a general circular which had been sent to all the counties. The fact was, that the Secretary for the Home Department found that a great number of convictions took place under the Game Laws, and that many irregularities had occurred. He therefore was anxious to obtain a correct return of convictions under those laws, according to the form pointed out in the letter, in order that such irregularities might be corrected.

THE FRENCH PROTECTORATE OF TAHITI.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he had given notice to his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of his intention to ask a question relative to the extraordinary proceedings that had lately taken place in one of the South Sea Islands, when a British subject was seized and confined; but, in consequence of what had fallen from a right hon Gentleman in another place, that question had been rendered almost superfluous. Still, as their Lordships ought not to be dependent for information on reports from other quarters, and as the subject was certainly not unworthy of further notice, he would ask his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether the accounts which had been made public of these transactions were correct,

1643
and whether any reparation had been made for the outrages therein stated to have been offered; and, if not, whether any measures had been taken to obtain it?
The Earl of Aberdeen: It is undoubtedly true, that a gross outrage has been committed against the person of a British subject; indeed, so flagrant an outrage, that, if I had not received an authentc account of the transaction, it would have appeared to me almost incredible. But I wish to observe to the House that this proceeding has taken place, not only without the possible knowledge, or instruction, or participation, of the French Government, but under a state of things which has been disavowed by them. It will be recollected that, in the month of September last, the French authorities in the island of Tahiti dethroned the Queen, and took absolute possession of, and exercised the full rights of sovereignty over that island. As soon as a representation on the subject was made by this country, the proceeding was promptly disavowed by the French Government, just about the time that the transaction at present complained of took place, in the month of March last. But during the intervening months, it is clear that a state of things existed that would account for certain acts which it would be impossible to anticipate under another and a more satisfactory state of things. Now, the gentleman to whom the noble Marquess has referred—at the time when the French took actual possession of the island, and proceeded to exercise all the rights of Sovereignty—that gentleman immediately hauled down his flag, and gave an official intimation or notice to the authorities that he was no longer Her Britannic Majesty's Consul there—that the Queen having been dethroned, he had no longer any official character. So that, in point of fact, however improper and unjust the proceedings might be which placed him under the necessity of abandoning his official position, he was not, at the time when the recent transactions occurred, occupying any, and was not recognized as occupying any official situation. Now, although the power which has been exercised and the arbitrary and unprecedented proceedings that have taken place could not be justified against any British subject, having an official character or not, still the circumstances under which the transaction took place must make some difference in the manner in which it is to be received. I said before that this proceeding had taken
1644
place without the slightest knowledge or encouragement of the French Government, and I have no doubt that they will regard it with as much concern as we do. I am afraid, however, that the late transaction will prove a godsend to the enemies of peace between the two countries, and I have do doubt that it will be turned to a good account in furthering their views, but I trust, and have every reason to believe, that by the exercise of a spirit of justice and moderation, will lead to no serious consequences. I have every reason to believe that the French Government will regard it in the manner in which such a transaction should be viewed; and I can only say, that not a moment has been lost in making such representations to that Government as appeared to me to be suitable to the circumstances of the case.
The Earl of Mintoobserved, that nothing could be more satisfactory than the noble Earl's assurance on that point, which, indeed, he believed they were all prepared to expect, namely, that the acts of those officers were wholly unauthorized by the French Government, and were totally foreign to their wishes. It was impossible to imagine that a Government which had the same deep interest with ourselves in the preservation of peace should have lent its authority to an act so calculated to lead to its interruption. He was entirely satisfied, therefore, with all the noble Earl had said as to the feeling of France; and he was satisfied, also, that the noble Earl would be content with nothing less from France than the full atonement for the outrage, which it was the noble Earl's duty to demand. There was one point, however, upon which he did desire some further information, a question which, however, he ought rather to put to the noble Earl of First Lord of the Admiralty, as to the means which had been taken by the Government to provide against the recurrence of any such misfortune. Aware as the Government were of the violent nature of the proceedings of France at an earlier period, he should like to be assured that they had taken proper measures to maintain our naval force at Tahiti in such strength as was necessary to protect the honour and interests of the nation. He hoped he should not find that at the time these outrages occurred we were inadequately represented in the seas of the Pacific? He (the Earl of Minto) would not enter further into the question, unless the answer which he should receive from his noble Friend should satisfy

1645
him and lead him to believe that little or no force whatever was stationed at that island. He knew that when the French took possession of the island we had a very considerable force there, and that, in consequence of some correspondence which had passed between the Captain of the Vindictive and the French authorities there, that frigate had been recalled. He (the Earl of Minto) should like to be informed of the cause of that proceeding, and whether, pending such discussions, and in the circumstances in which that country was placed, the Vindictive was recalled and the island left unprotected by a sufficient force? He should now conclude by asking his noble Friend if there was any, and what force, at the island of Tahiti?
The Earl of Haddingtonreplied, that at the time this proceeding took place, in March last, Tahiti was not, and indeed it never had been, devoid of the presence of a British ship of war. He was not able at the moment to give full information upon the point, but his opinion was that last March there was present there a frigate of a minor class. His noble Friend appeared to have made himself master of the precise dates, and he (the Earl of Haddington) could not pretend to follow him as the question had been put to him entirely without notice. The Vindictive was out there formerly; she was succeeded by the Dublin, a large fifty gun ship which was present when the French took possession of the island. When the Dublin left, every thing was quiet, and she was succeeded by a frigate of a smaller size; whether it was the Carysfort or the Talbot, he could not at that moment recollect. The Vindictive was recalled simply because her time for foreign service had expired. Captain Toup Nicholas had been ordered a considerable time since to return home, but he was kept on the station by the Admiral, entirely with the approbation of the home authorities. The America, had since gone out to replace the Vindictive, and the Collingwood was just about to sail for the station with the flag of Admiral Sir George Seymour.
The Earl of Mintowished to know this—was not the Vindictive removed from Tahiti by the order of the Home Government? Was she not removed without any measures being taken to replace her? It was said that Queen Pomare sought refuge on board the Basilisk. Was that the "frigate of a smaller class," to which allusion had been made? If so, she was "a frigate of a smaller class" indeed.
The Earl of Haddington'simpression was, that there was a larger vessel at Tahiti than the Basilisk. The Basilisk was only a ketch.
Lord Kinnairdfelt entirely satisfied that the French Government never had sanctioned, and never could sanction, what had taken place at Tahiti. He thought, however, that some blame attached to our Government for ever letting them take it under their "protection" at all. If there had been any sort of protectorate, it should have been a joint protectorate. He should be glad to know also, if Queen Pomare had not been restored after the first outrage? If that were the case, Mr. Pritchard of course resumed his post as British Consul, and was British Consul when the last act of violence took place.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that in dealing with occurrences at the antipodes it was difficult to say precisely when or under what circumstances certain acts took place, but he believed that about the present time, and not before, Queen Pomare would be restored. It was in March last that the French Government repudiated the acts of their officers at Tahiti, and as he had just received accounts from Tahiti, dated in March, it was probable that about this time, and not before, the instructions of the French Government would reach its officers in the Southern Seas. Queen Pomare would then be immediately restored, not to all her rights, but to the same position in which she was placed under the former protectorate. With regard to the joint protectorate of which the noble Lord spoke, he should know that offers of a protectorate of these islands had been on two or three different occasions offered to the British Government, and as invariably refused.
The Earl of Mintoasked, whether the French Admiral had been recalled?
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that Admiral Dupetit Thouars had been recalled in March last, in consequence of his assumption of the sovereignty of the island. He had been succeeded by Admiral Hamelin, who was now, he believed, on his way out.

RAILWAYS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
The Earl of Dalhousiemoved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. His Lordship having referred to the evidence taken before the Railways Committee of the House of Commons, on the Report of which the measure

1647
was founded, and having adverted to the high rate of fares on English Railways as compared with those of France, Germany, and Belgium—the want of accommodation for third class passengers—the tendency of Railways to put an end to all competition, and by shutting out from the public all other means of conveyance, to become monopolies, contrary to the intentions of the Legislature—and the necessity for Parliamentary interference, for which no time was so opportune as the present, when there were so many Railway speculations in contemplation—proceeded to describe the various leading provisions of the Bill. He understood that it was objected to the measure that the principle it contained of limiting the profits of Railway Companies was novel and inexpedient; he contended, however, that the principle was not new, for it had been applied by Parliament to other bodies; he would mention in particular, that it was customary for the Legislature to interfere with the Gas and other Companies and limit their profits, and to require that the public should not be required to pay a price beyond that which was sufficient to pay the projectors of the speculation a fair remuneration for the capital they embarked; and as to the inexpediency of that interference, he believed the necessity for it in the cases to which it had hitherto been applied was generally admitted by the public. It was also objected, that in consequence of the Government having the power of revision, Railway Companies would resort to some delusions in declaring their dividends; but with the precautions the Government had taken, and their power of inspection and supervision, he had no fears upon that head. Again, it was said, that the Companies would expend their money unnecessarily and wastefully, in order to diminish their profits, and reduce their dividends below the standard at which Government acquired their right of interference, viz., 10 per cent. But he thought it a sufficient answer that they would never do that, knowing that they would thereby reduce the annual rate of profit upon which the amount of purchase money, supposing the Government should interfere to purchase, would be calculated. Another objection to this power of revision was, that it was calculated to discourage Railway enterprise; judging, however, from the number of applications that had lately been made to Parliament for new Railway Bills, he was convinced there was not the slightest
1648
foundation for such an objection. As to the provision for securing to the poorer class of travellers the means of travelling at moderate fares, he was sure their Lordships must all concur with him in thinking that it was the duty of the Government to introduce Clauses into this Bill in order to effect this object. He had heard it recommended that all Railway Companies, as well those already incorporated as those hereafter to be incorporated, should be compelled to provide third-class carriages by every train. On almost all Railways in the neighbourhood of large towns he thought third-class trains might be provided; but on many of the business lines he considered the enforcement of such a provision would be productive of the greatest loss to the proprietors. He had, therefore, provided by the 6th Clause, that on all future Railways and on all Railways applying for alterations in their powers, there should be a train started once a day, at a convenient hour, provided with seats and protection from the weather, and at fair and moderate charges—in two years, in fact, all Railways would in all probability be subject to this provision. In recommending this measure to their Lordships he did not wish to be thought as reproaching Railway Companies for the manner in which they had hitherto acted; on the contrary, they had, in his opinion, been of inestimable benefit to the community, and he thought it was impossible to estimate too highly their enterprise and their skill, which had combined to produce such marvellous results, accompanied with such immense public advantages. The Government now deemed it their duty to look to the future, and to endeavour, whilst they secured to the proprietors of Railway undertakings a full remuneration for the capital they had embarked and the risks they had encountered, to guard the interests of the public from encroachment, and to insure to them a participation in the benefits of the system.
The Bishop of Lichfieldgave notice, on behalf of the Bishop of London, that it was the intention of his right rev. Friend, on the third reading of the Bill, to move as an Amendment to the 6th Clause, to leave out the words "on every day," and to insert these words, "On every weekday, except Christmas-day and Good Friday."
House in Committee.
Bill reported without Amendments.

LAW COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Wharncliffemoved the third reading (according to Order).
The Lord Chancellorhad still an objection to make to this Bill, which had just been proposed by his noble Friend. By the Common Law of this country, the appointments were in the Judges of those Courts, and he should now read a passage from Lord Coke, for the purpose of showing that that was the law, and also giving reason for it. The passage was to be found in the Second Institute and had reference to the Statute of Westminster. There it was stated, that, by the Common Law, the Judges of the Courts had the appointment of their officers, and the reason given for this was, that it was more their duty to select proper officers, who would faithfully perform the duties imposed upon them—and if these officers did not do that it would be a reproach to the judges themselves, who were responsible for the proper keeping of the records of these Courts. This was the course in England from the earliest periods, and within the last few years when an Act was brought in, similar to that which was then before their Lordships, it was provided, that the appointments should be in the Chief Justices and Chief Baron. That was the course in England. Why were they to deviate from that course in Ireland? The Common Law of England was the Common Law of Ireland, and until a very late period the practice in this respect was the same in both countries. By 1st of Geo. IV. the appointments were taken from the Judges, and given to the Lord Lieutenant. No reason was stated for doing that; but for some particular purpose, which was not stated on the face of the Act, these appointments were taken from the Chief Justices and given to the Lord Lieutenant. It was rather remarkable that two years ago an Act of Parliament for the purpose of remodelling the offices in these Courts was proposed by the same person who brought in this Bill, and in that Bill there was a Clause corresponding with the law in England, by which the appointments were transferred back from the Lord lieutenant to the Judges of the Courts in Ireland, from whom they ought never to have been taken. Now, however, they had the Bill of two years ago again before them, but by it the appointment of officers were continued to the Lord Lieutenant, and not restored, as they should be to the Judges. Under these circumstances, he trusted that their Lordships would be of opinion that
1650
the Clause ought to be altered, and the Bill made to correspond with the English Act. Why, then, was Ireland to be put on a different footing from England? Were they not continually saying that they would administer the same law and the same justice to Ireland where they could be applied? If, then, they laid that down as a principle of legislation, the moment they made an exception to it, they reflected upon the parties against whom the exception was made. If they did not give to the Judges in Ireland that which the Judges in England had, they said that the Irish Judges were undeserving of exercising that authority—that they would be likely to abuse it—and they drew a distinction between the Judges in England and the Judges in Ireland, who so well performed their duties, and were utterly undeserving of any reflection being cast upon them. In his opinion nothing could be more unwise, nothing could be more impolitic in the present state of Ireland than this, and he might also add, nothing could be more prejudicial to the interest of the United Empire. He proposed, then, that the Clause be struck out. [Lord Campbell said he had a Motion to the same effect.] He had forgotten his noble and learned Friend had a Motion to that effect. If his noble and learned Friend would have the kindness to propose it, he should have great pleasure in supporting it.
Lord Campbellsaid, he had heard with most sincere pleasure, the sentiments which had fallen from his noble and learned Friend, and the irrefragable arguments by which he had supported the views he had expressed. He had likewise with much pleasure heard his noble Friend (Lord Fortescue), who had been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, cheer the sentiments of his noble and learned Friend. He should move that for the words "Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor of Ireland," in the 7th section, should be substituted the words, "Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, as the same shall be in the Court of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas or Exchequer."
The Lord Chancellorbegged to supply an omission of his, and to state that the Bill went so far as to take away the appointment to some minor offices which had been allowed to remain with the Chief Justices.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, it was quite impossible

1651
possible for him to contend against the high law authorities who had addressed the House, but the truth was, that the facts of the case were not as they were stated by either one or the other of the noble and learned Lords. He (Lord Wharncliffe) believed that at no time in Ireland were the appointments in the hands of the Judges of the great Courts. The offices were sinecure offices, and persons were appointed by the holders of them to do the duties, so that the appointment to the duties of these offices was never in the hands of the Judges. The Act of Parliament was twenty-three years old. It had up to this time been acted on, and the present Judges had accepted their situations with a perfect knowledge of the conditions with respect to these appointments. He wished, however, to have time to consult with the law officers of the Crown before he decided upon the proposed Amendments.
The Lord Chancellor: If the appointments are by the Common Law of England in the hands of the Judges, why should not the Common Law of Ireland and of England be the same? Perhaps the authorities of the Crown may have usurped from the Judges what the Law and Constitution gave the latter. I do not deny the possibility,
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he had had the honour of having been in communication with some of the high legal authorities at the other side of the water, and their idea as to the Common Law on this point entirely corresponded with the high authority of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. At the same time he must say, that his noble Friend opposite (Lord Wharncliffe) was quite correct in what he had stated. The Crown had the appointment to these great offices. He knew that the learned Judges on the opposite side of the water were most anxious that they should not be placed on a different footing from the Judges in England, and if no strong reason should be shown against it, he hoped their Lordships would in a prompt and gracious manner accept the Amendment.
Lord Cottenhamsaid, it appeared to him immaterial whether the appointments had formerly been in the hands of the Crown or of the Judges. If it was proper that a particular course should be adopted for the future, it was no argument against it to say, that a different and an erroneous one had teen pursued for a century or half a century.
Lord Campbellsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment as he understood the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe) was prepared to assent to the suggestion made by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack.
Lord Wharncliffewished to have the Bill now read a third time. He would consult his noble and learned and right hon. Friends and he had no doubt they would be prepared to pay every deference to what appeared to be the opinion of their Lordships.
Lord Campbell, however, said, as the noble Lord could not agree to the suggestion, he (Lord Campbell) would at once proceed with his Amendment.
Debate adjourned.
The House adjourned.