Sitting of 12 May 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° County Election Polls; Loan Discount.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord J. Manners, from London, for Inquiry respecting the Rajah of Sattara.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Hyde, and Mr. Hughes, from Carnarvon, against the Use of Grain in Breweries and Distilleries.—By Viscount Morpeth, from London, complaining of the Window Tax By Mr. Christopher and other hon. Members, from several places, for and against the Agricultural Tenant-Right Bill.—By Mr. B. Hughes, from a great many places, against, and from Carnarvon, in favour of, the proposed Plan of Education.—By Sir J. Duckworth, from Saint Leonard, against, and by other hon. Members, from several places, in favour of, the Health of Towns Bill.—By several hon. Members, from two places, against, and an immense number of places, in favour of, the Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. Hudson and other hon. Members, from several places, for Repeal or Alteration of the Poor Removal Act.—By Lord Robert Grosvenor and Mr. Spooner, from several places, for the Suppression of Promiscuous Intercourse.

WEDNESDAYS' SITTINGS.
On the Motion that leave be given to all Committees to sit till Five o'clock during the sitting of the House.
SIR R. H. INGLISwished to call the attention of the House and the Government to the inconvenience of the House and the Committees sitting at the same time on Wednesday. On that day many most important measures were appointed for consideration in the House, and by the rules that had been adopted it was compulsory on many hon. Members who were interested in those questions to be absent, in consequence of having to attend Committees. It was, for instance, extremely inconvenient that such measures as the Pious and Charitable Purposes Bill, and other important measures, should be appointed for consideration when Members who took an interest in them were compelled to be absent. He trusted that the Government would adopt some measure to remedy the inconvenience.
SIR G. GREYfully admitted the inconvenience which arose from the absence of the Members who were attending on Railway Committees. According to the new arrangement five Members were necessary to the proceedings of a Committee, and every one felt how very difficult it was for them satisfactorily to discharge their proper duties. It was, however, much easier to admit the inconvenience than to provide the remedy. The twelve o'clock sittings on Wednesday had met with very general approval amongst the Members of that House; they all felt the great relief of being liberated during one evening in the

695
week, at the same time that every one must feel the inconvenience of proceeding to such subjects as were fixed for that day in a thin House. He would be glad if any arrangement could be adopted that would reconcile the progress of business in Committees with the relaxation which the Wednesday evening afforded.
MR. GOULBURNquite agreed with those who thought that the case was one of some difficulty. He felt the advantage arising from the relaxation which the Wednesday evenings afforded, and yet he was not insensible to the necessity of providing for the progress of business in Committees.
MR. GREENEsaid, that the House gave leave to Committees to sit, but did not enjoin them to do so, on Wednesdays.
MR. HODGSONsuggested that they might resort to the old practice of sitting at four o'clock on Wednesdays.
MR. GISBORNEsaid, as the Committees had the power of adjourning, it would be better to make some general rule upon the subject. It would be better to make a rule either for the Committees not to sit upon Wednesdays, or for the House not to sit upon Wednesdays. It would be for the Government to determine which would be attended with the least inconvenience.
MR. W. JAMESsuggested that the Committees should commence sitting at six o'clock in the evening on Wednesdays, and continue their sitting till midnight.
Motion agreed to.

PIOUS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES BILL.
LORD J. MANNERS, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said: In asking the House to assent to the second reading of this Bill, I am aware that I have to deal with a subject very far from inviting to most Gentlemen; I must therefore trust to the good nature of the House to bear with me while I endeavour to show how wrong in principle and injurious in practice is the law of George II., which I propose to repeal; and how, in the Bill we wish to substitute for it, we meet all reasonable demands of our opponents on former occasions, while at the same time we remove the worst features of that most uncharitable enactment. Here, at the outset, let me say, once for all, that with the old Mortmain Laws we do not meddle in any way; we do not name them. All that we concern ourselves with is, the Statute
696
of 1736; and if I can show that it was passed on false principles—that it was intended, not as a safeguard, but as an attack upon the Church—that it was a departure from the theretofore spirit of our jurisprudence—that into neither Presbyterian Scotland nor Roman Catholic Ireland did its promoters endeavour to introduce it—that in no other civilized country, at this day, is there a law of such uncharitable severity—and that its operation has been, and is, most injurious to real piety and charity, while obstinate cunning is ever able to defeat it: I trust the House will attach weight to those arguments, nor suffer its attention to be drawn away to laws which applied to a state of society so different from our own, that could our Henrys and Richards come to life again, they would be extremely puzzled to know what was the value of the word mortmain. Sir, I said that the Statute of George II. was founded on wrong principles; but I retract that phrase, for I can discover no positive principle on which it was grounded, unless a desire to throw every conceivable pettifogging obstruction in the way of charity can be called a principle, as I shall afterwards show. That it was a great, almost a revolutionary, departure from the uniform tenor of our jurisprudence, from the Reformation downwards, must be clear to any person who has paid the most cursory attention to Sir F. Palgrave's most interesting history of the laws relating to mortmain and charitable trusts. The Tudors and the Stuarts, their Ministers and statesmen, the Burleighs and Walsinghams, the Bacons and Cokes, the Staffords and Clarendons, nay, even the Burnets and Godolphins, they failed to discover the cankerworm at the core of England's social heart, which it was left for a Jekyl to drag to light, and a Walpole to extirpate. In 1736, and not before, it was seen that the land and liberty of England was in a way to be swallowed up by "a new sort of mortmain, and more especially by a most dangerous charity set up by Queen Anne." Queen Anne's Bounty was the subject of Lord Hervey's famous speech on the second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, and Queen Anne's Bounty it was against which the jealousy and fears of Hanoverian Whigs were chiefly excited; and, Sir, if I wished to test the fairness and reasonableness of the general apprehensions on which this obnoxious law was passed, I do not know I could do better than to take this very bounty as a

697
touchstone. It was put prominently forward; an attempt was made in vain to exempt this noble charity of a Sovereign from the harsh operation of this law. The debate contains the following argument against this Royal Bounty:—
"Our Church must necessarily at last, by means of that corporation, become mistress of all the landed estates in England; and when we consider the many and powerful solicitors they have about dying persons, and the present prevailing madness of perpetuating one's memory by leaving a large estate to some body politic, we must conclude that unless a stop be put to it, the event is not so distant as some may imagine."
Well; but at length this formidable charity was entirely freed from all restrictions, and suffered to swallow up all the land of England. But more than that, as with one or two other exemptions, this Queen Anne's Bounty, for the last fifty years, has been the only great charitable corporation to which land can be bequeathed, we may certainly conclude that many who wished to leave their property to some other charity in the first instance, would, when they knew that they could not do so, bequeath it to this favoured object, rather than have their general design defeated. Well, since the corporation was established 145 years ago, what revenue from land does the House suppose the bounty has acquired up to the present day? Just 160,000 l. a year. That is, an estate equal to the private estate of one of our great nobles. Mr. Hodgson, the secretary to that bounty, handed into the Committee over which I had the honour to preside, an abstract of the receipts of the bounty for the then three years—1841, 1842, and 1843—by which it appeared, that while in those three years its funds were augmented by benefactions in money to the amount of 51,689 l., by benefactions of land it only acquired 7,375 l.; and no man, woman, or child, that I ever heard of, has ever complained of this great charity, which, according to Lord Hardwicke and Sir R. Walpole, was to swallow up the land of England, and to which, we learn from Mr. Hodgson, all ranks of the community, from the bishop to the tradesman, love to contribute. But while no harm has been done to individuals or the State by this great charity, let me ask the House, let me ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, if no great good has been accomplished by it? Why, Sir, had it not been for this bounty, so hated by the framers and vindicators of this Act which I ask you to repeal, the Government of the
698
right hon. Gentleman, which did so little for the Church, so little for the education of the people, would have done still less. Whatever benefit religion has derived from Sir Robert Peel's Act, it owes to this Bounty of Queen Anne. My case, therefore, is proved by the chief witness called by Lord Hardwicke and Sir J. Jekyl on the other side. But what was the law previously to 1736? From the Reformation to that year, for nearly two centuries, Englishmen had been free to leave their lands or their money to any good and charitable purpose, allowed by the laws to be such; nor can I find in any of those histories and journals which throw so much light on the events of that important era, the slightest proof that any evil resulted from that freedom. The Church, and the bishops, cathedrals and surplices, were attacked, destroyed; a pamphleteering war of unrivalled bitterness might assail them during one period of that time; the Roman Catholics during another might be held up to public odium as traitors and murderers; but I cannot discover that this freedom to bequeath property to charitable purposes was ever complained of during that long period, or that this great change in the spirit of our jurisprudence was called for by any practical grievances whatever. I shall now proceed to show what were the real motives of this change, and I think I shall be able to convince my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford that a regard for the Church of England had no share in producing the uncharitable law of 1736. Sir, by the kindness of a noble Friend of mine, I am enabled to give to the House the secret history of this law, written by one of its chiefest supporters. Lord Hervey, the warm friend and supporter of Sir Robert Walpole, who supported in a vehement speech this Bill, left behind him some memoirs of that Minister. They have never been published; and consequently, as I cannot refer hon. Gentlemen to them, I must extract at some length the very curious history of this very curious law; but such is the vigour of the style, so racy and novel are the facts it relates, and so curious is the light it throws on the actors in the transaction, that I am sure the House will be amused as well as informed by what I wish to read: —
"All the considerable debates that passed this year in Parliament were upon Church matters; and Parliament, like bull-dogs, sticking close to any hold on which they have once fastened, the

699
poor Church this winter was as much worried as Sir Robert had been any other. [Here follows an account of the bringing in a Bill for repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which was rejected.] There was at this time depending in the House of Commons a Bill brought in by Sir Joseph Jekyl, to prevent the further alienation of lands by will in mortmain; and another for the more easy recovery of tithes from Quakers. The morning after the proposal for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was rejected in the House of Commons, the Bishop of London came to Sir Robert Walpole to thank him in the name of all the Bishops for the part he had acted on this point, &c. The Bishop of London, in this interview, said not one word of the Quakers, but went directly out of Sir R. Walpole's house to the Archbishop of York's, who lived next door but one or two to Sir Robert's, and there, all the Bishops having been summoned to concert what was to be done to defeat the Mortmain and Quakers' Bills, then depending, it was resolved that the Bishops should all send circular letters through their respective dioceses to alarm the clergy, to notify to them what was going on in Parliament, to advise them to petition Parliament, and to tell that the Bishops thought it their duty to give them this warning and this advice. …. The Queen, when Bishop Sherlock came to her, child him extremely, and asked him if he was not ashamed to be overreached in this manner a second time by the Bishop of London; and, after all she had said to him to point out his folly in following the Bishop of London in Rundle's affair, how he could be blind and weak enough to be running his nose into another's dirt again. The King, with his usual softness in speaking of any persons he disliked, called the Bishops, whenever he mentioned them in private, on this occasion a parcel of black, canting, hypocritical rascals, and said the Government was likely to go as well if these scoundrels were to dictate to their Prince how far he should or should not comply with the disposition of his Parliament; and to be giving themselves these impertinent airs in opposing everything that did not exactly suit with their silly opinions; and indeed Church power was so little relished at this time, and Churchmen so little popular, that these cabals and combinations of the Bishops to oppose and influence the transactions of Parliament, and to irritate the passions of the inferior clergy, were generally exclaimed against and condemned. The Mortmain Bill and the Quakers' Bill, were both passed in the House of Commons by large majorities; and everybody that spoke for them gave the Bishops and the parsons very hard as well as very popular slaps. The young men all run riot on these topics, and there were none to take the part of the poor Church but a few old Tories and the Jacobites."
I beg pardon of my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford; but I wonder whether he would have been among those riotous latitudinarian young men, or fought for the poor Church with the hopeless old Tories.
"Sir Robert, however, who hated extremes, and dreaded the consequences of all intemperance in Parliament whatever, though he voted for these Bills', endeavoured to quell and soften the zeal of
700
those who voted with him, and rather followed in every step that was taken in them, than promoted them. When they were brought into the House of Lords, the Bishops had the mortification of having all the severe things said to their fades which they had before been sufficiently mortified in barely hearing had been said. The Duke of Argyll abused them the most, and particularly the Bishop of London. But, considering his Grace's trade and theirs, most people thought he went too far; and that, how hard soever he might be allowed to press them in facts, yet, in words, a soldier to a clergyman ought to have been more gentle. My Lord Chief Justice Hardwicke struck deeper, as he expressly said that there were many things in two books written by the Bishop of London, or by his order, that were contrary to law; and that in these books powers were asserted to be in the Church which did not belong to it. When the Quakers' Bill was debated, it was lost by the two law Lords, the Lord Chancellor Talbot and the Lord Chief Justice Hardwicke opposing it, One reason these law Lords had for this conduct was desiring to make their peace with the clergy, and regain some of that favour they had forfeited by their manner of espousing and pushing the Mortmain Bill. But, in truth, the reason that weighed most with them was the consideration of popularity with the men of their own profession; for, as great men as those two lawyers were, and as upright as they were esteemed, they had the spirit of preferring the power and profit of their own profession as much at heart as any parson in the kingdom, or any set of men in the world. It was this spirit had made them and all the lawyers in both Houses for the Mortmain Bill, as the fewer lands there were unalienable in the kingdom, the more titles to lands there would be open to be litigated. Is was this spirit, too, made them against the Quakers' Bill: for, as the purport of this Bill was to make a justice of the peace a sort of referee between the parson and the Quaker in the ease of all tithes under 10 l., so this Bill, had it passed into a law, would, of course, have prevented nine lawsuits in ten that were now brought into Westminster Hall from ever coming there. This Lord Hardwicke, in one of his speeches, with great inadvertence, and, I dare swear, through repentance, plainly avowed was his chief motive for opposing this Bill; saying, 'that if the Bill should pass, it would not only exclude the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts from operating in the case of these tithes, but would also virtually shut out the temporal courts, as it would make a justice of the peace a turnpike to the temporal courts, where almost all disputants would be stopped.' The very reason, begging my Lord Hardwicke's pardon, that should have induced every man in England, but a lawyer or a parson, to be for this Bill. But as long as money and power are reckoned of the good things of this world, it was no wonder the parsons should oppose a Bill that would abridge their present capacity of worrying a Quaker, nor that the lawyers should join the parsons, when they were to reap the profit from this equitable Christian chase. But, from what I have said, it is pretty plain (in my opinion at least) that the lawyers, in promoting the Mortmain Bill, or opposing the Quakers, had nothing strongly in view but the enriching the harvest of Westminster Hall, and that their popularity with the laity in the first, or with the clergy in the latter, was not their primary or chief consideration, but a casual incidental consequence of their

701
attachment to the interests of their own burdensome profession."
Not one word, Sir, in this faithful history do I find of the "great public mischief going on" that is alleged in the preamble of the Bill; but the two great causes of this enactment, which some to-day will defend as the palladium of our Church and religion are plainly avowed to be, hatred of the Church of England, and love of an enriching litigation. History has shown that Sir R. Walpole and Lord Hardwicke were right in their anticipations; the Church of England and the poor of England have suffered by their Machiavelian policy, and Westminster Hall has reaped a rich harvest; but I ask of the noble Lord, the present religious and humane Prime Minister of England, and I ask this present Legislature of England, to undo the great wrong which a spiteful and irreligious majority committed more than one hundred years ago, and to reassert the generous and faithful principles of our ancient law and practice. I appeal from George II. to Elizabeth; from Lord Hardwicke to Lord Verulam; from Sir Joseph Jekyl to Sir Edward Coke; and from the temporary exigencies of partisan bigotry to the eternal claims of Christian charity. And what are the main provisions of this law? Let me quote the words of the report of the Committee to which I have before referred:—
"The provisions of this law, which prevent lands, or anything savouring of the realty, from being conveyed to any body or bodies, politic or corporate, for any charitable purpose, unless by deed executed twelve months, and enrolled six months previous to the donor's death, have been construed by the judicature in the strictest sense their words would bear. Copyhold property, money out on mortgage, land left to be converted into money—money left to be converted into land; and, as it is asserted, railroad and canal shares even when declared by Act of Parliament to be personal property—are all held to be affected by that statute; and the courts refuse to marshal assets in favour of any public object, however charitable or beneficial."
We find, then, this law subversive of the ancient principles and practice of English law, uncharitable in its object, intricate, captious, and unfair in its provisions; passed, by the confession of its supporters, for the purpose of harassing the Church and enriching the lawyers; and not extended to Ireland or to Scotland. Had Lord Herrey's MSS. never seen the light, this restriction of the law to England would alone prove the animus imponeatis. Sir R. Walpole did not fear any increase of wealth
702
or power in the Kirk of Scotland or Church of Ireland; any such increase would be in his favour, would add to his patronage, strengthen his hands. In England the Church was hostile, and, therefore, these fetters were imposed. But, Sir, turning from the three kingdoms and the history of this law, let me intreat the attention of the House to the fact, that in no other civilized country at this moment is the law nearly so uncharitable as in England. In our own colonies, in the United States, in Prussia, in Austria, in France, in Italy, we find either perfect freedom or moderate and charitable regulations; and yet with the whole civilized world, with the brightest and most glorious periods of our own history, with the example of Ireland, Scotland, and the colonies, inviting, shaming us, to repeal this odious statute, year after year do I call in vain upon the Commons of free and charitable England to strike off the chains which latitudinarian bigotry and fear forged for meek-eyed unsectarian charity. Have I need to prove, Sir, that this law has been fatally successful? Alas, Sir, I have but to summon every shape that human sin, sorrow, and suffering can take, to answer in the affirmative. The lame, the dumb, the halt, the blind, the ignorant, and the miserable, in one long array rise from their narrow graves to condemn this law. There is not a charity that alleviates the bodily sufferings or ministers to the spiritual wants of the people, that has not its tale to tell of resources diminished, usefulness impaired, by the sad efficacy of this law. Ask the indigent blind of busy Manchester why for long years no asylum was opened to them? They, did they know the truth, would answer, because of Sir Joseph Jekyl's Act. Ask the decayed and worn-out navigators of this mighty stream which flows by these stately halls why those houses of rest which charity had devoted to them were not long ago built and opened? They will tell you—they did tell you last year—because of this harsh and cruel law. Ask the sick and dying of Rutlandshire and Stamford what is now preventing that infirmary, which is their chartered palace, from increasing its accommodation to meet their wants? They will tell you because the wealth that was bequeathed for that good purpose is held to savour of the realty, and to be affected by that law. Step out from this hall, after you have rejected our Bill, and, quitting the pomp and glitter of our rising palace,

703
leaving the shade of that august abbey, plunge into the haunts of crime and ignorance and misery that surround you. Do you ask why such things exist—do you ask why hundreds whom you see ignorant, diseased, hopeless, shall pass out of this world, untaught, uncomforted, unprepared for the next? Because the charity which four years ago destined funds to meet in part this tide of sin and ignorance was defeated by this law, which I ask you to repeal. By this time, by this very day, had my first feeble attack upon this law been successful, a new Church, with its appointed priest, and schools, and soothing ministrations, would have been raised in Westminster; and who can tell how many churches, how many schools, how many almshouses, remain unbuilt, owing to this fatal agency? Let me ask hon. Gentlemen to listen to a few of the simple tales of that charity which you will not emancipate, to learn from them what this system really is. [The noble Lord then read extracts from letters which he had received from a person living at Reading, from a gentleman at Liverpool, and from a clergyman in the neighbourhood of Bristol, expressing regret at the loss of his measure of last year, and specifying the difficulties which existed in the way of real property being bequeathed for charitable purposes.] Well, Sir, a law which does such deeds as these, which was passed under such circumstances as I have described, should have indeed strong reasons to urge in its behalf. We allege against it that, in many—many instances, it prevents the poor from being fed, the aged from being cared for, the indigent from being relieved, the ignorant from being taught, the sinner from being saved: these are the crimes and misdemeanors I charge against this modern law. And what is its defence? That it guards the death-beds of wealthy men from undue solicitations, and that it prevents land from being locked up in perpetuity. I deny that it accomplishes, or attempts to accomplish, the former object. The unworthy favourite, the artful dependant, the wheedling mistress, the pimp, the pander, the prostitute, all are permitted free access to the death-bed, free enjoyment of its spoils. It is only the poor, the needy, the suffering, the miserable, who are banned by this hypocritical law from benefiting by bequests. But in order to secure deathbeds from the importunity of charity, is it necessary to proscribe bequests made in health, vigour, and youth—is it necessary
704
to violate the otherwise uniform tenor of the law, and declare that to be real property if bequeated to charity which is personal if bequeathed to a mistress. By the Bill, Sir, which I have introduced, the death-bed will be amply guarded from the attacks of this dreaded invader; those restrictions which the experience of many centuries have proved to be ample in property-loving Scotland, are exceeded by those contained in the Bill; any bequest made within three months of the testator's death will be void, and thus I assimilate the law of England to that of Ireland in the letter, and to that of Scotland in the spirit. This completely and entirely meets the death-bed argument. And now, Sir, for the other reason alleged in favour of the present law. For the sake of gaining a practical good— for the sake of removing the great blot that now, in the shape of this law of Geo. II., stains the Statute-book—for the sake and in the hope of consulting even what I deem the unfounded prejudices of my opponents, I do not ask the House to allow land to be locked up in perpetuity; but I actually concede that no land, save that actually necessary for the building purposes of charity, shall pass to the object of the bequest, but that it shall be sold, and the proceeds alone handed over to the charity. Therefore, Sir, this reason has ceased to exist. I can conceive no other objection being urged save one, which last was made use of. It is said that true charity would induce a man to give in his lifetime, and not at his death, and therefore it is wise to offer a premium, as it were, in favour of self-denying charity. But admitting the premise, I utterly deny the conclusion. It is not the donor or testator whom the law shall regard so much as donees. "Because a testator is selfish," it has well been asked by an able legal writer, "is this a reason why his donees are to be defrauded?'' Because a man prefers for any of the thousand reasons or impulses which sway mankind, to retain his property during his lifetime, is that a reason why the poor, the blind, the wretched, the ignorant, are not to be consoled, comforted, taught at his death? And in what position do you by acting on this principle place the poor man? The rich man may divest himself of part of his wealth during his lifetime; but the poor man, like the old soldier whose letter I have read to day, who naturally feels most for his fellows, and who, having no relations to provide

705
for, wishes to leave his little property to benefit the poor, must render himself during life a pauper, or fail in his humane and natural desire. But does the law as it now stands afford this inducement to living charity? Far from it. Every clog, let, and hindrance which legal chicanery can invent is thrown in the way of gifts of real property. Well, I ask you then to redress this wrong, and to permit a man in the vigour of life to exersise this desirable virtue. But, Sir, I will not quit this subject without appealing to the House in the glorious language of Jeremy Taylor:—
"When faith fails, and chastity is useless, and temperance shall be no more, then charity shall bear you upon wings of cherubim to the eternal mountain of the Lord. I do not mean that this should only be a death-bed charity any more "than a death-bed repentance; we must not first kindle our lights when we are to descend into our houses of darkness or bring a glaring torch suddenly to a dark room that will amaze the eye, and not do-light it, or instruct the body; but if our tapers have in their constant course descended into their grave, crowned all the way with light, then let the death-bed charity be doubted, when the light burns brightest to deck our hearse."
This, Sir, is my case, feebly, imperfectly stated, I know; but so strong is my conviction of its justice, that, even had I to encounter greater odds than are arrayed against me this day—were the great legal authors of these times, the Jarmans and Palgraves, the Shelfords and Burges—were the rising generation of lawyers to be opposed instead of favouring the principles I am now contending for—I should still persevere. I appeal to the noble Lord, the First Minister, who has proved himself to be a true friend to this Church and nation—I appeal to him who boasts that he helped to set free the trade and commerce of this people, who glories in having fought a life-long battle for freedom, to add one more wreath to his civic crown, the glory of which shall be marred by no political or partisan detraction, and to strike these modern fetters from the gracious form of English charity. In the name, Sir, of the halt, the mained, the blind, the miserable, the poor, to whom the Gospel is not preached, I ask for the second reading of this Bill.
SIR G. GREYexpressed his regret, that, having given his full consideration to the subject of the Bill of the noble Lord since the rejection of the measure of last year, and having examined attentively the alterations which had been introduced into the present Bill, he felt it to be his duty to
706
offer his opposition to its further progress. He felt that every credit was due to the noble Lord for the motives by which he was influenced; and he shared in many of the noble Lord's sentiments. He did not believe any hon. Member would differ with the sentiments contained in the eloquent passage quoted by the noble Lord from Jeremy Taylor. But the noble Lord proposed in his Bill to repeal the Act 9th of Geo. II. Now, was this essential to the object which the noble Lord had in view? He (Sir G. Grey) was sure, if Jeremy Taylor could have been cognizant of the magnificent charities which had grown up in this country since his time, and of the large sums devoted at the death or during the lives of many charitable persons for that purpose, he would not have considered the repeal of the Act of Parliament in question essential for the full exercise of the most enlarged charity. The noble Lord had alluded to the motives which led to the passing of the Act 9th Geo. II.; but he had dealt with this subject throughout as if that Act were the Mortmain Act—the first Act by which bequests of land for charitable purposes had been restricted. Why, from the earliest period of the history of this country a series of Acts had been passed to prevent alienation in mortmain; but these Acts were not touched by the Bill of the noble Lord. He conceived that the noble Lord's Bill ought to have applied to those Acts, and not to the 9th of George II., only which was intended to prevent the evasion of those Acts. The preamble of that Act states—
"Whereas gifts or alienations of lands, tenements, or hereditaments in mortmain, are prohibited or restrained by Magna Charta and divers other wholesome laws, as prejudicial to, and against the common utility; nevertheless this public mischief has of late greatly increased by many large and improvident alienations or dispositions made by languishing or dying persons, or by other persons, to uses, called charitable uses, to take place after their deaths, to the disherison of their lawful heirs."
The Act of the 9th George II. then had a double object — to prevent the disposition of land in a manner whereby the same might become inalienable by those methods of evasion which had grown up; and to prevent undue influence from being exercised upon languishing persons, to the disparagement of lawful heirs. Now, did that Act actually prohibit the alienation of landed property for charitable purposes? By no means; it only prescribed certain

707
conditions which should attach to all alienations of property for such purposes. It provided that all such alienations should be by deed, and not by will; that the deeds should be executed twelve months before the death of the granter or donor; and that they should be irrevocable; and that they should be enrolled in the Court of Chancery within a certain time prior to the death of the donor. Was this a state of the law, he would ask, which required alteration? Did it inflict any very manifest grievance upon parties who wished to devote their property to charitable purposes? He must say, that he thought the complaints mentioned by the noble Lord as having been made by the watermen of London and other parties, with reference to the present law, did not arise from the operation of the law, but from the negligence of the donors in employing incompetent legal advisers to carry into effect their objects. It was perfectly competent for any person to give land, in his lifetime, for charitable purposes, or to sell land at any time prior to his death, and to devote the proceeds to those charities for which he might feel a strong and benevolent sympathy. The noble Lord had read a letter from an individual who possessed a small freehold property in the county of Berks. Now, he would suggest to the noble Lord that he should recommend the writer of that letter, if he was desirous of bestowing his property upon the Berkshire Hospital, to convert his land into money, to live upon the interest of that money, and at his death to bequeath it to the hospital; and he had no doubt the managers of the institution would be very much obliged to that gentleman for thus carrying into effect what had always been the policy of the law. The question before the House appeared to him to be this—whether it were desirable that they should remove all those safeguards against the alienation of land in mortmain, and against the solicitations which might be addressed upon a death-bed to persons possessed of large landed property, which were provided by the Act of 9th George II. The noble Lord proposed, by the 1st Clause of his Bill, entirely to repeal that Act, and then to enact certain provisions which he thought ought to be substituted for the present law. The noble Lord, however, did not carry out his own views to their full extent. In deference to the opinion of that House, the noble Lord had not gone in this Bill so far as he wished; for, in-
708
stead of merely proposing the repeal of the 9th George II., his Bill contained certain provisions qualifying the effect of that repeal. He thought that it would be easy to show that the provisions contained in the Bill would be inoperative. The noble Lord proposed that it should be lawful for all persons, not being under any natural or civil disability, either by will or deed to give real property generally for any religious and charitable purpose. By this clause the question was still untouched as to what were religious and what superstitious uses; and if this Bill passed, the property, in almost every case, would be left for the benefit of the gentlemen of the law; and instead of going to the heirs or to the charity, would go to Westminster Hall, and no benefit whatever would be conferred on the charity. The noble Lord attached great importance to the 3rd Clause of this Bill, which provided that every will, deed, or other instrument or conveyance, whereby any lands or hereditaments were conveyed for religious or charitable uses, should be duly made and executed at least throe calendar months before the death of the testator or granter; and that the lands or real estates so granted should, within two years after the alienation took effect, unless the Lord Chancellor or other officer should order otherwise, be sold for the best price that could be obtained; and that such price should be applied to the religious or charitable uses mentioned in the will or other instrument. He thought that this clause would be wholly inoperative. Suppose that landed property granted under the provisions of this Bill should be sold within the two years, what was to prevent the trustees or other persons selling the property from investing the proceeds of the sale in land the next day, and holding it for any length of time? He (Sir G. Grey) could not agree with the noble Lord in thinking it would be advisable to extend the kind of tenure under which lands were held by corporations, whether ecclesiastical or lay. There was, however, a proviso to Clause 3 which nearly undid all that the noble Lord proposed to effect by that clause. The proviso was to the effect, that the sale or disposal required by the clause should not be necessary with regard to any land or premises being the actual or intended site of any church, chapel, almshouse, or other house or building, or the appurtenances thereof, used or occupied for any religious or charitable purpose. The noble Lord appeared to have overlooked alto-

709
getter the modification of the law which had been already made with regard to churches and schools. The law as it now stood offered ample facilities for grants of land for the sites of churches or schools, subject to a limitation as to amount; and there was no case in which a person was restricted from disposing of property for such a purpose. This proviso was, however, framed in most indefinite terms with regard to the "other houses or buildings, or the appurtenances thereof," to which it referred. There was a limitation of acreage in the present law with respect to the land granted for sites of churches or schools; but in the noble Lord's Bill there was no restriction whatever. Did the noble Lord mean that this proviso should apply only to the land upon which such buildings stood, or that it should apply to so much land as might be useful or convenient, or as in the opinion of the managers of the several charities it might be necessary to hold for the benefit of such charities? The noble Lord proposed, by the next clause of this Bill, to render the grants by which property was conveyed under the Bill revocable at any time after they had been made. This proviso took away one of the essential precautions established by the Act of 9th George II. He reminded the House that this Bill did not come recommended by the report of the Committee, who, undoubtedy, thought some alteration of the law desirable, but objected to that sort of alteration which was proposed by the present Bill. It was true, that owing to the distinction between money in the funds and money in railways, canals, and mortgages—the first being conside red personal, and the rest real property—many bonâ fide bequests had failed; but that distinction could not be altered by a repeal of the 9th George II., because it was not created by that Act, but resulted from the judgments of the courts of law, founded on the view they took of the different; nature of such property. For these reasons he was compelled to oppose the Bill of the noble Lord; doing so with regret, in consequence of the pains which the noble Lord had bestowed on the subject, and in consequence of the full conviction which he entertained of the benevolent motives by which the noble Lord was actuated. There was now, however, no practical obstruction to the fullest development of charity in this country; and by a knowledge of law, or by the assistance of persons learned in the
710
law, any one might he enabled to carry out his charitable intentions either in respect to the present or to the future. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
VISCOUNT CLIVEobserved, that the object of the present Bill was simply to restore the law to the state in which it stood before the 9th George II., and not to alter the whole course of legislation since the Reformation up to that time. That Act of George II., which the supporters of the Bill sought to repeal, was passed for the purpose of thwarting the Church, and, as George II. said, those hypocritical scoundrels, the bishops. It was a little Hanoverian spite. The policy of Queen Elizabeth, and the great men who were her councillors—the policy of that reign, in which the Reformation was carried out to the fullest extent, was always opposed to the power of Rome. Yet, in that reign a law was passed permitting the bequeathing of lands to charitable purposes; and the same policy was continued in the reigns of James I.—who was not particularly favourable to Rome; of William III., who was designated as of "glorious, pious, and immortal memory;" and of Queen Anne. Thus, what the advocates of the Bill were endeavouring to re-establish had been sanctioned in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth, James I., William III., and Queen Anne; two of which Sovereigns owed their thrones to Protestantism, the other two being directly opposed to Rome during their reigns. The 9th of George II. was contrary to the spirit of the laws since the Reformation up to that period. That Act prevented certain bequests for charitable purposes, creating in respect to them a distinction between real and personal property. What was intended by the present Bill was to remove that distinction, and to give the possessor of land the same power over his property as another man had over his property, if it happened to be invested in the funds. The Act of George II., which was called a safeguard to Protestantism, did not extend to Scotland, Ireland, or the colonies; yet, if it were a safeguard to Protestantism, in what country would they expect to see it sooner adopted than in Scotland, which had always been actuated, since the Reformation, by a strong hostility to Popery? It had been said that this Act of George II. was a security to the Church of England; but he thought that, after what had fallen from the noble Lord as to the mo-

711
tives of passing that Act, the hon. Member for Oxford University would not venture to say that that Act had been carried for the security of the Church of England; and that it was a security for Protestantism generally, he denied. He would ask one plain matter of fact question. This Act had been in operation about a century; and when had the increase in the influence of the Roman Catholics been greatest in this country—during those hundred years, or during the previous period, from the Reformation? During the last hundred years, undoubtedly. How, then, did it happen that this safeguard to Protestantism, as it was called, had been concurrent with an increase in the influence of the Roman Catholics in this country? There was one point which the right hon. Baronet had adverted to, which the supporters of the present Bill would be ready to consider in Committee, with the view of removing all difficulty. All that they wished was, simply to give to the possessor of one kind of property just as much liberty to bequeath it as if his property were in the funds, but they did not insist that the charities should continue holders of the land bequeathed; and it might be settled that the land should be converted into another description of property. The right hon. Baronet said, that the gentleman at Reading who had been alluded to might sell his property in his lifetime and invest it in the funds, leaving it afterwards to the charity which he had fixed on. But selling the property was accompanied by the expense of title-deeds and stamps; and besides, why should a man be forced to sell his property, whether the house he lived in or railway shares, in which he had invested his money, because he wished to do good with it? Perhaps it might be contended that there were existing relaxations of the law, and that they were sufficient. But this was giving up the whole principle. Oxford and Cambridge were exempted. According to what just principle, then, was it that the great towns in the manufacturing districts were not also exempted? Why should not a school founded at Oldham be allowed to receive bequeathed property according to the provisions of the present Bill? If St. George's Hospital were able to hold lands, why should not the Infirmary at Manchester have the same power also? In dealing with private societies, Parliament took a very different course. A Bill was at present passing through the House, for instance, to enable the Scottish Union As-
712
surance Company to invest money on real securities. Parliament had been obliged to be continually relaxing this law; the Church Building Acts were relaxations of it. Queen Anne's Bounty was obliged to be exempted by special Act of Parliament, or it could not have gone on increasing the small livings in England. It appeared, however, that there was given to that fund in 1841, 1842, and 1843, 21,000 l. in money, 7,000 l. in land, and 26,000Z. worth of houses, not an atom of which was given by will; proving: that where the restrictions in question were done away, and persons were enabled to do as they chose, the desire of seeing good accomplished in their own lifetime made them consent to the necessary sacrifice. The right hon. Baronet who was lately at the head of the Government made the greatest infringement on this principle of a safeguard for the Church, in his Church Endowment Bill; because there, for making better provision for the spiritual care of populous parishes, he gave power to any person to bequeath land by will to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Statute of Mortmain notwithstanding. And what was the condition of England at this time, when this Bill was so jealously opposed? The Bishop of London had given a most appalling account, in his last charge, of the condition of the metropolis as to accommodation for public worship; there were probably 1,000,000 of souls unprovided with the means of grace; and this was the time when the bequest of the Dean of Westminster for building a church was invalidated, because the building a church involved the purchase of a plot of ground to put it upon! Was it better in the agricultural districts? Was not property accumulating in few hands there? The decrease since the Reformation in the proportion of the means of religious worship to the numbers of the population, was stated by a witness before the Parliamentary Committee already referred to, to be quite appalling. That we were no better off in respect to schools, was clear from the recent debates, on education. Were our almshouses, asylums, and hospitals, too numerous? Were the industrious so very sure off a comfortable shelter in old age, undegraded by parish pay, and without being driven to the necessity of starving on a wretched out-door allowance of some 1s. 6d. a week, or of bone-grinding in the workhouse, under a system which we, the possessors of property, chose to call "re-

713
lief"—a system through which our fellow-subjects and fellow Christians had been driven to food that cannibals would loathe, degrading themselves to the level of wolves, and in a manner scarcely to be surpassed by the description given by Lord Byron of the dogs at Corinth, during the siege—
"From a horse's skull they had stripp'd the flesh,
As ye peel the fig when its fruit is fresh."
The noble Lord concluded by urging the passing of the Bill, not to encourage superstition, but to enable property further to discharge its duties to the poor.
SIR R. H. INGLISregretted that a measure, which confessedly proposed to alter the policy of England in respect to one great subject of legislation—a policy adopted for one century at least—should have been brought forward on a day when so large a proportion of the House was necessarily engaged in serving on Committees: he trusted that at a future period Her Majesty's Ministers and the House would adopt some other plan, so that measures of such importance should not be discussed in the necessary absence of so many hon. Members. The noble Lord seemed to consider that the whole matter at stake was within the four corners of the 9th of George II., as if that were the only measure which had the slightest reference to the disposition of property to pious and charitable uses. In fact, he could hardly agree with the noble Lord in any one proposition from the commencement of his speech to its close, except when the noble Lord pronounced an éloge upon Sir Francis Palgrave, who, to the most laborious research in detail, united imagination, power of combination, and comprehension, which were the attributes of great genius. But Sir F. Palgrave was not impeccable nor infallible. Neither must it be supposed that this Bill was sustained by the prestige of the recommendation of the Committee. That Committee came to this conclusion by the casting vote of the chairman — three being on one side and three on the other—that the state of the law was most unsatisfactory; but as it required the casting vote of the chairman to support that proposition, it was plain that there was no prestige of a Committee in favour of this Bill. It must rest on its own merits; and on its own merits or rather demerits, he trusted it would be defeated. He spoke on the authority of a Member of the House, second to no lawyer in the House, and equal to any member of his profession, in stating that the House was by this Bill
714
asked to sanction the proposition that every debt incurred by a donor should be defeated by the gift of such donor if the debt were incurred after the date of the gift. Was the House prepared to sanction that? The House had heard much of the secret history of the passing of the 9th George II. At the risk of making himself liable to the charge for an advertisement, he would inform the House of the book in which all these statements would be forthcoming; hon. Members might all buy it, and perhaps that was partly the object of the noble Lord; the book was a memoir of the Court of that day, by Lord Harvey, at present in the press, and to be very soon published by Mr. Murray. But the House had heard the Bill of George II. somewhat disloyally styled a petty effusion of Hanoverian spite—
VISCOUNT CLIVEinterrupted. He had merely, in reference to the argument that the 9th George II. was a security to the Church of England, quoted an expression of George II., in which he called the Bishops a set of black, canting, hypocritical rascals; and he was sufficiently disloyal to say that that expression of His Majesty was an emission of Hanoverian spite.
SIR R. H. INGLISwas glad to have elicited that disclaimer of disaffection towards the house of Hanover, which he had attributed to the noble Lord under the erroneous impression that he had said that he himself regarded the statute as a measure adopted deliberately against the Church of England, and as such entitled to be described as an effusion of Hanoverian spite. But another noble Lord, at all events, described that statute—the statute commonly (though incorrectly) called the Mortmain Act—as being sectarian and revolutionary. Now, those expressions showed the animus of the noble Lord's measure; and let the House be warned against it. The noble Lord was as incorrect in his history as in the principles on which he proceeded; for the noble Lord stated, that up to the period of that Act a man might give or leave property of any kind by deed or will to any purpose. He must, subject to correction by the law advisers of the Crown and other hon. and learned Gentlemen, deliberately contradict that assertion, and say that there was not, up to the 9th George II., that liberty and license. The evidence of a witness before the Committee, Mr. Hodgson, had been quoted in regard to Queen Anne's Bounty. Now, it appeared that after being asked what amount of land

715
was at this moment held by the corporation of Queen Anne's Bounty, he was desired to state whether the larger part of it came by gift inter vivos or by will; and he stated, that almost all came by gift made in lifetime. He was asked whether he knew many instances in which land had been left to that corporation by will; and he said that he knew of but two, though he had managed the affairs for twenty-two years. He was asked whether those instances were to any great extent; and he stated that they were not. It was remarked by another witness, that people liked to be charitable at the expense of others. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) begged to state that such was the foundation of his great objection. He preferred that charity should be exercised when men were in the full vigour of their judgment. It had been remarked by Sir Francis Palgrave that it was easier for a man to give a check for l,000 l., than, if he saw 1,000 sovereigns lying before him, to give them away bodily; and so of such bequests as the present measure contemplated. He was content to take the law as he found it; whether it would not admit of certain alterations and improvements he was not prepared to assert or deny. That which he was called upon to deny with his voice and his vote was, that the particular measure of his two noble Friends was necessary or expedient. In regard to churches, schools, and many objects of a literary character, the law gave ample scope for bequests; when a case was made out where the objects were different, the law might be relaxed by charter from the Crown, or by authority of Parliament. But he deprecated any measure which tended to encourage persons to leave, it might be, their whole property, so that it might come to be held in perpetual tenure by a person to whom ostensibly, perhaps, only a limited tenure was given.
SIR W. HEATHCOTEobserved, that the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had taken so exaggerated a view of the enactments of the Bill that he wished to remind the House of their real nature. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department apprehended that the consequences of the measure would be the disherison of heirs, and the locking up of property in perpetuity. But the object of this Bill was to extend over that property in regard to which there was the least probability of dis-
716
inherison of heirs, the powers which could legally be exercised in regard to the property which was most liable to be bequeathed to the disinherison of heirs. The other objections might be obviated in Committee. The hon. Baronet thought that charitable gifts ought to be made during the life of the party, in order that the act might appear to be done from charitable motives. Was the House prepared to lay down this principle of legislation? He hoped the House would not be deterred by the exaggerated representations which had been made from advancing the Bill another stage, and seeing whether the objections to it were not such as might be entirely removed.
MR. NEWDEGATEwould only detain the House for a single moment. He considered that there was greater danger to be apprehended from this Bill, than from the law which it meant to repeal. The noble Lord whose name stood second on the back of the Bill told them that he wished to revert to the policy of Queen Elizabeth's time; but the noble Lord should recollect that he was in that acting directly contrary to the principles of the noble Lord the Member for Newark, who was endeavouring year after year to remove all traces of that policy altogether from the Statute-book. It was said, that charity covered a multitude of sins; and in the noble Lord's case it certainly would appear to do so. The three supporters of this Bill might be said to be faith, hope, and charity. The noble Lord the Member for Newark was the representative of faith; the noble Lord the Member for Shropshire represented charity; and the hon. Baronet who had just sat down might be said to represent hope, as he was the most reasonable of the three. He objected to the Bill not only because it proposed to repeal the law of mortmain, but also because it would provide a substitute for it in such wide terms, and to so unlimited an extent, as to leave the country exposed to much more serious dangers than those to which the noble Lord alluded, as arising from the law which he wished to repeal.
LORD J. MANNERSbriefly replied. The objections of the right hon. Gentleman (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) were levelled entirely against the details and not the principle of the Bill; and, therefore, at that stage the right hon. Gentleman required no answer. He would state, however, that it was the intention of the promoters of the Bill, bonâ

717
fide, to compel the sale of lands left for charitable purposes; and he apprehended there could he no danger in that. The right hon. Gentleman admitted there were great and startling anomalies in the law as it now stood; and therefore he (Lord John Manners) called on the right hon. Gentleman to support the principle of a Bill, the sole object of which was to remove those anomalies, and by which he felt convinced great good would be done to the Church and the poor of this country. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) said that the passing of this Bill would prevent or interfere with the payment of the just debts of a testator; but that was not intended, nor did he (Lord J. Manners) think it would have that effect. [Sir R. INGLIS: The debts incurred subsequently to the making of the will.] Of course, he should he most happy to remedy that, as it was the intention of the clause that all just debts were to be discharged. A similar Bill had been introduced two years ago by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, which applied only to Ireland; and that Bill passed without any of the objections now raised being urged against it. All that he asked the House to do was to adopt the provisions it then adopted, and which then received the sanction of both Houses of Parliament. He could not imagine why a thing should be right for Ireland, and the same thing should be wrong for England. Then the hon. Member for Oxford could understand the principle of Bills to except particular charities from the operation of the present law; and that system had bettor be adhered to. Were they, then, to go on tinkering at the existing law, and year after year having special Acts of Parliament for this corporation and the other charitable institution, instead of one general measure on a principle which would apply equally well to all? He thought the Secretary of State would rather have the proposed Bill than the proposal of the hon. Baronet. Then the hon. Baronet talked of giving in a man's lifetime being preferable to bequeathing it to any charitable purpose; but he surely did not moan to compare the parade of subscription lists and sums often given in vain ostentation, or from other equally unworthy motives, to the pure and high motives which dictated gifts when the donor was beyond the praise or observation of his fellow-creatures? The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had threatened the Bill with
718
his most determined opposition; but he appealed to the House whether the hon. Gentleman had said anything more stringent against it than that it had the misfortune to be fathered by him (Lord J. Manners). He had supported many measures which the hon. Gentleman had also supported; and it was not until they were in opposition to each other that the hon. Gentleman discovered that he was such a suspicious person, and that anything which he supported must be bad. Then the hon. Gentleman asked how it was that, if all they wished was to emancipate charity, the promoters of the Bill had inserted the word "religious?" The fact was, that in the English courts of law the meaning of the word charity was so extensive, that whether the word "religious" was inserted or not did not signify one whit—the clause would apply equally to religious charities as to others. The noble Lord concluded by appealing to the House whether a case had been made out against the Bill going to a Committee.
On the question that the word "now" stand part of the Question,
The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 166: Majority 146.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Granby, Marq. of

Adare, Visct.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Heathcote, Sir W.

Hervey, Lord A.

Austen, Col.

Hope, A.

Balfour, J. M.

Jermyn, Earl

Bellow, R. M.

Newry, Visct.

Browne, R. D.

Russell, J. D. W.

Browne, hon. W.

Smythe, hon. G.

Christopher, R. A.

TELLERS.

Dickinson, F. H.

Manners, Lord J.

Duncan, G.

Clive, Visct.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Buck, L. W.

A'Court, Capt.

Buller, E.

Aldam, W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Busfeild, W.

Arkwright, G.

Carew, W. H. P.

Bagot, hon. W.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Bailey, J.

Clay, Sir W.

Baillie, W.

Colville, C. R.

Baine, W.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Baldwin, B.

Copeland, Ald.

Bateson, T.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Bennet, P.

Craig, W. G.

Beresford, Maj.

Crawford, W. S.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Denison, J. E.

Blackburne, J. I.

Dennistoun, J.

Blackstone, W. S.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T.

Boldero, H. G.

Dick, Q.

Bowring, Dr.

Divett, E.

Bramston, T. W.

Douglas, Sir H.

Brotherton, J.

Douglas. J. D. S.

719

Drummond, H. H.

Meynell, Capt.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Miles, P. W. S.

Dundas, Sir D.

Miles, W.

Egerton, W. T.

Mitcalfe, H.

Escott, B.

Monahan, J. H.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Morpeth, Visct.

Evans, W.

Munday, E. M.

Ferrand, W. B.

Newdegate, C. N.

Finch, G.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Forbes, W.

Paget, Col.

Forester, Hon. G. C. W.

Pechell, Capt.

Forster, M.

Perfect, R.

French, F.

Pigot, Sir R.

Frewen, C. H.

Powell, Col.

Fuller, A. E.

Prime, R.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Pusey, P.

Gisborne, T.

Rashleigh, W.

Gladstone, Capt.

Ricardo, J. L.

Gore, hon. R.

Rice, E. R.

Goring, C.

Richards, R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Romilly, J.

Greene, T.

Round, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Russell, Lord C. J. F.

Grogan, E.

Rutherfurd, A.

Grosvenor, Earl

Seymour, Lord

Hall, Sir B.

Sheppard T.

Halsey, T. P.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hamilton, W. J.

Smith, A.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Heathcote, G. J.

Spooner, R.

Hill, Lord E.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Hinde, J. H.

Stansfield, R. W. C.

Hodgson, R.

Stanton, W. H.

Hope, Sir J.

Stuart, J.

Hoskins, K.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hudson, G.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hughes, W. B.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Hussey, T.

Thornely, T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Thornhill, G.

James, W.

Tollemache, J.

Jervis, Sir J.

Tower, C.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Trotter, J.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Turner, E.

Langston, J. H.

Turnor, C.

Law, hon. C. E.

Vane, Lord H.

Lawson, A.

Verner, Sir W.

Lefroy, A.

Vyse, H.

Legh, G. C.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Lennox, Lord G. H. G.

Waddington, H. S.

Lindsay, Col.

Walker, R.

Loch, J.

Warn, J. T.

Lockhart, W.

Williams, W.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Wodehouse, E.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Wood, Col. T.

Maitland, T.

Worcester, Marq. of

Manners, Lord C. S.

Marshall, W.

TELLERS.

Marton, G.

Rich, H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Tufnell, H.

Bill put off for six months.

AGRICULTURAL TENANT RIGHT BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Agricultural Tenant Right Bill being moved,
MR. PUSEYsaid, that he did not
720
intend to proceed any further with this Bill, being satisfied now that the advice he had received from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was best calculated to insure its ultimate success. He found that it was impossible to legislate upon this subject in a manner likely to satisfy the landowners, whose feelings it was proper to consult in the matter, without further inquiry. At the same time, as something had been said about a petition which had been presented on the other side, he begged to be allowed to remind the House that he had presented three petitions in favour of the Bill, signed by farmers occupying 200,000 acres of land. He felt quite convinced that the principle of the Bill must become law within a very few years; he was satisfied that the justice of the cause would work its way; but he was most anxious that it should not be carried in any way calculated to do violence to the feelings of the landlords, who he was sure would soon come to find their interests to be bound up with the just rights of the tenants, quite as much as the tenants themselves. Being anxious, then, not to provoke exasperation, either in that House or out of it, or to disturb the harmony between landlords and tenants, and being satisfied that the measure would be carried within one or two years at most—he was quite certain that it would be inquired into during next Session of Parliament—he begged to be allowed to withdraw the Bill for the present. He assured the House that his only object in bringing it forward had been practical legislation, and not to make speeches, and as soon as he found that that was hopeless, he at once abandoned it.
SIR R. PEELwished to be allowed to say a few words before the Bill was withdrawn. He thought that his hon. Friend (Mr. Pusey) had no reason to look back upon the course he had pursued with any other feelings than those of entire satisfaction. He did not believe that his hon. Friend had undertaken the arduous and difficult task of legislation—a task peculiarly difficult to a private Member of the House—from any other motives but those of wishing to encourage the application of capital to the land, and to insure a just remuneration to those tenants who might expend their own capital on its improvement. The hon. Member however, had met with unexpected difficulties. There were various arrangements now prevailing throughout the country which were founded on a

721
better basis than that of law, namely, the mutual confidence between landlords and tenants. He thought, therefore, that his hon. Friend had exercised a most wise discretion in not attempting to carry this Bill at present, and in not incurring the risk of disturbing that confidence, and provoking angry feelings between these two great classes. He (Sir E. Peel) thought that, after mature inquiry into the customs of different parts of the country, and after deliberate consideration as to how they could best give the force of law to those arrangements which were now based upon those friendly and reciprocal understandings, it was possible something might be done. If his hon. Friend, and those who, like him, took an interest in the welfare of agriculture, would apply their attention to the subject, it was probable they might come to some satisfactory understanding upon it. To the principle of promoting the application of capital to the land, in order to insure its better improvement, and of providing that just compensation should be given to tenants who had expended their capital in that way—to that principle there could be no objection whatever. But, as he had said before, he thought the course which had been taken by the hon. Member on this occasion, as well as on other occasions, such as in the case of the drainage of land, and in other matters relative to agricultural improvement, was such as to reflect great credit on the hon. Member; and, as the hon. Member had been obliged by circumstances which he had not foreseen to abandon the Bill, he thought it right on the part of some Member of the House who was opposed to him to express their entire confidence in the purity of his motives.
Order of the Day discharged. Bill withdrawn.

POOR RATES (IRELAND) BILL.
Bill considered in Committee. On the question that the Report be now received,
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENsaid, that having failed to catch the Speaker's eye previous to his leaving the chair, he had been unable to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill that day six months. As it was, he thought the best plan would be to move that the Report be received that day six months. The principle of the Bill was one which he could not too strongly protest against, and which he trusted would not be sanctioned by the House.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that on the second reading of the Bill he had stated the grounds on which he assented to that stage of the measure, reserving to himself the right of opposing some of the clauses in Committee. The Bill having now been committed pro formâ, it would be an unusual course to reject it without allowing the hon. Member who introduced it to lay it before the House in its amended shape. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
MR. YOUNGsaid, it was impossible to conceive that any alteration which could be made in the Bill would render it worthy of adoption by the House.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDsaid, that in the present state of the law, tenants, being exposed to the oppression of landlords and middlemen, were unable to deduct from the rent the portion to which they were entitled on account of rates paid by them. To remedy that evil was one of the objects of the Bill. It had long been found a difficult matter to collect the portion of the rates which ought to be paid by the landlord, and therefore the Bill provided, that in cases of neglect to pay rates by landlords, the Poor Law Commissioners might apply to the superior courts in Dublin for the appointment of receivers of the rents of their estates.
SIR R. FERGUSONopposed the Bill, and said it would be impracticable to levy rates under it.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would oppose the Amendment; but wished it not to be supposed that he was favourable to the Bill. He disapproved of the Amendment because it was unusual to bring it forward at such a stage.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that if the Amendment was unusual it was made under unusual circumstances. His hon. Friend had intended to object to the recommittal of the Bill; but that stage of the measure was passed with such rapidity that he was driven to take his objection to the report.
The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the Question:—Ayes 55; Noes 81: Majority 26.

List of the AYES.

Anson, hon. Col.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Arkwright, G.

Bowes, J.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Brotherton, J.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Busfeild, W.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Craig, W. G.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

723

Divett, E.

Napier, Sir C.

Duncan, G.

Newry, Visct.

Dundas, A.

Parker, J.

Dundas, Sir D.

Pattison, J.

Escott, B.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Fielden, J.

Russell, Lord E.

Fox, C. R.

Rutherfurd, A.

Frewen, C. H.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gore, hon. R.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Thornely, T.

Hastie, A.

Trelawny, J. S.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Tufnell, H.

Hill, Lord M.

Wakley, T.

Hoskins, K.

Ward, H. G.

Howard, P. H.

Watson, W. H.

Jervis, Sir J.

Wawn, J. T.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Williams, W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Wood, Col. T.

M'Carthy, A.

Wyse, T.

Maitland, T.

Mitcalfe, H.

TELLERS.

Mitchell, T. A.

Crawford, W. S.

Monahan, J. H.

Bowring, Dr.

List of the NOES.

Archdale, Capt. M.

Hussey, T.

Baillie, W.

Ingestre, Visct.

Baldwin, B.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Barrington, Visct.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Beckett, W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Bennet, P.

Lefroy, A.

Beresford, Maj.

Lindsay, Col.

Blackstone, W. S.

Mackenzie, T.

Boldero, H. G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Borthwick, P.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Brisco, M.

Miles, P. W. S.

Buckley, E.

Mundy, E. M.

Bunbury, W. M.

Neeld, J.

Carew, W. H. P.

Northland, Visct.

Christopher, R. A.

Prime, R.

Copeland, Ald.

Rashleigh, W.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Rendlesham, Lord

Cripps, W.

Repton, G. W. J.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Richards, R.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Round, C. G.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Round, J.

Egerton, W. T.

Sheppard, T.

Entwisle, W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Spooner, R.

Ferrand, W. B.

Stuart, H.

Forbes, W.

Stuart, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Thornhill, G.

Gisborne, T.

Tollemache, J.

Gladstone, Capt.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Goring, C.

Trotter, J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Verner, Sir W.

Granby, Marq. of

Vyse, H.

Greene, T.

Waddington, H. S.

Gregory, W. H.

Wall, C. B.

Grogan, E.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Halsey, T. P.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Wodehouse, E.

Hill, Lord E.

Worcester, Marq. of

Hodgson, R.

Holmes, hon. W. A'C.

TELLERS.

Hope, Sir J.

O'Brien, A. S.

Hudson, G.

Young, J.

SEAMEN'S ENLISTMENT BILL.
SIR C. NAPIER SIR C. NAPIER moved the Second Reading of the Seamen's Enlistment Bill.
724
The House was aware that in 1835 the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham) brought in and carried two measures, the Seamen's Enlistment Bill, and the Seamen's Registration Act. The former Bill enabled the Government to call out any number of seamen it thought proper, those who entered the Navy within six days after the proclamation being entitled to a double bounty-10 l.; those seamen who were actually employed on board the fleet at the time were, under the same Act, to receive a single bounty. But by that Act, if the Government required only 3,000 or 5,000 seamen, it must call on the whole of the commercial marine to serve, and thus the mercantile navy was paralysed and the men prevented from prosecuting their different voyages. The object of his Bill was to amend that portion of the present Enlistment Act, and enable the Government to call out any number of men it might require, without disturbing the whole of the merchant service. When Lord Minto was at the head of the Admiralty, the inconvenience of the regulation was felt; the ships in the Tagus were undermanned, and, as it was not thought advisable to issue the proclamation, which would have entitled all those actually serving at the time to a fresh bounty, the Admiralty was driven to adopt the system followed in the merchant service; crimps were employed to get men, for whom they were paid 2l. a head by the Government. Was that a creditable mode of manning Her Majesty's Navy? These crimps were the most villanous characters in the whole city of London; and that was saying a good deal. The object of this Bill was to prevent this; and he hoped the House would support him, though he was sorry to say the Government would not lend its aid. At present, when men were called out by proclamation, the whole of the seamen then on service were entitled to a bounty, whether a war took place or not; if 2,000 additional men were wanted a bounty of 5l. must be given to the whole of the 40,000 already serving, requiring the expenditure of 200,000 l. or 300,000 l. before they could raise a man. He did not think this just, as, if no war occurred, the men were exposed to no peril; he proposed, therefore, to alter this, leaving to the Government the power of giving the bounty to the men if a war took place within a year. He proposed to enact a penalty on masters and owners of merchant

725
vessels keeping men in their service who were called on by proclamation to enter the Navy. He would not use the power of impressment in any way; it was a disgrace to the country, and ought to be abandoned for ever. But the men, being discharged by the merchant captains, would not be able to find employment on shore, and must enter the Navy; that might be called impressment if they pleased, but it was impressment in a much milder form. He did not conceive there was any great hardship in this; if they issued a proclamation according to the present system, they would have to press, or rather they would try to press, for he doubted, with the present notions seamen entertained, whether impressment would be possible. He doubted whether captains, with a crew sufficiently strong, would allow their ships to be boarded as by privateers or pirates, and their men taken away; would it be possible now to turn up all hands in a merchant ship to take the heads from casks to search for men hid away, or thrust cutlasses between bales of goods to stir them up if stowed away there? And if they could not do this at sea, how could they impress on shore? How would they do it in the city of London? He doubted whether the Lord Mayor would back a press-warrant, or, if he did, he would make himself extremely obnoxious; and if he did, who was to carry it into execution? Were they to assemble all the police in London to search all the crimping and boarding houses for seamen? He believed it would be impossible; he did not think any Minister would dare to attempt it. If they could not use the power of impressment in London, how could they do it in Newcastle, Sunderland, Glasgow, and all the outports? If a war took place, the troops at home would be lessened to strengthen foreign garrisons, the West Indies, Gibraltar, Malta; where would the troops come from to enforce the system? It would be impossible, and during peace was the time to begin a better one. They had now had peace for thirty-two years; yet, with the exception of the two Bills of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), the measure proposed by the late Secretary at War (Mr. Sidney Herbert), and his own, no steps had been taken to remedy this great evil. If he had had any hope the Government would take up the subject themselves, he would not have brought it forward; it had engaged his attention ever since 1816, and he had la-
726
boured at it, through the public press and in various ways; but till he entered Parliament he had no opportunity of doing anything himself. The right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sydney Herbert) intended to follow up his Registration Bill with this very measure; but he left the Admiralty and was made Secretary at War, and was prevented by various other causes from bringing it forward. On different pleas the subject had been delayed and got rid of year after year. But lately he had observed a better feeling growing up in the House with respect to the Navy; more was thought necessary than the construction, of ships; and if he did not succeed in carrying the Bill, he hoped the House would oblige the Government to bring in some good measure of its own. It appeared to him that the whole thought of the Admiralty for the last thirty years had been bent on building ships; all the public money had been spent in building either in iron or wood, or with screw-propellers or paddle-wheels. They had been building morning, noon, and night, one year after another; and when a new Board of Admiralty came in, it directly pulled to pieces what had been built by its predecessor. One heightened a ship, another cut it down; one lengthened the stern, another the bows; and the public paid for all. But they did not consider what ships really were. They were neither more nor less than barracks, or floating castles, useless without men to put on board them. The late Admiralty, though in 1841 it condemned the system of sending ships to sea short-handed, itself returned to the practice; the present Board continued it, and now their ships at Lisbon and in the Mediterranean had diminished crews as formerly. A line-of-battle ship, instead of 1,000 men, had 750 or 800. The French system, he believed, remained unaltered; their ships were fully manned, and at that moment he believed there was in the harbour of Athens an English line-of-battle-ship with 750 men, or something like it, with a French ship having a crew of 900. The system now practised was neither just to the officers nor just to the men; the officers and men of the British Navy were capable of great achievements; but to be enabled to effect anything great, the complement of the ships should be maintained in time of peace as fully as in time of war. It was difficult at any time to induce men to enter the service, and that difficulty was made the more iusur-

727
mountable by retaining the ships ill-manned, for the man who wont on hoard went with the knowledge that an undue share of labour and work would be allotted to him. He had now stated the objects of the Bill; and as it was not probable that he should have the honour of addressing the House again on that or any other subject for a considerable time, he did implore the Government to trifle no longer with the seamen of the British Navy, to adopt a better and more righteous system of obtaining the required number of men, and to abandon altogether the notion of impressment. As sure as they lived, if a war took place, and they resorted again to the practice of impressing, they would lose all the men now in the American Navy, and who, were a better system pursued, would willingly serve their own country.
MR. WARDgreatly regretted, as it had been stated by his hon. and gallant Friend that this was the last measure he was likely to bring forward for a considerable time, that it was his (Mr. Ward's) duty to oppose this Bill. It was, however, under present circumstances, utterly impossible that the Board of Admiralty could give their sanction to such an enactment. He begged that there might be no mistake made: with reference to manning the Navy, the importance of taking advantage of a time of peace to ensure efficacy in a time of war, and with respect to all those general considerations which the hon. and gallant Member had properly urged upon the House, Government was as desirous as the gallant Officer could be, and it was to be hoped much better prepared than he supposed, to make adequate provision. [Sir C. NAPIER: The old story over again.] It was no doubt the old story over again; but it was a sufficient answer to such a complaint that nothing could be more dangerous than to tamper with such questions as these before the time was ripe for the settlement. He had already pointed out to the hon. and gallant Member that even were his course to be unopposed by the Government, he would find himself surrounded by difficulties in any attempt at this moment to legislate on the subject of the Navy. If the hon. and gallant Member had not been overwhelmed with protests against this Bill, it was solely because a confidence prevailed that Government would never consent to support it at the present juncture. The hon. and gallant Member proposed in lieu of the general right of impressment in emergencies, inhe-
728
rent in the Crown, to substitute a system which would connect the merchant seamen with the Queen's service, but of which the effect would be to disturb to a degree greater than could by possibility happen under existing arrangements the whole mercantile marine. There was no proposition to assert the right of the Crown to call out the naval population of the country, of all classes, in the event of war; and, after all, the machinery suggested by the fourth clause was merely to starve the men from one service into the other. The hon. and gallant Member had particularly dwelt on the importance of altering the system of bounties; that was a very grave and very extensive question, and the hon. and gallant Member might rely upon the attention of the Admiralty being anxiously directed to the point. Just at this moment, however, a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the Seamen's Fund; and if it was found expedient to enter on this subject next year it would also be advisable to take into consideration the various questions referred to by his hon. and gallant Friend, and all of which were intimately connected with the condition of the seaman. He hoped that, before any long time had elapsed, they would see a proper organization of a proper naval reserve. He believed this might be effected with a far less destructive disturbance of commercial interests than would be occasioned by the Bill now proposed to be read a second time; and he was sure he only expressed the unanimous decision of the present Board in stating that, both on public and on private grounds, they were bound to oppose such a Bill. He was excessively sorry the good intentions of his hon. and gallant Friend could not be met in any other way; but he hoped the rejection of the measure would not induce his gallant Friend to conclude that there was not on the part of the Board of Admiralty the most earnest desire to see carried out the objects which had been so frequently recommended to their consideration. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
MR. FORSTERagreed with the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty, that the time was inopportune for introducing the Bill.
MR. CORRYexpressed a hope that his hon. and gallant Friend would see the expediency of withdrawing the Bill for the present.
SIR C. NAPIERreplied: He did not think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary

729
to the Admiralty, had given any just reason why the Bill now before the House should not meet with the support of the Government. The hon. Gentleman said, an inquiry was going on, and that the Merchant Seamen's Fund was in process of being regulated. Why the Merchant Seamen's Fund had been in course of regulation for the last three years. The subject had been brought forward year after year, and yet up to this day there was not the slightest prospect of anything being done beyond instituting inquiries.
Amendment agreed to. Bill put off for six months.

SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Bill for the better Prevention of Seduction and Prostitution read. A Motion made that the Bill be now read a second time.
SIR G. GREYwas quite prepared to admit that the law was not in a satisfactory state with regard to those offences enumerated in the Bill which had been introduced by the hon. Gentleman; and he wished now to state how far he would agree to any measure on this subject. The first clause in the Bill professed to deal with the offence known as procuration. He admitted with the hon. Member that this was an offence not now sufficiently within the cognizance of the law, inasmuch as it could be proceeded against only under the Act applicable generally to conspiracies; and he was perfectly prepared, so far as he was concerned, to support a measure subjecting persons guilty of that offence to penalties proportioned to the crime. He doubted, however, if the clause, as now framed, would effectually carry out the object in view, and the penalties now proposed were objectionable. He objected to the summary jurisdiction which the hon. Member desired to give in cases of this kind. One of the clauses applied to parties found guilty of keeping brothels; and it was proposed that on a conviction the lease of the house inhabited by the offending party immediately became void. This would be open to objection: a party desirous of taking advantage of his landlord might engage a friend to prosecute him for keeping a brothel, and he might thus avoid all the obligations of the lease. The hon. Member would of course not wish that such should be the effect of his legislation, and would see the necessity of avoiding the
730
risk he ran, in an attempt of this nature, of doing a great deal of mischief while he sought only to do good. The third, fourth, and sixth clauses were likewise in the last degree objectionable. They were drawn up certainly in very general terms; they were, however, of a very sweeping character, and there was indeed no knowing who might not become subject to a penalty under the operation of such a Bill. A great number of offences were defined, and persons guilty of these offences would become subject to all the penalties which could be imposed upon the keepers of brothels. He was of opinion that under the terms of the Bill, as it now stood, it went very much beyond its professed object. The landlord of a tavern, for instance, according to this Bill, if he permitted two persons not known to be married to sleep in his house, would become subject to heavy penalties; and the servants engaged in such a house, if cognizant of the landlord's connivance in such an offence, would be liable to precisely the same punishment. These were the difficulties which the hon. Member would have to encounter in his praiseworthy anxiety to effect an undoubted good; and this very clearly showed the impossibility of attempting to legislate to the full extent which might seem desirable with a view to enforcing public morality. It was, in fact, altogether out of the question to expect that an Act of Parliament could meet cases of this kind. Whoever had framed this Bill had done so with an ingenuity which would include every possible offence properly the subject of such a measure; but the objections were insurmountable. He therefore wished that the hon. Gentleman would limit the Bill to meeting the offence of procuring persons for the purposes of prostitution—a very serious evil, and one for which it was incumbent on them to provide a remedy; and he would suggest that the proposition to give summary jurisdiction be withdrawn, and that the offence be left to competent and unobjectionable tribunals. To a Bill calculated to confer that benefit on society which would be derived from the suppression of such an evil, he would not offer any opposition; but he had carefully looked over the clauses of the present Bill, and there was not one not open to the most serious objection. The best course, therefore, if the House would grant leave, would be for the hon. Gentleman to bring in a Bill, should he think it desirable, limited to the object to which he had alluded.
MR. SPOONERwas aware, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be useless and waste of time only to do otherwise than adopt that course which had been suggested. He perfectly concurred in the propriety of that course, and, with the permission of the House, he would now withdraw the Bill.
Bill withdrawn.

HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL.
VISCOUNT MORPETH VISCOUNT MORPETH moved the Order of the Day that the Health of Towns Bill be committed. He wished to go into Committee pro formâ, as some alterations were intended to be made in the Bill.
COLONEL SIBTHORPwished to put a question to the noble Lord respecting this Bill. If he had been correctly informed, the noble Lord was now about to withdraw every part of the Bill which affected the city of London, and he wanted to know why the city of London was, all at once, to be excluded? It was true the noble Lord at the head of the Government was a Member for the City; but what was fair for one was fair for another, and he should like to know why the metropolis, swarming with people of all nations, was to be excluded from the Bill, and the city he represented—Lincoln—one of the cleanest and best-conducted towns in the United Kingdom—was to be included? He did not attribute motives to any one, but they all knew that large constituencies had great persuasive powers. He begged to ask the noble Lord, whether it was his intention, and, if so, the reason, to exclude the metropolis from the Bill—one of those towns which required the earliest and the closest consideration?
MR. SPOONERsaid, he believed it was a part of the provisions of this Bill to make it compulsory upon municipal towns to adopt the regulations of the Bill, and suggested whether, instead of making it compulsory, it might not be optional?
DR. BOWRINGhoped the noble Lord, who had already surrendered so much, would not give way much more, or the Bill would become of very little value. The Bill met with approbation and support out of doors; and if he adhered to it in its integrity, he would find more than encouragement, even enthusiasm, in its favour.
VISCOUNT SANDONcould confirm the observation of the hon. Member, and stated that the petition he had presented in favour of the Bill from Liverpool, had been signed by several hundreds of the working
732
classes within two or three hours; and he could bear testimony to their strong and intense feeling towards the measure. It was gratifying to see that they could appreciate the subject, and that they did not leave it to the wealthy classes. He hoped that no undue obstacle would be thrown in the way of the Bill, and that the noble Lord would show the necessary vigour in carrying it into effect.
COLONEL T. WOODsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln had forgotten to notice that there was a new Board of Commissioners created under this Bill. He was not prepared to admit this principle, and he did not think that any Board would be able to manage the conflicting interests which would be put into action, and that the Bill would he much better carried out under the superintendence of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.
VISCOUNT MORPETHhad consented to omit the metropolis from the Bill, not because its provisions were less necessary there than in Lincoln, but because owing to its immense size, and the large mass of previous legislation he had to deal with, he found it impracticable to include it; and he was afraid, if he had grasped at everything, he might have caught nothing. In reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, he said he was not prepared to make the provisions of the Bill applicable to corporate towns optional, though there was very little that was really compulsory in the Bill. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bolton, he trusted that neither he (Viscount Morpeth) nor the House would show any disposition to make undue concessions.
Order of the day read on the question that the Speaker do now leave the chair.
COLONEL SIBTHORPmoved that the House be counted.
Thirty-four Members only being present, the House stood adjourned ten minutes to Six o'clock.