Sitting of 15 February 1848

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Rye, Herbert Mascall Curteis, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Agricultural Tenant Right.
Reported.—New Zealand Government.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From London Society of Mutual Communication for the Protection of Trade, that the Privilege now granted to Members of Parliament of Freedom from Personal Arrest may be Abrogated.—By Mr. F. Maule, from Free Presbytery of Arbroath, for Protection to the Free Church, Canton de Vaud (Switzerland).—By several Hon. Members, from various places, for and against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By Mr. Christopher, from Lincoln, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By a great many Hon. Members, from various places, complaining of the Conduct of the Roman Catholic Clergy (Ireland), and for and against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. Cobden, and Mr. Sandars, from Attorneys and Solicitors of Yorkshire, for Repeal of Duty on Attorneys Certificates.—By Mr. Cowan, from Edinburgh, for Repeal of the Duty on Paper.—By Mr. Gregson, from Traders of Singapore, for Reduction of Duty on Pepper.—By Mr. K. Coke, from Guardians of the Docking Union, Norfolk, for Rating Owners in Lieu of Occupiers of Tenements.—By Admiral Gordon, from Aberdeen, and Mr. B. Smith, from Dunfermline, for Revision of the Stamp Duties.—By Lord D. Stuart, and other Hon. Members, from several places, for Repeal of the Window Tax.—By Sir F. Davie, from Dunbar, for Repeal or Alteration of the Bank Charter, and Banking (Scotland) Acts.—By Mr. J. Williams, from Beersellers of Macclesfield, Sutton, and Hurdafield, for placing Beersellers on the same Footing as Licensed Victuallers.—By Lord R. Grosvenor, and Sir. J. Pakington, from Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, of various places, for Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.—By Mr. Duff, from the County of Elgin, respecting the Bonding of British Spirits.—By Sir J. Pakington, from Worcester Board of Education, for Alteration of Law respecting Education.—By Captain Archdall, from Kilmore, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Mr. Bright, from North Berwick, for Repeal of the Game Laws,—By Mr. P. Grenfell, and other Hon. Mem-

659
bers, from several places, for Sanitary Regulations—By Mr. S. Crawford, from various places in Ireland, for Alteration of Law of Landlord and Tenant.—From Southampton, respecting Salaries of Magistrates' Clerks.—By Mr. Cobden, and several other Hon. Members, from a great many places, for Retrenchment of the Naval and Military Expenditure.—By Sir J. Johnstone, from Shipowners of Scarborough, for Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—By Mr. Cobden, from Robert Owen, for Inquiry into the Condition of the People.—By Mr. F. Devereux, from Ardfert, for Alteration of Poor Law (Ireland) as to the Rating of Clerical Incomes.—By Mr. Cobden, from Clerks, Masters, and Matrons of Workhouses, of several places, for a Superannuation Fund for Meritorious Officers.—By Mr. B. Smith, from Queensferry, for Alteration of Law respecting Prisons (Scotland).—By Mr. Bright, from Finsbury, for Abolition of the Punishment of Death.—By Mr. Henley, from Oxfordshire, for Alteration of Law of Settlement.—By Mr. Benjamin Smith, from Queensferry, for Inquiry respecting Turnpike Roads, &c. (Scotland).—By Colonel Thompson, from York, for referring War Disputes to Arbitration.

THE LOSS OF THE AVENGER.
In answer to MR. FITZROY,
ADMIRAL DUNDASstated that the Avenger received at Gibraltar a box containing every Mediterranean chart, and the receipt of Captain Napier for it was in the hands of the Admiralty.

PORTUGAL—THE PROTOCOL OF MAY, 1847.
MR. HUMEbegged to ask Viscount Palmerston whether the engagements entered into by the Protocol of May, 1847, with the Governments of France and Spain, had been fulfilled, and whether we were free from them?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My hon. Friend will recollect that the first two parts related to an amnesty for political offences, and the last two to the elections. Those elections have taken place, and the Cortes are now assembled. Therefore undoubtedly the state of circumstances to which the Protocol related is past, and I have informed the Portuguese Government that there are no longer any grounds on which this country can interfere in the present state of Portugal.

AFFAIRS OF ITALY.
DR. BOWRINGrose to move for copies or extracts of correspondence on the subject of the Commercial League of Italy, He could not refrain, in doing so, from taking a passin; glance at the state of political affairs in that country. It had been the unhappy destiny of Italy in modern times, notwithstanding all her former grandeur, her learning, her high position in the scale of nations, and the universality of her
660
language, to fulfil the denunciation of the poet—
"Conquering or conquered, still to be a slave."
Whilst the great men of that country had poured the light of genius over the universal earth, and their claims to admiration had been recognised by the world, Italy herself had been condemned to a long period of darkness, from which she seemed about to emerge. He was not aware that any events had taken place of late years which had filled men of thought and hope with more agreeable anticipations than the events which had occurred in Italy; and sure he was that that House would join in the prayer that they might lead to the great consummation of Italian freedom, and that Italian freedom might be associated with Italian happiness. No one could have read without paying a tribute of admiration to the noble Lord the documents which had been laid on the table of the House, and the communications with the Austrian Government as to the territorial arrangements and political relations of Italy. No doubt, in many respects the position of Austria was an embarrassing one. She had conveyed her policy to Europe in one short emphatic phrase; she declared that, as far as she was concerned, Italy was only a geographical abstraction, a mere name. She saw nothing that was common to the Italian people, nothing in the universality of its language, nothing in the character of its literature, nothing in the sentiments of ancient nationality which pervaded the Italian peninsula, nothing in those great influences which had been acting for centuries on the Italian mind. Prince Metternich, who ought to be keenly alive to all that was passing in Italy, saw in the demand for reform only a subversive spirit at work; the policy of Austria towards free and independent nations such as Switzerland had been directed to one great object, to prevent the establishment of a free and national Government; acting upon the maxim divide et impera; and impeding the consolidation of that influence which free and constitutional States ought to exercise. Austria had been compelled within her own territories to make great concessions to public opinion, to allow to Hungary a constitutional Government. He hoped that a reconsideration of her position in Italy would induce her to make similar concessions to the people of Lombardy. From the time of Dante downwards, it was remarkable how many evidences

661
were to be found of a mutual sympathy between those two portions of the Austrian dominions—how Lombardian hopes and feelings had vibrated to Hungary from Lombardy, and Hungarian feelings to Lombardy from Hungary. And in what language did Prince Metternich designate what was passing in Italy? He made no allowance for the force of opinion which had influenced the Sovereigns of Italy, and induced them to float with that great tide of public sentiment which was flowing towards constitutional government. The action of the current of national feeling he ascribed to the machinations of the "chiefs of sects," who had, he declares, for some years undermined the institutions of the peninsula. The progress of events he called the utopia of an advanced radicalism, and saw with horror the influence of public opinion such as existed in Switzerland. He did not know how any statesman could expect the Italians to reverence his authority, or could hope to exercise influence within the peninsula, except by associating himself with Italian feelings, and trying to represent Italian interests. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the language which the noble Lord had held in his despatches to the Austrian Government. Whilst recognising the right of Austria to some territorial possessions in Italy, the noble Lord had laid down distinctly and broadly the important principle of
—"the right which belongs to the sovereign power in every State to make such reforms and internal improvements as may be judged by such sovereign power proper to be made, and conducive to the wellbeing of the people whom it governs."
Most admirable was the advice offered by the noble Lord in reference to this principle:—
"That right it appears that some of the Sovereigns of Italy are now willing and prepared to exercise, and Her Majesty's Government would hope that the Government of Austria may think fit to employ that great political influence which Austria legitimately possesses in Italy with a view to encourage and support those Sovereigns in such laudable undertakings."
The noble Lord went on to point out the causes which had produced the present state of irritation and anxiety prevailing in some quarters, and remarked, almost prophetically—
"Her Majesty's Government have been convinced, by the information which has reached them from a great variety of quarters, that deep, widely-spread, and well-founded discontent exists in a large portion of Italy; and when it is considered how full of defects and how teeming with
662
abuses of all kinds the present system of government in several of those States, and more especially in the Roman States and in the kingdom of Naples, are known to be, it cannot be surprising that such crying evils should generate the strongest discontent; and it is very possible that men who feel the full intensity of the grievances under which they now are and have for a long series of years been suffering, and who see no hope of redress from their present rulers, should take up any scheme, however wild, from which they may fancy they could derive a chance of relief."
The noble Lord then proceeded to do justice to the admirable and excellent man lately placed at the head of the Pontifical dominions, whose knowledge of the state of the Italian mind, and conviction of the deeply-rooted evils which has spread through the whole of his territories, had induced him to undertake the great work of reform, and to aid it by those religious influences which he alone was able to bring to bear upon the subject. The noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs observed, that—
"This observation does not indeed apply with full force to the Roman States, because the present Pope has shown a desire to adopt many of those much-needed reforms and improvements which in 1832 Austria, in conjunction with Great Britain, France, Russia, and Prussia, urgently advised the late Pope to carry into execution; and it may be hoped that if the Pope be encouraged and assisted by Austria and the other four Powers, in removing the grievances of which his subjects have long complained, the discontent which those grievances have created will soon die away."
The advent of the present Pope to power had enabled him to give effect to the yearnings of the Italian mind; his conviction of the enormous extent and deep rooted foundation of the evils and grievances by which his territorial dominions were overspread, induced him to undertake the great work of reform, and to associate it with the religious influences which, as the head of the Roman Catholic Church, were placed under his control. With regard to Naples, the noble Lord offered some suggestions on which Austria would do well to act:—
"But there are other States in Italy, and more especially the kingdom of Naples, where reforms and improvements are required almost as much as in the Roman territory; and Her Majesty's Government would hope, that as no European Power is more interested than Austria in preserving the internal tranquillity of Italy, so will the great and well-known influence of Austria in Naples be beneficially exercised in encouraging those reforms and improvements which will tend to remove the discontent from which alone would spring any dangers by which that tranquillity is likely to be threatened."
He should be greatly grieved if it were

663
supposed that he would desire to see this Government meddling in the internal affairs of other States; but indisposition to interfere appeared to him perfectly compatible with a great sympathy for the maintenance and spread of free institutions. He desired to see the establishment of liberty in every portion of the globe, and had the strongest wish that the moral influence of the Government and people of England should be generously and liberally exerted in that struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors which was going on throughout Europe. The religious influences of Rome, the free-trade principles of Tuscany, he trusted, would gradually spread through the Italian States, and become the lawgivers of the Italian people. Though Austria might feel some alarm at the political and military power of Sardinia, it was to be hoped she would see the necessity of consenting to those ameliorations which would add so materially to the happiness of her Italian dominions. Then might they look forward with confident expectation to the establishment, in every one of the Italian States, of free and representative Governments. The interests of peace, the interests of liberty, the interests of mankind, required this. The power which the Pope exercised rested only in the individual, and was referable to a happy accident; but it ought to be the object of British policy to assist with all our moral influence the consolidation of a free Government in the various States. It had been said with great truth, that in the Italian Free Trade Confederation, Sardinia occupied much the same place as Prussia in the Zollverein. The conduct of Carlo Alberto had been in every respect most honourable to him; he had gone from step to step without bloodshed and violence, towards the establishment of a constitutional form of government, which would be most acceptable to his people. Tuscany had always been a particularly interesting portion of the Italian peninsula, especially to those who had seen the happy effects of the development of the principles of free trade in the felicity of the Tuscan people. The influence of Tuscany was widely spread; no doubt it was she who had contributed the largest portion of illustration to the literature of Italy; and it was matter of congratulation that the Grand Duke had not been backward in moving in the path of constitutional reform. With respect to Naples he could not speak without some apprehen-
664
sion and hesitation; but even there the good seed had been sown, and would, no doubt, grow to a flourishing tree; and he could not doubt that the Sovereign, taught by long and sad experience, and impelled by the events passing around him, would yield to the general feelings of the Italian people. The Sicilians, too, had sought to burst their bonds; and if blood had unfortunately been shed, we could not forget it was the example and instructions of England which awakened in the minds of the Sicilian people the desire for independence. No one could have trodden Sicilian ground without hearing the name of Lord William Bentinck spoken of with intense affection; and through all the vicissitudes of her late history there was no Sicilian who did not ardently expect the day when his countrymen should be entrusted with the making of Sicilian laws, and the public mind should be reflected in its institutions. The idea of the Commercial League appeared to him to have been most fortunate. There were no means by which Italian feeling could be so effectively condensed and brought to a focus as by the establishment of a league of that nature. No more federalism than free communication was desired. Although a strong national feeling pervaded Italy generally, the individual States were distinguished by long-cherished local prepossessions and peculiarities. Much that characterised the Neapolitan was not to be found in the inhabitants of Tuscany; whilst strong points of difference were to be found between the Roman and the Venetian, the Lombard and the Sicilian. The commercial spirit of Italy was still alive and active. Notwithstanding the great changes that had been effected by the discovery of the countries beyond the Cape, and the alterations that had been introduced in our mode of intercourse with the Oriental world, Italy had preserved a large portion of the trade of Europe, and many of her ports were distinguished for the excellence of her mariners and the enterprise of her merchants. But he hoped the Italian Commercial League would guard against making that mistake which had been made by the Germans on the Rhine. He trusted that their tariff would recognise no discriminating duties, and that while facilitating communication among themselves, they would not raise a barrier to the friendly intercommunication with other nations. That was the great fault which had been committed in Germany. If the tariff of Tuscany, for example,

665
should be made the groundwork of future commercial legislation, he had no doubt that Italian commercial glory would again return—that Genoa, Leghorn, and Venice—the great commercial marts of that peninsula would see the return of those days of splendour with which their remoter history was associated. He was not aware whether the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs would find himself in a condition to make any communication to the House on the present occasion; but, certain as he (Dr. Bowring) was that the active intelligence of the noble Lord had been directed towards that interesting portion of the world—Italy, and considering as he (Dr. Bowring) did that the commercial interests of this country involved, in effect, the commercial interests of the world, he had no mistrust as to the welfare of Italy or of England being well guaranteed so long as they were in the keeping of that noble Lord. Without, therefore, trespassing any further upon the House, he begged to move that copies or extracts of correspondence on the subject of the Commercial League in Italy be laid upon the table of the House.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My hon. Friend has no doubt called the attention of the House to some of the most remarkable and interesting events which have occurred in our times. It is impossible for any man to witness the progress which constitutional opinions and institutions are now making in Italy without feelings of the deepest and liveliest interest. Sir, Italy is not only at all times one of the most interesting countries from its peculiar position, but one may say, that its history has been the most remarkable of any country on the face of the earth; for it has gone through every change of political condition—from being the mistress of the known world to being reduced to a state almost of political extinction. I trust that a brighter day is now dawning upon that country, favoured as it is by nature in many respects—the birthplace of some of the greatest geniuses that have ever lived, though unhappily Italy has been for a long time unlucky in respect to its political condition. The confidence with which we may look to the future prospects of Italy is founded on the gifts which nature has bestowed upon the people who inhabit that land, for in the political vicissitudes to which the country has been subject, the natural vigour of the mind of the Italian people, the extent of their intellectual resources, and I
666
may say the splendour of their genius, has invariably made way, and even in the darkest periods of their political history, there have shone forth bright examples of intellectual ability, which have been not only the ornament of the country, but the admiration of the civilised world. It is gratifying to see that the progress which rational liberty is now making in Italy is brought about by the harmonious accord of sovereigns and people. It is upon that circumstance more especially that I venture to found my hopes that the improvements which are now making will be permanent and stable, because they are founded upon mutual concord, and are therefore less likely to be shaken by any future and untoward events. My hon. Friend has adverted to the position in which Austria stands with respect to the events now passing in Italy. It is a satisfaction to me, and I am sure it will be gratifying to the House, that I should be able to say, that as far as Her Majesty's Government are informed of the intentions of the Cabinet of Vienna, they see no reason to apprehend that the policy of that Cabinet will be to meddle in any way whatever of hostile interference with the events which are taking place beyond the Po. I have indeed within the last four-and-twenty hours received communications from the British Ambassador at Vienna, which contain very satisfactory assurances on that subject. That course is one which might naturally be expected from the prudence and the wisdom of the Austrian Government; and I am happy to find it is the course which that Government is likely to pursue. With respect to the particular transaction to which my hon. Friend's Motion relates, the formation of the Commercial League, I should rather wish my hon. Friend and the House to allow me to defer to some future period the communication of the diplomatic correspondence on that subject. For this wish, I will shortly state the reason, if it is not obvious to the House. That Commercial League is at present founded only in principle. The details of the arrangements are still matters of negotiation between Members who seek to form it. If I were to lay before this House communications which have been confidently made to our representatives at the different Courts of Italy of the views with which the several Governments are entering into that negotiation, I am sure my hon. Friend will see that such publication would tend, perhaps, to defeat the purpose

667
which he and I, and I am sure every Member of this House, would wish to see accomplished. The mere ordinances which form the basis of that future league have already been made public. I can have no objection whatever to lay them on the table; but I should wish not to be asked to lay on the table any confidential communications which have been made to us as to the present state and progress of the negotiation. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House, however, that we have witnessed that union of the different States of Italy, with a view to establish some uniform system of commercial intercourse founded on a basis of commercial liberty, with the greatest interest and sympathy; and as far as it becomes the Government of this country to tender advice or express wishes upon this subject, my hon. Friend may be assured that no proper effort shall be omitted by us to persuade the States, of whom that union is composed, to found the tariff, and the calculated regulations of the tariff, upon principles which shall be consistent with the utmost development of commercial intercourse and freedom. My hon. Friend has adverted to the share which the British Government may be disposed to take in regard to the political events now passing in Italy. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and in that which I have no doubt is the opinion of this House, that whatever may be the wishes, whatever the gratification with which Her Majesty's Government may see the progress of political events in Italy, it is not fitting that the British Government should interfere, further than may be required with a view to the best interests of the parties concerned. But I am satisfied it will be gratifying to the House, as a proof of the confidence with which England is looked to by parties in remote quarters of Europe, and engaged in affairs more exclusively concerning themselves, that I should say that Lord Minto is gone from Rome to Naples, in consequence of a desire expressed by the Sicilians on the one hand, and by the Government of Naples on the other, that the effective assistance of British diplomacy should be afforded towards a satisfactory settlement of the points in dispute between them. I am sure those who are acquainted with my noble Friend will feel that that task, delicate and difficult as it may be, cannot be placed in better hands; and. that my noble Friend, in any advice which, upon the solicitation of the parties he may think him-
668
self at liberty to offer to them, will be actuated by the most disinterested and enlightened desire to bring them to such an adjustment as may be consistent with the happiness of the people, and the dignity and honour of the Sovereign.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEwas quite sure that the circumstance which the noble Lord had mentioned, of Lord Minto having been directed to go to the Court of Naples, proceeded from no want of confidence in those who, in the ordinary course of things, it might have been supposed would have been the parties to be charged with the mission. He felt confident that the language in which the noble Lord had expressed himself would prove to France, and to those Gentlemen in the French Chambers who had commented upon the conduct of the noble Lord on various occasions, that the principles of the English Government were those of constitutional liberty, and that their object was to develop, as far as they could, without an injudicious interference, the principles of constitutional liberty in every country. Those Gentlemen who paid attention to the French debates would, he was sure, feel a proud gratification at the tone of the noble Lord, and the language held in that House, as compared, he was sorry to say, with some of the speeches delivered upon the other side of the channel.
Motion withdrawn.

SHIPWRECKS AND COLLISIONS OF MERCHANT VESSELS.
MR. HUME, in submitting the Motion of which he had given notice, said, it would not be necessary for him to urge its importance with a view to gain the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the subject. Three Committees of the House of Commons had already sat on the question of shipwrecks; one in 1836, another in 1841, and the third in 1842. The inquiry embraced a variety of topics, and the evidence was of a highly valuable character. The Committees recommended many important matters to the attention of the House; but the chief point on which they all concurred was, that whereas many cases of shipwreck had arisen from carelessness, ignorance, and a variety of other causes of that nature, they recommended that an inquiry should be instituted in all cases of shipwreck, with a view to collect information both for the Government and the public. The Committees had recommended that masters and mates of ships should be

669
examined, and should only be permitted to take charge of property and life when they were found qualified for doing so. He certainly was of opinion that a great depreciation of the character of our seamen had taken place of late years. Thirty or forty years ago the custom was to retain the seamen on board the merchant ships whenever they entered harbour, that they might acquire experience in navigation, as well as assist in all that was necessary to be done in shipping and unshipping the vessels; but since the establishment of docks, the moment a ship arrived in port the sailors were sent on shore, and no provision was made by the Government or the merchants to keep them together. It was certainly the duty of the Government to have instituted long ago an inquiry as to the cause of the deterioration which had clearly taken place in the seamanlike qualities of the men who navigated our merchant vessels. The object, however, of his present Motion was, that some official record should be obtained and kept as to the manner, and, if possible, the cause of shipwrecks. It appeared from the report of the Committee on Shipwrecks of 1836, that in addition to the ascertained number of persons drowned in the years 1816 to 1818, and in the years 1833 to 1835, the entire crews of 49 vessels were lost within the first period, and the entire crews of 81 vessels in the last period, whose numbers were not known; but, taking an average of 10 men to each vessel, this made a total loss of life, for the first period, of 2,228 persons, and of 2,686 for the last. The loss to the community, during the last period, amounted to 8,510,000 l.; and when it was recollected that this estimate included only the losses entered in Lloyd's books, he undervalued the loss to the public when he took it at 3,000,000 l. annually. The Committee of 1836 recommended—
"The arrangement of a plan for the institution of courts of inquiry to examine into the circumstances of every shipwreck that occurs, as far as may be practicable, with power to pronounce a verdict of censure on the owners or commanders of all those vessels where the result of the inquiry should establish the fact of such wreck being occasioned by any fault or deficiency on the part of either, as well as to acquit honourably the owners or commanders of those ships against whom no fault could be proved, and to make the evidence and verdict in each case public in every port in the kingdom; with further power to suspend, for a given time, the licenses or certificates of such officers and seamen as should be proved guilty of gross incompetency or gross neglect of duty; and to reward, either by reimbursement of
670
their loss of wages and effects, or by gratuities, or medals of honour and distinction, those officers and men who should have particularly distinguished themselves by their skill, courage, or humanity, in preserving the lives and property of others, whether actually belonging to the ships that were wrecked, or coming to their assistance from other vessels or from the shore."
The Committee of 1843 made a similar recommendation. He would therefore move for—
"A Select Committee to consider whether, in all cases of Shipwreck, and of Collisions of Merchant Vessels, attended with loss of life, an inquiry, as speedily after the accident, and as near as possible to the place, should be appointed, to examine into the attendant circumstances and causes of the Shipwreck, and to report to the House in what manner the inquiry should be conducted."
MR. H. FITZROYseconded the Motion. He hoped that one of the results of the labours of the proposed Committee would be the adoption of a measure for ensuring an examination of masters and mates before they were intrusted with the command of vessels. It appeared from evidence taken by the Committee on the Navigation Laws last Session, that the captains of our ships employed in long voyages were as capable of discharging their duties as the captains of American vessels, or of the vessels of any other people; while the captains of our vessels employed in short voyages and in our coasting trade were men of very inferior qualifications.
MR. LABOUCHEREdid not rise for the purpose of offering any objection to the Motion. On the contrary, he thought that the greatest benefit would result from the labours of the Committee. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the subject was one very well worth the attention of the House. His hon. Friend was probably aware that there already existed a power given to the Board of Trade by Act of Parliament of inquiring into the circumstances of the shipwrecks of steam vessels, and collisions between steam vessels, or between steam vessels and sailing vessels. But at present the Government had no power of instituting an inquiry into the wrecks or collisions of any other than steam vessels. He could undertake to say that great advantage had hitherto resulted from the exercise of the power of inquiring into the circumstances attending the wrecks of steam vessels. The other day the Board of Trade had received a very valuable and elaborate report from the officer appointed to inquire into the case of the loss of the Tribune on the coast of

671
Ireland. He was aware that there would be some difficulty in extending inquiries of that description to sailing vessels; but he felt persuaded that the present state of the law upon the subject was not for the benefit of the shipping interest, while it was inconsistent with the interests of humanity. His hon. Friend had said, with too much truth, that the character of our mercantile marine, instead of having improved of late years, in comparison with that of other nations, had seriously deteriorated. He had lately had occasion to read the reports received from British consuls, in all parts of the world, in reply to questions addressed to them from the Foreign Office upon that subject; and he should say that those reports presented a picture which must be extremely painful to every Englishman. They described a state of things to which it was most important that Government and Parliament should address themselves as speedily as possible, with a view to its alteration. In consequence, he was afraid, of the low character, in too many instances, of the masters and mates appointed to command our merchant vessels, the character of the British marine had of late greatly deteriorated; and merchants preferred committing their cargoes to the ships of foreign nations, rather than to British vessels. He believed it was the intention of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to lay the reports in question without delay on the table of the House; and he certainly hoped those reports would induce the House to lend a willing assent to any ulterior measures that it might be the duty of the Government to propose with a view to remedy that evil. But, above all, he hoped that the attention of those connected with the shipping interest would be called to those documents, and that they would see that it was desirable for their sakes in particular, that stringent and effective measures should be applied to put an end to a state of things, which, while it was discreditable and injurious to the country at large, fell upon them with the greatest weight. His hon. Friend had also adverted to the very important question of the expediency of adopting a system of examination for the masters and mates of merchant vessels, with a view to ensure the possession of the necessary qualifications for the performance of their duties. Now, it would not be true to say that nothing had of late years been done upon that subject. No compulsory system of
672
examination had, indeed, been enforced by Parliament, mainly in consequence, he believed, of the very great opposition of the mercantile interest to any such system. But provision had been made by Parliament for the adoption of a voluntary system of examination for masters and mates of vessels. If he recollected rightly, the House had appointed one examiner, Lloyd's had appointed another, and some third party had appointed another. These three examiners had deputies throughout the country, and constituted a hoard before which any master or mate of a vessel who pleased might undergo an examination, and obtain a certificate of qualification if he should be found to deserve it. He was happy to say that that system had recommended itself more and more to those connected with our mercantile marine, and that the number of persons who had applied for, and had obtained, those certificates had of late considerably increased. Whether they were then ripe for rendering that system compulsory, he would not at that moment undertake to discusss. But he thought it was a fortunate circumstance that they had at any rate begun that system in a manner altogether in accordance with the feelings of the classes connected with our mercantile marine; and he trusted it would be found that they had commenced a system which would lead to an improvement of persons who occupied situations so important to the character of our navy as the masters and mates of our merchant vessels. He thought that, under any circumstances, and at any time, it would be right for them most seriously to consider those subjects with a view to their taking that course with regard to them which they might think most likely to promote the interests of a most important branch of our national prosperity. But he felt that it was more particularly incumbent on them to do so at a time when they proposed to bring under the consideration of Parliament the question of the navigation laws. He thought that while they entertained that determination, the mercantile marine had a perfect right to expect from them that they should also take into their consideration other questions connected with the interests of that body. He believed that the whole of those subjects ought to receive a connected and deliberate consideration from the House; and he hoped that before the close of the Session they would be able, at all events, to lay the foundation of a different state of

673
things from that which he regretted to! think at present existed with regard to our mercantile navy.
Motion agreed to.

LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND.)
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid: Sir, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland, I believe I shall best consult the convenience of the House if I proceed at once to state the nature of this measure, the principles upon which it is founded, and the machinery upon which it is intended to give effect to those principles. It would be easy for me at the commencement of my observations to dilate on the extreme difficulty and delicacy and the complicated nature of the subject which I have undertaken to bring under the attention of the House. But, Sir, it is the very complicated nature of the question which leads me to think that the best plan which I can now follow will be simply to state the nature of the measure to the House, because I feel that until we have the power of comparing its details and sifting its provisions, it will be difficult to form a correct opinion of its merits. The Bill which, with the permission of the House, I shall this night lay on the table, embraces two points. First of all, it will provide compensation for the improvements made by the tenants during their holding, if they are dispossessed previous to the expiration of a certain period; and secondly, it will, I hope, effect several not unimportant changes in the relations between landlord and tenant. The Bill proposes to encourage the outlay of capital by the tenant, by providing compensation for him should he be dispossessed of his holding within a period that would not afford him the full benefit of his outlay; and it endeavours to carry out this object without any disturbance of existing interests, and with as little interference with the rights of property as possible. I will not at this period of my statement urge on the attention of the House the necessity of conceding this principle. I believe, by the majority of this House, and by the majority of the public out of doors, that principle has already been conceded. Indeed it is no new principle, for I have met with publications relating to the state and condition of Ireland—of considerable antiquity, more than a century old—in which the principle is broadly laid down, that inasmuch as in Ireland it is not the
674
custom of the landlord to provide suitable farm-buildings for the tenant, if the tenant should think fit to spend capital in the erection of them, and he should be dispossessed at a period when he had not had the full benefit of that outlay, he would be entitled to compensation upon being dispossessed. That principle has been often discussed out of this House before it came recommended to the consideration of Parliament by a Commission issued by the Crown, the report of which Commission was laid on the table of this House three years ago; and after that a noble Lord, not my immediate predecessor in the office which I have the honour to hold, but who formerly filled that office, laid on the table of this House a Bill embodying a similar principle; and I remember that that principle was received with favour by the House, and the noble Lord was permitted to lay the Bill on the table for their consideration. Before I proceed, then, to notice the changes which I contemplate making in the law affecting the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland, I will state to the House in what manner it is intended the measure should proceed for securing compensation to the tenant for his outlay of capital. It is intended that from and after the passing of this Act, all tenants possessing an interest, to be hereafter specified, and holding under any lease or agreement, or from year to year, at a rent not exceeding ten pounds, may serve notice in a printed form, according to the terms to be prescribed, in a schedule appended to the Act, specifying the proposed improvements, whether of building, fencing, or subsoiling, and that he having done so, he shall nominate an arbitrator of his own, and call upon the landlord to do the same. If, within a given period, say within twenty-one days, the landlord shall not name an arbitrator to act in his behalf, it shall be competent for the tenant to summon him or his acknowledged agent before the petty sessions; and the court of petty sessions is to nominate an arbitrator, to be conjoined with the arbitrator originally selected by the tenant. The two arbitrators are then to choose an umpire, or should they decline doing so, the petty sessions are to be called upon to appoint one; and the arbitrators and umpire thus appointed are to form the body of arbitration to whom is to be assigned the duty of deciding on the notice which the tenant has served on his landlord. They will make it their business to inspect the farm generally; to consider the

675
value, character, and suitableness of the contemplated improvements; and to determine the additional rent which ought to be paid by the tenant in the event of the landlord consenting to execute them himself. If they decide that the improvements are suitable and desirable, and should be proceeded with, they are to make an award to that effect; and the instrument is to be deposited in the hands of the clerk of the peace to be by him preserved amongst the records of the country. A copy of it is to be served by the tenant on his immediate landlord, and upon all other landlords who can be affected by it; and it is to be competent for any landlord, either immediate or superior, to institute within twenty-one days after the issuing of the award, an appeal before the assistant barrister at quarter-sessions. The barrister is to be empowered to enter into a consideration of the nature and value of the improvements; and having done so, he will proceed to ratify, disallow, or vary the amount at which they have been valued; and his decision is to be final. In conformity with a recommendation which originated with Lord Devon's Commission, power is granted to the landlord to give notice to the tenant of his intention to come in and execute the contemplated improvements himself, and to charge on account of them the increased rent specified in the original award. The party, whether landlord or tenant, then goes on to execute the works, and having done so, he is to appeal to the arbitrators; and the arbitrators having accurately examined the same, are to give to the landlord or tenant, as the case may be, a certificate stating that the works have been completed in conformity with the award, whether of the original arbitrators, or of the assistant barrister. The certificate, which will likewise specify whether any deduction, and if so what, is to be made from the rent originally fixed, is to be deposited with the clerk of the peace, who will take care to have it filled with the records of the country. Up to this point the tenant has, in every instance, been the moving and initiating party. On the termination of the tenantry, however, the landlord becomes the moving party. It is proposed, that if within twenty-one years the landlord have become entitled to possession, either by the dropping of the lease, or by service of notice to quit, or by ejectment of the tenant for non-payment of rent, or by any other contingency, he is to serve notice on the tenant, intimating
676
that he has himself appointed an arbitrator, and calling upon the tenant to nominate another. These arbitrators are to be appointed on the same footing, and are to be subject to the same rules and regulations, as those who were nominated in the first instance, to decide on the nature and character of the improvements proposed to be undertaken. They will have to inspect the works, and to make an award, defining the amount of compensation due to the tenant; but, in accordance with a recommendation of the Devon Commission, it is to be provided that the compensation is not to exceed three years' rent of the holding. The Bill will contain a provision whereby the landlord may be enabled to avoid payment of compensation; and the mode proposed in order to the attaining of this end is, that he should permit the tenant to remain in possession for twenty-one years after the completion of the works, at the same rate of rent that was paid before. There will, moreover, be a provision, enabling the immediate landlord to recover compensation from the superior. You will perceive that all these provisions are prospective. We found that it would be attended with very great inconvenience to apply a retrospective principle to holdings under the value of 20 l.; but the case is different as it regards holdings under 10 l. It is therefore proposed that, in so far as holdings under the value of 10 l. are concerned, the provisions of this Bill shall be retrospective. We purpose, therefore, to enact that every tenant holding at a rent not exceeding 10 l. shall, if he have been dispossessed by his landlord, be entitled to the value of his improvements during the five years antecedent. Compensation for those improvements (which, be it observed, are not to be valued beyond the amount of ten years' rent of his holding), is to be recovered by civil-bill process before the assistant barristers, who are to have full power to decide the question. I have disposed of that portion of the Bill which relates to compensation to be awarded to tenants for improvements which they have themselves effected. I have stated how difficult and how complicated the arrangements are, but I hope I have made them intelligible to the House. I now proceed to consider that portion of the measure which refers to the not unimportant changes which the Bill contemplates as to the relation between landlord and tenant. In the first place, the Bill contains a clause which regulates the power of distress. In order to

677
exempt the occupying tenant from undergoing the terrible hardship of a double distress—one from the immediate landlord, and another from the superior—it will for the future be enacted that tenants holding under a certain yearly rent, to be specified in the Bill, are to be altogether deprived of the power of distress, if they underlet their land. Another great advantage to the occupying tenantry will be, that this Bill will give them power to set up an equitable defence in the superior courts of law. By the law as it at present stands, the tenant has a right to set up such a defence before the assistant barrister; but if the case be moved by the superior landlord into a higher court, the tenant, unless he can afford to undertake a suit in equity at an enormous expense, is deprived of the benefit which he might have enjoyed under the jurisdiction of the barrister. It is proposed also to increase very considerably the powers of the assistant barrister. The House will more clearly understand the exact proportion in which it is intended to make this increase of powers when the Bill shall have been placed upon the table. It is also provided that tenants holding at will may be ejected for non-payment of rent. It is my firm conviction that the clause containing that enactment will be beneficial in its operation both to the land-land and the tenant. It will throw no additional power into the hands of the landlord who may be disposed to use his authority capriciously. The privilege is only given for the non-payment of rent, and therefore it will afford no additional facility to the heartless landlord, who would wish to use his power harshly or capriciously for the removal of an industrious and frugal tenant. The landlord must proceed according to the ordinary course of law; but for the non-payment of rent he would have greater facilities afforded him by this Act. It must be remembered also, that we retain in the present Bill all the present law that is favourable to the rights of the tenant. My belief is, that we should not have to hear so continually of the cruel hardship of those notices to quit so frequently used in Ireland, and held in ter-rorem over the tenant's head, if the landlords had had the power of ejecting tenants for non-payment of rent last year. I am therefore most decidedly inclined to the opinion that much good will result from the clause authorising ejectment for nonpayment of rent; but it is to be observed that we propose to couple with this power
678
a very important provision, to have the effect of securing short accounts between landlord and tenant, which is this—that on parole demise no rent shall be recoverable which shall not have become due within two years. [Mr. O'CONNOR inquired the meaning of the phrase "parole demise?"] It means a demise without a lease. With respect to receipts for rents, it is proposed to require that each receipt shall distinctly specify the particular gale which it is designed to cover; and in the absence of such specification, the document is to be considered as referring to the gale last due. I regard this as a most important point, because it will insure the protection of both landlord and tenant from loss. There are other provisions of a less important character on which I will not at present linger. I believe that I now have explained the leading features of the Bill, which I hope to have the honour of laying this evening on the table of the House. I am aware that I may be met with a double objection. Some hon. Members may, and doubtless many will, contend that it is useless to attempt to interfere in contracts between man and man, and that such matters should be left to be regulated by the parties immediately concerned. To hon. Gentlemen who argue in such a strain I can only reply, by telling them to look to the state of Ireland. Look to her undeveloped resources—look to the backward state of her agriculture—look to the unhappy condition of her present population; and I think you will at least admit that the experiment we are now about engaging in is worth being made. I will further venture to assert, that if there is ever to be legislation on this subject, the time for it has now fully arrived. It is time that this House should at once distinctly state not only what it will do in this respect, but what it will not do. The longer this question is left open, the longer it is left undecided, the greater will be the excitement out of doors, and the more extravagant will be the notions and ideas entertained regarding it—notions which it is not in the will or power of this House to comply with. For myself, I can only express my conviction, that provided you are just to the landlords—provided you do not violently disturb the rights of property (and I know of no country where a violent disturbance of the rights of property would be attended with more disastrous consequences than in Ireland)—the more generous you are to the tenantry of

679
Ireland, the more you will do to promote peace, good order, tranquillity, and prosperity in that country. I feel convinced that if you do not endeavour to bring forward some practical measure, having for its object a more equitable adjustment of the relation between landlord and tenant, all your attempts to promote the welfare of Ireland will fail. This is not a party question. I am quite sure there is not an hon. Gentleman in. this House who, in discussing a question like this, will not cheerfully lay aside any political prejudice that may exist in his mind, and gladly lend his aid towards the construction of a measure which will substitute tranquillity and good order for the distrust and distraction which now unfortunately exist in Ireland. When this Bill shall have been laid upon the table of the House, I shall be most happy to consider any suggestions for its improvement which hon. Gentlemen on any side of the House may think proper to bring forward. There can be no doubt that there is much force in the objection which relates to the difficulty and delicacy of interfering with the relation of landlord and tenant, and interposing in agreements which ought to be voluntary between the parties immediately concerned; but I do think that the circumstances of Ireland justify us in refusing to attach a paramount importance to such an objection. Besides, I think it right to observe that there will be found in this Bill a clause facilitating voluntary agreements, and enabling them to be registered, so that they may be safely preserved and easily referred to. The question of agricultural improvement is and must always be one of primary magnitude in Ireland. Just at the present moment it is a question of vital importance. The failure of the potato crop has rendered it absolutely necessary that the productive powers of the soil should be taxed to the uttermost if the people are to be fed upon the produce of the country; and the period is particularly propitious for any attempt having for its object the bringing about of a result so desirable. I believe that the public mind in Ireland is now of one accord as to the necessity of improving the agriculture of the country; and being upon this topic, I hope it will not be considered that any observations are out of place if I venture to allude to the great and striking success which has attended the measure of the Irish Lord Lieutenant, by which agricultural lecturers were sent to instruct the people in the most distressed and famish-
680
ing districts. The success of that movement has been signal beyond my noble Friend's most sanguine expectations. All parties have welcomed his lectures with the greatest joy; and by none, I am happy to say, and I say it most gratefully, have their efforts been more usefully seconded than by the Roman Catholic clergymen of Ireland in those districts which they have visited. In conclusion I would merely observe, that not only is the agricultural improvement of Ireland a most important matter, but that the time is now most opportune for submitting it to the consideration of the House, because the public mind just at this moment is peculiarly alive to the necessity of increasing the productive power of the soil. I trust I have succeeded in making the leading principles of the Bill clear to the House. I ask now permission to place it on the table, in the hope that by encouraging the industrious tenantry of Ireland to expend their capital in the improvement of the soil, it may augment the natural resources of that country, and by increasing the prosperity and happiness of its people, tend, indirectly indeed, but surely and most effectively, to the general well-being of the United Empire.
MR. S. CRAWFORDwas most anxious to promote the success of any measure which would conciliate the different interests involved; but he feared that the Bill of the right hon. Baronet would spread great dismay amongst the tenantry of Ulster. Their tenant-right would be totally overthrown. The nature of that custom had been frequently described by writers, as well as in a petition which was presented to the House last year from the county of Londonderry. For two hundred years they had enjoyed the tenant-right, and had made great improvements in their holdings, in the confident expectation that it would not be disturbed; but the system of things proposed to be established under the new Bill was very different indeed from what the men of Ulster understood by tenant-right. What the people of Ulster claimed was, that if a landlord served a tenant with notice of ejectment, the tenant should be able to go before a legal tribunal, and, proving the value of the property created by his labour, claim to be compensated according to whatever might be the increase of value proved to have resulted from his labour. They further claimed compensation in damages when improperly dispossessed. Great improvements had been made in Ulster on the faith of that

681
custom. Attempts had been made of late years by the landlords of Ulster to limit the amount of compensation to which the tenant was entitled. Those attempts had excited great apprehensions among the tenantry of Ulster. When he looked to the principle of the Bill proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, he found that it would in no way protect the tenantry of Ulster who had made those improvements. The Bill was but a transcript of that brought in by the noble Lord who was formerly Secretary for Ireland (the Earl of Lincoln). The principle was the same—namely, to prevent the tenant from recovering the value of his improvements unless he first began by serving notice and getting the landlord's consent. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman, that the measure was only to have a retrospective operation with regard to tenants paying a rent under 10 l.; and that would be of no value to the tenantry of Ulster, who were generally of a higher class. To show the evils that arose from a want of security on the part of the tenant, he would take the case of a man who, at the age of twenty-five in the year 1816, had got possession of a farm on a lease for thirty-one years, and who could command a capital of 800 l. He spent the whole of that sum in thorough draining, quarrying out rocks, and other improvements; and as profits came in, he expended a like sum of 800 l. on a dwelling-house, and erecting fences, &c. Thus, he laid out altogether on the premises a sum of 1,600 l.; but he did not want to rob the landlord of his fair rent, and therefore, when the lease dropped in 1847, he offered to pay the full rent for the land according to the poor-law valuation, which was 25 s. an acre. The landlord, however, refused to accept it, and served notice of ejectment. What was the result? The tenant was put out of the farm, which was given over to the landlord's own son. Here, then, was the tenant's situation: he came on the farm in the prime of life, with 800 l. in his possession; he expended that sum twice over in improving the land and building, and hoped he should in his old age enjoy the produce of his expenditure; but he was turned out penniless on the world, though he had offered an increased rent of 120 l If the property would have sold for l,500 l. on his entering, it would have sold for 3,600 l. when the lease expired, the landlord obtaining all the advantage of the increased value; and the beneficial interest, winch properly
682
belonged to the tenant, would have brought not less than ten years' purchase, or 1,200 l. He asked, was not that downright robbery, and would the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman protect such a man as that? If he understood the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman rightly, all claims for improvement would terminate within the limit of twenty-one years. No matter what a man had done—no matter how valuable his improvements might be—no matter that he had gone through all the complicated processes which this Bill required—still, no matter; every claim on the part of the tenant should terminate in twenty-one years. If the landlord allowed him to remain in occupation for twenty-one years, then the landlord might step in and dispossess him. Did he not say justly, then, that such a Bill as this would excite apprehensions in the province of Ulster? It might be said that this Bill did not abrogate the custom of tenant-right, or say it should not continue; but though it might not in law, it would really in fact abrogate it, for it would afford a pretence to landlords to abrogate the custom. They would say that a law had been passed for the relief of the tenants in Ireland, and the landlord would take advantage of that law to deprive the tenant of those rights, who had hitherto enjoyed them. He would now give them the case of a small holder. A tenant took a piece of waste land, containing six statute acres, at a rent of 5s. an acre, for thirty-one years. He reclaimed the land; he made it productive, and built a house, and made other improvements, at a cost of not less than 100 l. The lease dropped in 1846; he offered a rent according to the poor-law valuation of 20 s. an acre; but the landlord refused to take it, being determined to consolidate the farms on his estate, and he put out the poor tenant, giving him 5l. to go to America. The man did not go there, and he and his wife were inmates of the poorhouse. This poor man was willing to pay four times the original rent; he had built a valuable house on the land; but he was put out of possession, although his beneficial interest should at least have brought him 15 l. an acre, including the house, if it were put up to sale according to the principle of the tenant-right. The right hon. Gentleman's Bill, though he was sure it was introduced with the best intention, would not reach such cases as these. He contended that every man should be secured in the possession of the value of his labour and capital.

683
Every man who laid out his labour and capital in improving the land which his landlord supplied him with, was entitled to his full share and full and fair proportion of the value he had created by that joint expenditure. That was the view on which he claimed the tenant-right, not for Ireland alone, but he claimed it as an universal principle of justice for England, Ireland, and Scotland, and no length of time ought to cut short that right. But the Irish tenant had stronger claims upon their kindness and justice than any other, because everything that was done on the land was done by his own means. He (Mr. Crawford) need not enter upon the ground on which interference on the part of the State was justified. It could be amply and fully proved that the State had a right to interfere when the public interest required the regulation of any kind of property—land as well as of any other property. He need not enter on that point; for he considered that point had been already admitted, several Bills having been introduced into that House both for England and Ireland, which clearly proved that the right of such interference on the part of the House was admitted. The Irish tenant, above all others, was not a free agent; for in Ireland the possession of land was necessary for the sustainment of life; and when he came before the landlord and asked for the land, on the ground that it was necessary for his subsistence—under such circumstances he was not a free agent. What was the situation of Ireland? Provisions were not scarce nor dear in Ireland. Then why were the people starving? Because, no matter how cheap the provisions were, they had not the means of buying them. What did that arise from? From the want of employment. What occasioned that? This fact, that there was no security for a due return of investment on the land. The farmer who had money would rather hide it in the thatch than lay it out on the land, because he had no security that it would bring a proper return to him. Therefore he did not employ the people. The working classes who held land were equally unwilling to expend their time in increasing the production of the land, and that also arose from the want of security, as was proved by the evidence before Lord Devon's Commission. He admired the proposition of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, with regard to sending out instructors to instruct the people in agriculture; but at the same time he must declare his
684
conviction that every lesson they could supply, all the education they could give in that way, would be perfectly useless, unless they were accompanied by measures which would produce confidence on the part of the people that what they expended would be productive to them. It was also to be observed that in Ireland there was a great number of landlords who were tenants for life, and could not give that security, even if they wished it; and therefore it was necessary that the law should step in. Hitherto it must be admitted that there had been one law for the rich and another for the poor; all the laws had been passed to protect the landlord's and not the poor man's right. The landlord's rights were called the sacred rights of property, but they had neglected to protect the rights of labour. And unless they protected the labourer, they could not expect to have a people obedient to the law; but if the people found they had protection, then they would be ready to assist in their maintenance of those laws which some of them were at present disposed to violate. There were particular claims also in particular parts of Ulster; he referred to the Ulster plantations. In the reign of James I., about the year 1608, there were six counties of Ireland forfeited to the Crown. The Crown made grants of the property in them to "undertakers," under the conditions that they should let the lands at reasonable rents and for certain tenures. Letters of complaint were on record for the non-fulfilment of those terms in the year 1612; and in the year 1615 and in the year 1634 the patents were cancelled, but afterwards restored. On those particular lands the custom of tenant-right was understood to be established as a consideration for the non-fulfilment of those conditions; that was its origin in those particular counties called the plantation counties, and they had peculiar claims for its maintenance. But he would not raise the question on those particular claims. He would raise it on the ground that it was a just and right principle that the expenditure of capital and labour should be duly recognised. He had thought it necessary to state to the House what the claims were of the Ulster tenants, He was desirous to see that custome stablished by law, and extended to all improving tenants. He wished it to be understood, clearly that he maintained no claim from the right of occupancy alone, for he would not accede to any demand for tenant-right made by a

685
tenant, simply because he was in the occupation of the land; he considered that the tenant-right could only be founded on the rights of labour and on increased value conferred by labour. No man could set up a claim, in his judgment, with any justice, to tenant-right, unless he could prove that by industrious cultivation of the soil and other modes of improvement he had increased the value of the premises. Those were the only grounds on which he could possibly admit the claim of the tenant. He was aware that the tenant-right was abused in the province of Ulster, and that a claim was often made when it was not justly founded. He was aware it was sometimes made when there ought rather to be a claim for compensation on the part of the landlord. But this arose from the fact that there was no security given for the rights of labour; but the moment that security should be given for the rights of labour, then such claims would no longer be made. There would be no longer any apology for them, for the moment a tenant had security that the labour would be for his own benefit, then they would no longer ask for the tenant-right unless they were entitled to it. It was said that in many parts of Ireland no claim of tenant-right could be made; but he was satisfied that if they once passed a law by which the principle of tenant-right would be established, there would be an impulse given to improvement, and in a short time the tenantry of Ireland, small and large, would put themselves in a position to claim the tenant-right. He considered that an Act ought to be passed providing means for preventing ejected tenants being left to starve in ditches, and that the poor-law should be made effective for their relief. It was not effective now. Tenants that were turned out were dying at the backs of ditches: such occurrences ought not to be permitted. When the tenant-right was not sufficient to give protection, means should be taken to prevent these melancholy results.
Mr. H. A. HERBERTwished to make a few remarks on what had just fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale. He was anxious to express, as soon as possible, his opinion on the subject, representing as he did a very large county (Kerry) in the south of Ireland, where there had been some agitation on the subject. The hon. Member for Rochdale had proclaimed that this was a question which was very little understood; and he concurred
686
with the hon. Member; and he would give a reason why it was so little understood, and that was because the advocates of tenant-right did not understand it themselves. It could not be wondered at that persons who formerly were not acquainted with this subject should not now understand it, when they found that at the various meetings that had taken place, and from the letters written on the question, hardly any two gentlemen gave the same definition to tenant-right. The hon. Member for Rochdale had defined tenant-right. The hon. Member argued that occupancy or possession alone did not constitute any claim to tenant-right. That, however, was not the opinion of all the advocates of tenant-right. He held in his hand the copy of a resolution proposed and adopted at a very large meeting in the county of Tipperary, to which he begged to call attention. It was proposed, he thought by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tipperary, whom he did not see in his place, and it was adopted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell), whose position should give him very great weight in his own country; and in that resolution there was a distinct disclaimer of the proposition of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. A definition of tenant-right, too, had been given at a large meeting of the Irish Council. It was proposed by a member of that council, in a speech of considerable talent; and he not only defined what tenant-right was, but told them what the effect of it would be. The effect, it was said, would be the transfer of property from the owner to the occupier. He could not imagine any proposition more simple than that, for he admitted that this principle of transfer of one man's property to another would simplify legislation exceedingly. He perceived the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place; and he believed the right hon. Gentleman would find it a very simple means of making up his budget, if the House allowed him to transfer any portion of the property of Her Majesty's subjects he pleased to public purposes; but he believed the House would never sanction the transfer of one man's property to another. He entirely objected to the principle laid down by the hon. Member (Mr. S. Crawford) that the sale of tenant-right was any criterion whatever as to its value. There was not a Member of that House who did not know that in consequence of the intense competition for land in Ireland,

687
any sum, however exorbitant, might be obtained for what was called the tenant-right; or any sum, however exorbitant, might be promised for rent. What would be said to a landlord in Ireland if he avowed that he would let his land at the highest rent he could receive for it? It would be said at once to be unjust, and moreover it would be said to be foolish, as they knew, from the competition for land, that any sum that was pleased to be asked would be promised—he would not say paid. Generally speaking, the purchase-money of tenant-right was paid; but how was it paid? In a great number of cases by the entering tenant borrowing the money, and thereby impoverishing himself. With, the permission of the House, he would read two extracts from the digest of Lord Devon's Commission. They had reference to that very estate which was so often quoted as a model; but even on that model estate they might see the evils of what was called tenant-right, which it was now proposed by the hon. Gentleman should be introduced into other parts of the country. He would read the evidence of John Andrews, farmer and agent, he believed, to Lord Londonderry. He was asked his opinion of tenant-right, and he said he believed the land was sold at a high price by the outgoing tenant, who took away the capital that ought to be left with the incoming tenant. He added, that in order to get the land a man gave all he had to get it, and left himself without capital. He found further on, that a tenant-right would be more valuable than any compensation for improvements would be; and that they would not have many sales of farms except by ill-doing tenants, who exhausted the land, and then got a good deal of money for it. That witness said—
"He saw parties get a good deal of money for the sale who should be liable to an action for depredation."
As the representative of a large Irish county, he should protest against the introduction of anything of that kind into Munster, not only as destructive to the interests of the landlords, but also as most prejudicial to the interest of the tenants. He could not understand the principle on which the taking away the capital of a man before entering into a farm—however good that might be to the outgoing tenant—could produce anything but unmitigated injury to the man who was coming in; and how he could effect improvements was more than he could understand. He wished
688
to mention to the House a fact which appeared to him to afford a striking instance and exemplification of the effects of tenant-right. There was a district in his county, comprising he could not say how many acres, for he had not a return which he had expected would have been laid before the House some time ago, but at all events it was a considerable district—he referred to the common of Ardfert, in the county of Kerry. That common had been taken possession of several years ago, and was now in the possession of a number of occupiers, who were also owners of the land. From time to time subdivisions had taken place on this land; and having heard a great deal of the condition of the inhabitants of this district, he had made it a point during the late recess to pay them a visit, in order to see an instance of what the unmitigated use of tenant-right would produce in the south of Ireland. He went over that land, and whether he considered the state of cultivation or the wretched condition of the tenantry, he could not conceive anything more awful. During the course of his tour through the country ha saw misery which, if he had not seen it patiently submitted to, he should have thought was beyond human endurance. But he saw no misery greater than, if any that was equal to, the misery he had seen on the common of Ardfert. He should not detain the House by any attempt to describe what he saw there, but he should repeat the words of the man he had hired to show him the boundary of the district. He said to him, "not a man on the common of Ardfert can eat his supper this night except those who are getting outdoor relief?" He (Mr. Herbert) would recommend those who dreamed of peasant proprietors for Ireland, to look to the common of Ardfert for an exemplification of what they would be. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale, in one of his letters to the people of the north of Ireland, had stated that the interests of the tenants were jeopardised by those who made extravagant demands on their behalf, in connexion with seditious and dangerous projects. He (Mr. Herbert) believed that that would be the case; and he intreated of him to consider whether these interests might not be equally jeopardised by holding out hopes that never could be realised, and thereby weakening the advocacy of those who were endeavouring to obtain for the tenant-farmers their just rights, and to induce the Government to accede to

689
those just demands which their best friends thought they had a right to make. He believed that those only who made these demands were the real friends of the tenant-farmers of Ireland.
MR. WILLIAM FAGANsaid, that on so complicated a question as the relations of landlord and tenant, it was not surprising that a great variety of opinions were entertained. The great question in Ireland was how the land was to be cultivated; how its resources could be more fully developed; how the land which was said to be capable of sustaining 17,000,000 inhabitants, but which at present did not sustain a population of only some 7,000,000 or 8,000,000, could be brought to that degree of fertility. He maintained that this could only be effected by encouraging improvement in the cultivation of the land; and therefore he felt himself compelled to agree in the opinion that had been expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale, that mere occupation alone was not sufficient to constitute the title of tenant-right. He concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman, that the people of Ireland, not merely the people of Ulster, had been looking forward with much anxiety for this measure, and expected an effective Bill from Her Majesty's Government, in consequence of the professions that were put forward at the commencement of the Session. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman also in saying that this measure would be received in Ireland with disappointment and dismay. He was one of those who, upon the accession to power of Her Majesty's present advisers, resolved to give them a fair trial. In consequence of the crisis of last year, and the difficulties of their position, he had not thought it fair to expect that their measures would be immediately developed; but he confessed he had looked forward with anxiety, though at the same time with confidence, to find at the commencement of this new Parliament some measures of a decisive character brought forward to tranquillise the people of Ireland. He regretted to say that the measure now before the House would not have that effect. He remembered that the Bill which was introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk (the Earl of Lincoln), sneered at though it was, contained many provisions far superior to the measure now proposed by Her Majesty's Govern-
690
ment. At another time, and under other circumstances, there were one or two provisions which had been stated to the House that night, which might tend in a great measure to relieve Ireland, and improve its agriculture. In such a country as England a measure like the present—recognising the right of compensation to the tenant—might be useful, because in England not one third of the population were engaged in agricultural pursuits, and those who were not had fifty other modes of obtaining an honourable livelihood. But in Ireland nearly the entire population was altogether dependent upon agriculture. He would not refer to the famine, nor would he speak of the effect of free trade, but he would take the permanent condition of the population, and he had no hesitation in saying that the condition of the people of Ireland was such, that the measure before the House would not remedy it. What was the proper remedy? They had been told that the remedy for the present state of things in Ireland was to develop the resources of that country—to bring forth those resources in a more profitable manner—to enable the tenant to give a higher rent for his land. But was the measure of the right hon. Gentleman of a nature to induce the tenant to direct his energies towards the better cultivation of the land? Was it of a nature to enable him to pay double rent? The only provision of the Act which he thought beneficial was that which did not allow rent of more than two years outstanding to be recovered in case of no lease. That, he thought, was an excellent provision. With respect to the question of tenant-right, he agreed in some respects with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kerry. He knew that enormous sums of money were given for tenant-right in the province of Ulster; and if the system acted upon in Ulster was introduced into the south of Ireland, it would be found to work most injuriously for all parties he believed that the extreme competition for land would render any such system impracticable—it would result in a total and entire failure. But the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman went to the opposite extreme—instead of giving him an enormous sum for tenant-right, it limited his claim for improvements to a very inadequate amount. The present was not only a landlord and tenant question, but it was a life and

691
death question, in many parts of Ireland. The people of Ireland had been looking forward to the measure with deep interest, not unmixed with hope, and he felt satisfied that it would create great dismay and great dissatisfaction. He did not think that the efforts of the itinerant agricultural lecturers had been so successful as it was anticipated they would have been. That the idea was well intended, and that the gentlemen appointed to lecture were in every respect competent, he was quite ready to admit; but to tell him, who knew something about the agricultural population of Ireland, that the lecturers would work any improvement in the state of that population was quite preposterous. Until the tenant was given an interest in the improvement of the soil—by a long tenure of his land—he would not, and human nature said he should not, attend to the instructions of the itinerant lecturers. It was delightful for gentlemen living in England, living on their own land, to hear lectures on agriculture, and to profit by those lectures; but with the poor Irish agriculturist it was quite a different thing. The only way of meeting the difficulty was by a fair and equitable valuation of the improvements effected by the outgoing tenant. In addition to this system of valuation they must give to the occupiers of land in Ireland the benefit of a certain and long tenure. But he had looked in vain in the Bill to find any provision of the kind. Until the system of long tenure was established, he would say nothing of the transfer of one man's land to another, for to that he was decidedly opposed; but until certainty of tenure was introduced, agriculture could not progress in Ireland. If agriculture were carried to the same extent in Ireland as it was at the present day in England, the rental of Ireland would amount to 25,000,000 l annually, instead of being scarcely sufficient to pay the interest on the mortgages. Speaking of mortgages, reminded him that they had heard nothing respecting the sale of encumbered estates in Ireland. A measure of that kind was promised, and it ought to have preceded the one then before the House. He regretted exceedingly that the Government had taken no active measures to encourage the system of small farms—from twelve to twenty acres of land. If a system of that kind, were carried out, there would be ample and profitable employment of the population; Ireland would be prosperous, without the ne-
692
cessity of resorting to colonisation, or the enforced necessity of cultivating the waste lands. He would endeavour to give his best attention to the Bill when it was printed; he might have mistaken some of its provisions; and, if on a more full consideration of them, he should find them more favourable than at first sight they appeared to him, he should rejoice exceedingly to give his support to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHobserved, that when in the last Session, this subject was before the House, he expressed his sorrow that great difficulty should be thrown in the way of its final and satisfactory settlement. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland had brought forward the Bill in a very praiseworthy and conciliatory spirit; no man could have more zealously and correctly explained the object of the Bill; and the provisions gave the best proof of careful cogitation; but he was very sorry that he could not agree with them. He would be the last man to say anything against the measure if he thought it an adequate one; but he was bound to state his conviction that, with respect to the north of Ireland—the province of Ulster—the measure, so far as he understood it, would not come up to the expectations of the people. The hon. Member for Rochdale had exhibited a great deal of kind and cordial feeling towards the people of Ireland; but he (Lord Castlereagh) was very much afraid that this kind and good feeling had been quite thrown away. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman was much too kindhearted to be practical. The hon. Gentleman had taken up the question and introduced his remedy, year after year, and every year he had found it more important and more difficult. He could not join in the views of the hon. Gentleman. The Government measure, in his opinion, was of too complicated a character—it was more complicated than the measure formerly introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk (Lord Lincoln). It was more complicated than many other measures which had been submitted to the House. The Government measure had also the fault of being entirely prospective. There was not one word in the Bill as to improvements already effected. He would merely allude to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kerry to show the difficulty of legislating for Ireland. If the House gave the tenant-right in Kerry, the hon. Gentle-

693
man said that it would produce the most deplorable effects, and make the peasants more miserable than they were at present, and instanced the wretchedness of the people on the common lands of Ardfert as a warning. And the hon. Gentleman quoted the evidence of the agent of a relative of his (Lord Castlereagh), to show that tenant-right was not such a beneficial custom in that particular part of Ireland. He happened to recollect the exact answer given to the question by Mr. Andrews. Mr. Andrews was asked—
"Do you think the obtainment of tenant-right would be dangerous to the peace of the country?" The answer was—"I am sure it could not safely be granted; you would have a Tipperary in Down."
That was Mr. Andrews' answer with respect to tenant-right. He did not mean to say with regard to this measure, that that person or that Government who would settle this immense practical question would not be the greatest benefactor to Ireland; but he was greatly afraid that if they legislated with the best intentions in the world, either by doing too much or doing too little, or on the other hand of taking the course laid down by his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, which he thought held out rather too much to the people, and encouraged too great an expectation on their part—they would get rid of that which he for one would be the last person in the world to see got rid of, namely, the good feeling and mutual interest which existed between landlord and tenant in Ulster, and which he was afraid any legislative enactment, if they were not careful, and did not watch every part of it without anything like party spirit or party feeling, would destroy. He was glad to see that, in one part of the speech made at Londonderry by his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, he said, that although the farmers in the north might have something to complain of, yet it was far more necessary that they should agitate this question for other parties in other places. He was glad to see that that was his hon. Friend's opinion of his part of the country; and he only hoped that they might not sacrifice the good they at present possessed there for any benefit of which the result was not quite sure; and this he must be permitted to say, and say at once, that, placed as he was in connexion with property in Ireland, he could not give his consent to any measure that should go to constitute mere occupancy property; because he conceived
694
that such a measure, if brought forward, would not be confined to Ireland alone, but would spread to other quarters—there would not be one species of law there and another here; and as he wished to see the best measures for Ireland, he should certainly vote against any such proposition.
MR. FEARGUS O'CONNORthought some parts of the measure would give great satisfaction; but he regretted to find that the Government was not prepared to go to the root of the evil. In his opinion the hon. Member for Rochdale had been rather unfairly treated by the hon. Member for Kerry. His hon. Friend (Mr. S. Crawford) had been charged with the faults of others. The hon. Member for Kerry, in objecting to the transfer of land from the owner to the occupier, had illustrated his argument by asking what would be the feelings of the country if the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to transfer the property of a private individual to the coffers of the Exchequer? Why, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was constantly doing that very thing. It was one of the right hon. Baronet's greatest privileges, and one which he used most extensively. The hon. Member for Kerry had drawn a deplorable picture of the state of the Ardfert commoners—he had described them as browsing like goats; but the hon. Gentleman did not tell the House what quantity of land was occupied by each of those commoners—whether it was sufficient to support them. The hon. Gentleman had given the strongest proof of the value of land in Ireland, by quoting the prices at which the tenant-right had been sold. What he complained of was, that the Bill did not go to the root of the evil. The Irish landlords naturally opposed the measure. But they must bear in mind the fact that free trade had been commenced, and free trade must be carried out. He had always told the people that when one channel was closed against the industrious artisan, another channel must be opened—and the only channel open to them was the land. The subject excited great attention in Ireland, but not more so than it did in England. In Ireland the agitation was for small farms—for tenant-right. In England the same cry would very shortly be raised. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on parts of the measure. The registration of votes, the taking away the power of distress in certain cases, the regulation of the law of ejectment, the giving an equitable as well as a legal jurisdiction

695
to the court of quarter-sessions, were all good provisions. These provisions had all been proposed by him (Mr. O'Connor) fourteen years ago. He must, however, say that the machinery of the Bill was too complicated. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fagan) that it would be to the permanent benefit of Ireland, if as good a system of agriculture could be established as that which prevailed in England. The landlords of Ireland should go through the agricultural counties of England and see the farm-buildings. He would rather hold 60 acres of land at 1002. a year with farm-buildings, than he would 100 acres of land at 100 l. a year without those buildings. The erection of commodious buildings, suited to a farm of 60 acres, would not cost more than 300 l. in Ireland. Six per cent on the outlay would be 18 l. That additional rent would be nothing in comparison to the loss sustained by the absence of the buildings. The farmer lost 40 l. a year in the condition of his cattle from their being exposed to the cold, independently of the loss of the manure. One question had been lost sight of in this discussion. It was the duty of the Government to superinduce the employment of task-labour instead of slave-labour in Ireland. The Bill contained clauses respecting the appointment of arbitrators, and the assessment of compensation; but the House should bear in mind the saying, that "a landlord of straw can break a tenant of steel." He hoped that a measure for the sale of encumbered estates would speedily be brought forward. Under existing circumstances it was impossible for many of the landlords of Ireland to perform their proper and legitimate duties. In many cases interest on loans at the rate of 10 and 15 per cent was paid by the life-owners. When hon. Members talked of the want of agricultural enterprise in Ireland, they overlooked the fact that this want of apathy did not arise from anything peculiar in the land, but from the uncertainty of its tenure. In Ireland, every man knew that his labour on the land was slave-labour—that he would not reap the benefit of his own improvement—and he worked but little. But give him fixty of tenure, and he would work from the dawn of morning till the noon of night. Let not the House suppose that the Bill would dispose of the land question. The hopes of the people of the United Kingdom were fixed on the land. To that gladdening hope might be mainly
696
attributed the remarkable and praiseworthy patience and quietude of the working population, under most distressing circumstances. There was not an acre of land, either in England or Ireland, but would let for double its present rental, if the right of the tenant was equitably secured. The right hon. Baronet must propose some more extensive and more comprehensive measure. The present Bill would be a fruitful one for lawyers—it would lead to a great deal of contention and litigation between landlord and tenant. It mattered not whether the people of Ulster were satisfied with their privileges, or that the people of Kerry wanted more; a stringent law would have to be applied to the whole kingdom. If all the property in Ireland were managed like the estates belonging to the family of the noble Lord (Lord Castlereagh), there would be no necessity for such a Bill. Or if it were managed like the property of many Lords in England, there would be as little cause of complaint. But unfortunately in Ireland a good landlord was the exception, while in England it was the rule. And when good landlords proposed measures for the settlement of this question, and the suggestions of these men so thoroughly acquainted with the state of the country were rejected, would not the people say that the legislation of the House was fallacious—that it was based on speculation rather than experiment? He disagreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork as to the usefulness of the agricultural lecturers. He considered that the labours of these gentlemen would prove of great advantage to Ireland—they might be a little difficult to be comprehended at first by the farmers, but they would come to understand them; and he, for one, should like to see a Minister of Agriculture sitting in that House to look to the landed interest, as well as a Minister for Nutmegs and Allspice. He hoped that the landed interest would ere long see the necessity of such a Member of the Government. After all their discussions and considerations, they had afforded no relief to Ireland. Would the House show him any measure that had been adopted during the last forty-eight years for the encouragement of agriculture in Ireland? It might be answered that, without the aid of legislation, the people cultivated the land. True, it was their natural occupation. All other occupations were artificial. If Lord Clarendon carried out his excellent scheme for the formation

697
of small farms, they would hear of no more outrages—no more murders—in Ireland; nor would they require any poor-laws for that country. He would endeavour to give the Bill his best attention. It was a very bulky affair, and very imperfectly understood by the House. He was afraid it would be as little understood by the people. What the people wanted was something simple. They wanted to work for themselves, and not for other men—they were unwilling that either the landlord or the middleman should have the result of their labours. As far as the Bill went, it was good—it was getting the wedge into the matter. The Government had a difficult task. He could see the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Somerville) look right and left at the Irish landlords when he explained the provisions of the Bill. The right hon. Baronet seemed to ask, "How do you like this?" and "How do you like that?"
Mr. W. SMITH O'BRIENcould not support the measure in its present shape; but he had no hesitation in saying, that if he were offered as an alternative the adoption of the measure, or the letting things remain as they were, he should vote for the Bill. A system of casual or uncertain tenure in Prussia had been converted into a holding in perpetuity, with the greatest benefit to all parties. He considered that it was not just, as between man and man, that when the incoming tenant handed over money to the outgoing tenant for his interest and improvements on the land, and that with the full cognisance and by consent of the landlord, that that incoming tenant should be liable to be ejected by the landlord on the very next day after his entry into possession, without being entitled to receive any compensation. It was his conviction that the Bill would utterly fail, it being merely a measure calculated to undermine the present tenant-right system of Ulster. Another point upon which he could not concur with his right hon. Friend was the principle on which he founded his limitations regarding the compensation to be allowed to the tenant. He did not think the principle a fair one which held that the possession of a farm for a certain number of years ought to be considered as an equivalent to the receipt of compensation for the improvements effected upon it. He did not think it signified whether a man's capital had been laid out twenty years ago, or only yesterday, if the landlord's estate had re-
698
ceived the benefit, and been increased in value by the improvements effected by that outlay. He thought the landlord was equally bound to take that into account. His right hon. Friend said that in twenty-one years the value of the improvements made by the tenant would be worn out. He trusted that that power would be reconsidered. It appeared to him that the complexity of the measure would be fatal to its operation. It would give rise to a system of litigation which would render the Bill anything but a blessing to the country. However, he would say no more upon the measure at its present stage. It was a question of the utmost importance to Ireland how and in what manner the relations of landlord and tenant should be adjusted. That was a question which should be immediately considered and settled. He believed its settlement could not be safely postponed any longer. It could not be postponed with safety even to another Session. He believed that if they did not at once, by some moans, give to the occupying tenants an inducement to lay out their capital upon their holdings, by securing them from the loss of their outlay, and thereby enabling them to employ their labourers, they would find property of every description, but especially that of landlords, swallowed up by the overwhelming poor-rates. If another Session were allowed to pass over without a satisfactory adjustment of the question, there would be no possibility of obtaining rents peacefully. There would be a universal resistance to the payment of rents. There would be a general combination, which would include not only the peasantry of the south of Ireland, but the Presbyterian yeomanry of the north—a combination against the rights of property. And they would, if they longer postponed a satisfactory adjustment, be obliged at a future time to pass a measure of a description very different indeed from that which would now be found sufficient.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLdid not think it necessary to go into any details at the present stage of the Bill. But he wished to express his concurrence with many of the sentiments expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick who had just sat down. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the mea-sure with regard to the distinction drawn between the larger and the smaller holdings, as to the prospective and retrospective rights. He thought it an untenable

699
distinction; he thought that compensation should be secured to all; but that if any were to have greater advantages in proportion than others, it was the larger holders to whom that encouragement should be given. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would reconsider that point, and allow the retrospective effect to be extended to the larger holders. It was highly requisite that their legislation should now be satisfactory. They should remember the words of Chief Justice Pennefather, who said, "The course of legislation for many years past has all gone in one direction, to strengthen the hands of the landlords against the tenants." The tenants should now be shown that the law was taking a part in their favour, and that it made no difference whether they had ten, or twenty, or fifty acres of land. But he did not concur with his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick in the opinion that the length of time during which the tenant occupied his holding was not to be taken into account in the question of compensation. He could not think that if a man's ancestors had laid out a certain sum of money on a holding in the year 1790, that he was to be entitled to a return for it in giving up possession nearly a century afterwards. In fact, the bulk of improvements made by tenants would be amply repaid to them in less than twenty-one years. He remembered a tenant-farmer having told him that a field which he had drained, it having been previously very boggy, had repaid his entire outlay by the crop which he had off it in the third year. In dealing with the question, the landlords should be prepared to make some sacrifice of those legal (they were not moral) rights which they possessed. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford) had truly said that the landlord and the tenant were really partners, and they should make mutual sacrifices where their interests were mutually concerned. He (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) was glad that the tenant-right was to be restricted to cases where the tenant made substantial improvements. As to the objection that this Bill would destroy the protection given at present by the tenant right of Ulster, the two instances given by his hon. Friend opposite proved that tenants in Ulster could be turned out of their holdings as it was. And as to the destruction of the protection, he (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) had too much faith in the determination of the sturdy men of the north, to believe that they would allow themselves
700
to be deprived of their rights by such a measure as the one under consideration. He did not agree either with his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Herbert) in his condemnation of the tenant-right of Ulster. For his part, he would rather see it introduced, with all its faults and imperfections into Munster, than that the present want of protection to the tenantry of the south should continue. But it was a custom which required mutual confidence between the landlord and tenant; and it consequently could not be established in the south, where such mutual confidence did not exist. He therefore thought that a Bill like the present, carried faithfully into effect, would give a confidence to the tenantry. They would be induced to lay out their capital upon their holdings, and when they had done so, they would take care to pay their rents, lest they should lose the advantage of their outlay. It would, consequently, be for the benefit of landlords and tenants.
Leave given.
House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Viscount Leinster.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Sale of Incumbered Estates (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Archbishop of York, from Clergy and Laity of the Deanery of Burford, against the Admission of Jews into Parliament.—By Lord Monteagle, from Wine and Spirit Merchants of various places, for Alteration of the Excise Laws.—By the Earl of Eglintoun, from Merchants, Manufacturers, and Bankers of Glasgow, for Repeal of the Bank Charter Act of 1844, and for an Equality of Privileges to all Joint Stock Banks in the United Kingdom with the Bank of England.—By Lord Denman, from Derbyshire and Lancashire, for the Removal of Jewish Disabilities.

STATUTE OF PRÆMUNIRE—ELECTION AND CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS.
The BISHOP of EXETERpresented the petition of which he had given notice. In doing so, he must, in the first place, be permitted to say that he had not sought the office of presenting this petition. On the contrary, it had been his wish to decline it, and he had written to the petitioners intimating his wish that it should be put into the hands of their own diocesan. The petitioners, however, answered, that as the petition had reached his hands, they hoped he would consent to present it; and it now devolved upon him to present the petition to their Lordships. It was not an ordinary petition. It proceeded from several conscientious clergymen of the archdeaconry of Bucks, who approached this House, praying that it would deliver the Church from one of the greatest oppressions—one of the most intolerable violations of the rights of conscience—which had ever been inflicted upon any Church since the era of Christianity. The petitioners prayed their Lordships for the repeal of so much of the Statute of the 25th of Henry VIII. as rendered deans, chapters, and bishops, liable to the penalties of a prœmunire in the discharge of their respective duties in the election and consecration of bishops in the Christian Church. Heartily concurring with the petitioners in the object of their petition, he did not yet know whether he could go with them in all their views, for he did not know the extent to which they wished their Lordships to interfere; but this he was anxious to say on his own behalf, that if there were any of the clergy, or any of Her Majesty's subjects, who wished to interpose any other than a wholesome check on the exercise of the unquestioned prerogative of the Crown—a prerogative which he hoped would ever remain unquestioned, because he thought it essential to the peace and benefit of the Church—he repeated, that if any persons went the length of wishing to alter the law, so as to trench upon the rights of the Crown to nominate bishops, then he, for one, was

633
not the man to go with them in such a scheme. On the contrary, he would be among the foremost to say "No" to it. But the reverend petitioners did not indicate that they had the slightest notion of such a change—they wished to be relieved from a cruel oppression—from an Act which, from the construction which had been put upon it, was nothing less than a direct persecution. With the prayer to be relieved from this persecution, it was that the petitioners came before their Lordships. Now, so far as the election of bishops by deans and chapters was concerned, he (the Bishop of Exeter) certainly thought the provisions of the Statute of the 25th of Henry VIII. was unmixed tyranny. He thought the course prescribed in the Statute of Henry VIII. which directed deans and chapters to proceed with the forms of election, accompanied by solemn religious service, and at the same time compelled them to elect any individual, however unfit they might conscientiously feel him to be, under the penalties of prœmunire, was so monstrous and so oppressive that it was only necessary to mention it in order to secure their Lordships' sympathy with the petitioners in wishing to put an end to it. If the Crown directly nominated the bishop, and then suffered the Church to interfere in a proper, due and wholesome manner for the purpose of seeing whether the party so nominated was canonically qualified, and was not canonically disqualified, he should think such a law a proper law; and he hoped that Her Majesty's Ministers would take the matter into consideration, and that, while they preserved the prerogative of the Crown to nominate the bishops, they would endeavour to assert the cause of their Church, so that no unsound divine, no immoral man, no man disqualified by any cause which the canons recognised as a just ground of objection against consecration, should be admitted into the episcopal order. He hoped the Government would give that assistance to the Church. The ceremony of election was conducted with solemn forms, and accompanied by divine service. After the election was made and announced to the people, the electors, with all the assembled multitude, went and sang Te Deum in honour of the elected man; and if such an honour was to be done him, he ought to be known and felt by all to be worthy of it; else such a course of proceeding would be blasphemous if he were believed by many of those present to be an
634
unworthy man. He begged to be permitted to say, that in these remarks he cast aside anything like allusion to any particular instance, and applied himself to the general question; and in any observations that he had made in reference to the possibility of an improper person being nominated bishop, he assured their Lordships that allusion to any particular individual was not intended. He might, however, be permitted to refer to events which had recently taken place. What had occurred at the late election of a bishop? On that occasion two of the electors, at least, thought that the individual nominated was such as they could not conscientiously vote for. Those individuals, he hoped—he was sure they ought—felt themselves bound to abstain from joining in the Te Deum in honour of the election of the individual elected. Here let him observe, that the very fact of a minority having voted against the person nominated, presented in the strongest light the unreasonableness as well as injustice of this statute. The guilt of a person disobeying the law is, in reason, just the same, be the number of those who join him in his disobedience more or less. The individual who refused to obey the Royal mandate, was as guilty of disloyalty if he voted alone as if a number voted with him; and yet such was the capriciousness of this statute that the law was not violated if the election took place; and, notwithstanding that they had been told on high authority that the very rev. Dean of Hereford had announced his intention of violating the law, by declaring that he could not vote for the person nominated by the Crown, no law was really violated, because the recusant Dean being in a minority, the election was not hindered or prevented. After the election the confirmation followed; and he must say that he hoped that the construction put on the Statute of the 25th Henry VIII. by part of that learned bench, which devoted so much of its time and extraordinary talents to the arguments on this question on a recent occasion—he hoped, he repeated, that the opinions of those two learned individuals who thought that the confirmation of the election of a bishop was a judicial act, would ultimately prevail as the law of the land. He was perfectly certain that the noble and learned Lord who presided with so much honour to himself over the Court of Queen's Bench would not be surprised if, when one-half of the learned bench expressed on a recent occasion a

635
judgment in conformity with the Gospel, with the rights of the Church, and the liberty of the subject, a Bishop should now venture to express his hope that that judgment might ultimately prevail as law. He would not believe, while a doubt could be entertained as to the construction of an Act of Parliament which would make it the Magna Charta of tyranny, that that construction would be allowed to continue; and in this case the equal division of the opinions of the Judges justified him in saying that it had been declared doubtful by the highest court in the land—so doubtful that that court itself could not solve the doubt—whether the Bishop of Hereford had been confirmed; and in not merely wishing, but in hoping, that the opinion that the confirmation of a bishop was a judicial act would ultimately prevail as law. It was urged, when the question was argued, that the consequence of deciding that the confirmation was merely a ministerial act, would be to confirm as bishop any one who might be nominated by the Crown, even supposing it possible that the Crown should ever nominate an individual suspected, or not only suspected, but convicted, of some atrocious crime. This, it was argued, demonstrated the absurdity and impossibility of the statute bearing the construction put on it by the Attorney General. What did the Attorney General say to that? Did he say, "You are putting a case which it is not decent even to suppose—a case which cannot happen." Had he said so, it would have been much. But, no; the hon. and learned Gentleman was so confident of the principle which he stood up to defend, that he did not scruple to seize upon the hypothetical case as testing the principle for which he contended. He broadly and pointedly argued that in such a case the Archbishop would have no choice but to obey the Act of Parliament. But did not this construction involve a consequence so monstrous, as really to amount not only to an absurdity, but to a moral impossibility? Was it not monstrous to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the exercise of his sacred duty—of the duty which he owed to God, and which was prescribed by the Scripture—to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury, would be by the law bound to consecrate to the office of bishop a person convicted of an atrocious crime [Lord CAMPBELL said, it was confirmation, not consecration, which was required.] The
636
statute required that the person chosen should be confirmed and consecrated; indeed the one was a consequence of the other. At all events, the Archbishop was to consecrate, in despite of his knowledge of his utter want of canonical qualifications—in spite of its being offered to be proved that the person nominated was canonically disqualified. In spite of all this he was to consecrate him bishop, if he would avoid the penalties of prœmunire. The noble and learned Lord said it was confirmation that was required. But still there remained the sacred duty of consecration, the non-fulfilment of which would be followed by similar penalties under the same statute. Now, if the Government were content to retain the right of nominating the Bishop, leaving to the Archbishop the unfettered discharge of his own duty to refuse consecration to an unworthy person—if, in short, they would permit some valid and sufficient check against the exorbitance of the Crown, and the Ministers of the Crown, in promoting to high and sacred offices, he would be content. But the Attorney General was not the only person who had stated extreme views upon this point. A much higher authority than he, one of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench—a noble and learned Lord then present, whose authority was of the very highest character—a man, elevated not merely by his rank, but far more by his high attainments—a man whose name would go down to posterity as the name of one of the most independent Judges of this or of any other age—had affirmed the same principle. He should quote the words of the noble and learned Lord as they stood reported in the public papers of the day. He was reported to have said—
"The duty of the Archbishop in the matter appears to me to be clear, and entirely apart from the functions of a judge. It is, in my opinion, more analogous to the duty of a returning officer at elections. His confirmation is necessary. If his inquiries lead him to the opinion that the appointment would be injurious, he can remonstrate. He can advise the Crown not to issue a congé d' elire. He may ask to be removed from the painful position of performing, or ordering to be performed, the duty of consecration after the election has been made. Even then he may still resort to the presence of the Sovereign, and pray to have the congé d'elire and the letters missive superseded. But even at the worst, if the Crown persists in nominating the person to be bishop, and if he is quite clear that the congé d' elire ought to be set aside, he may act as his conscience doubtless would dictate, and as some of the Judges of this court have acted, and resign the office which the Crown had given them. He may

637
resign. The present Archbishop, I have no doubt would do so after hearing the objections that were made to Dr. Hampden, if he did not consider that he would not be justified in such a course of proceeding."
That was the course which the Chief Justice of England thought that the Archbishop of Canterbury ought to pursue. He might resign; but, if the Archbishop of Canterbury could not conscientiously confirm the appointment of an unworthy person, and that the law enjoined him to do so, he did not hesitate to say that the law was in an atrocious state. See the position in which the Archbishop of Canterbury was placed; the noble and learned Chief Justice said he ought to resign; but could he resign? As far as he knew, it would be difficult, perhaps he might say impossible, for him to resign—there never had been a precedent; no Archbishop of Canterbury had ever resigned. Where was the matter to end? They must in some manner get rid of the Archbishop, and appoint another in his stead; but he, too, being a conscientious man, would refuse to confirm and consecrate; he too, therefore, must resign. And so they must go on, till they could find some man base enough for their purpose—some man, in short, who would consent to become Archbishop of Canterbury for the express purpose of consecrating an unworthy man to be bishop. Her Majesty's Prime Minister must go about like Diogenes, with his lantern, but for an opposite purpose—to find a dishonest man—a man dishonest enough to be made Archbishop of Canterbury, in order to accomplish the unholy task prescribed to him. But even if such a man were found, would the object be obtained? No; they would be as far from this as ever. For the dishonest nominee to Canterbury must himself be consecrated. Four bishops must be found to place the sacred vestments upon one whose assumption of them would be a desecration. Did any man believe that four bishops could be found so to disgrace themselves? What must then happen? Why, they too must resign. A Royal Commission must be issued to four other bishops, who also being honest men must resign too. Therefore, he would repeat, the result must be to extinguish the episcopate of England, to cut off the apostolic succession in our Church. There was no man, be he Churchman, be he Dissenter, or even Infidel, who would not join him in saying, that if the law were as some high authorities held it to be, so detestable an enactment ought no
638
longer to pollute the Statute-book. But, whatever might be the state of the law at present, he ventured to believe that the great majority of their Lordships would go with the petitioners in saying that the law ought to undergo a change. In wishing this, he hoped and believed that the petitioners were not unreasonable; there was in the prayer of their petition nothing unreasonable or extravagant. They merely prayed that deans and chapters and bishops should not be visited with the penalties of prœmunire for doing what was their manifest duty to God and the Church. There was not any church or community, Christian or unchristian, which would not seek for the change of such a law. He would appeal to the noble and learned Lord near him, who was, he doubted not, attached to the Church of Scotland, of which he understood him to be a faithful communicant, and he felt perfectly sure that that noble and learned Lord would shrink with horror from any attempt to impose upon his Church anything like that tyranny which by the construction of this statute was sought to be forced upon the Church of England. Their Lordships would not have forgotten the recent events which had occurred in the Church of Scotland, in consequence of an attempt being made to require clergymen to induct a presentee into a benefice. His noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) had, with reference to that subject, brought in a Bill which had much tended to soothe down the agitation prevailing in Scotland—a Bill which was now law, and which enacted that it was only when presbyteries were convinced that the objections raised to a presentee were not well founded that they should be required to proceed with his trials and examination; and it was only if they found him to be well qualified for the ministry that they were to receive and induct him into the benefice. That was the utmost which was required from the Church of Scotland; and now he asked their Lordships—a great majority of whom were attached to the Church established in this realm—he put it to them whether they would consent that their own Church should be subjected to greater oppression and degradation than was a Church of which they were not members? They might withdraw the support of the State from the Church, but they could not un-church the Church; and he begged to assure their Lordships that the Church of

639
England would never commit suicide. For himself and his right reverend brethren, he was justified in saying that they were prepared to quit those walls, at the command of the courts of justice, if it were to become law that they should do so; and if their Lordships and the other House of. Parliament and the Crown decided that such should be the law. They were content to give up all their possessions—not those alone which they derived from the Church, but all their goods and chattels. They were content to undergo perpetual imprisonment if the law so commanded. They would suffer patiently every loss, every species of persecution which might be ordained; but he would tell their Lordships what they would not do—they would not do that which the law of God forbade. With the blessing of God, and in the strength of God, they would go forth—but they would never, never betray His Church, never wilfully and deliberately violate His law. They were told what were the qualifications demanded for the sacred office, and with the blessing of God they would never consent to bestow it upon an unworthy person. If the Minister of the Crown should recommend the appointment of an unfit person from a malicious motive—a charge which he did not think would ever be made against Her Majesty's present Government—yet if such did happen to be the case, if the Ministers recommended through error, or through the fallibility of human nature, a person manifestly notoriously unworthy, they would never consent, be the punishment what it might, be the consequences however severe, to confirm the nomination. He was not one of those, if there were any such, who wished that the Church should be separated from the State. He rejoiced and was thankful to see the Church established in this country; for he believed in his conscience that the establishment of the Church was of the utmost service in advancing the great end for which the Church itself was ordained. There were inconveniences which arose from this connexion. As long as these were inconveniences merely, they should be submitted to; and as long as nothing of a sinful compliance was required, the bishops and clergy would be ever found obedient and submissive to the law. He trusted that he might be permitted to say, that he hoped that the two learned Judges who differed from the Lord Chief Justice, might ultimately be found to be right in
640
the conclusion to which they had come. He adverted to this point again in consequence of a document having been recently met with by him which seemed to him to be conclusive. He would beg leave to read it to the House; but before he did so, he wished to remind their Lordships that after England had separated herself from the Church of Rome, before the Articles or the Liturgy of our Church were drawn up—before there were any authoritative institutions issued for men to guide themselves by—it was resolved by the wisdom of the men of that day—wisdom which might be compared not disadvantageously with that of any age or any country—to take counsel how they might provide for the wants of such an emergency. It was decided to advise the King to call upon the bishops and clergy to give to the people an exposition of the Christian doctrine, which would set forth the whole duty of a Christian man. The book which he held in his hand was a reprint of the result of their labours—it was entitled The Institution of a Christian Man. The work was put forth in the reign of Henry VIII., under the authority of that King. For much of it they were indebted to that great and illustrious prelate, Archbishop Cranmer, who, although there were several particulars of his life and character in which he was to be condemned, was nevertheless a shining light and ornament to the Church. He thanked the noble and learned Lord for doing justice to Cranmer. But he must be permitted to say, he thought the noble and learned Lord had gone too far in speaking of the recantation of Cranmer as not worse than St. Peter's. There was one great distinction, which removed the case of Peter to an incalculable distance. When he denied his Lord, the Holy Spirit had not been given, as it was given to the Church after the Ascension; Cranmer, therefore, sinned more against grace than Peter. Again, Peter's fall was brief, and his repentance immediate; Cranmer denied the truth in which he believed four or five times—he denied it as long as he had any hope of life, though in the end, in his latter moments, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, he nobly redeemed his previous errors. He would Bay that to no man was the Church of England so much indebted as to Cranmer. To him they owed the Articles; for although they were not formally drawn up till some time after, yet the great body of

641
them were prepared by him: to him they owed the Homilies, the Book of Common Prayer, and, not least, to him they owed the Preface to the Bible—a work the more precious and valuable from its being the first to assert among us the right of every Christian man to read his own Bible. The Institution of a Christian Man had been prepared by Cranmer; it had been submitted to the two archbishops, and to all the bishops, and to the most eminent divines and doctors, and corrected by Henry VIII. himself, with his own hand, as appeared from the preliminary statement given with the volume, setting forth that it had been issued by the authority of "His Highness." Henry VIII. having corrected it, it was printed, and the copy containing the autograph of Henry was deposited in the Bodleian Library. Now, one of the important facts to be recollected in this case was, that the book to which he was referring appeared, not before, but after the 25th of Henry VIII. That Statute passed in 1533. The book, which appeared in 1537, took some considerable time in the compilation, and the King spent five or six months in its correction; and he might be permitted to add, that at this hour the manuscript of Cranmer's comments, or the King's corrections, was in the British Museum. At that time seven sacraments were recognised in the Church of England, and the passage which he was about to read adverted to the Sacrament of Orders:—
"The second point, wherein consisteth the jurisdiction committed unto priests and bishops by the authority of God's law, is to approve and admit such person as (being nominated, elected, and presented unto them to exercise the office and room of preaching the gospel, and of ministering the sacraments, and to have the care and jurisdiction over these certain people within this parish or within this diocese), shall be thought unto them meet and worthy to exercise the same, and to reject and repel from the said room such as they shall judge to be unmeet there for. And in this part we must know and understand that the said presentation and nomination is of man's ordinance, and appertaineth unto the founders and patrons or other persons, according to the laws and ordinances of men provided for the same. As, for an example, within this realm the presentation and nomination of the bishoprics appertaineth unto the Kings of this realm; and of other lesser cures and personages, some unto the King's Highness, some unto other noblemen, some unto the bishops, and some unto other persons whom we call patrons of the benefices, according as it is provided by the order of the laws and ordinances of this realm. And unto the priests and bishops belongeth, by the authority of the gospel, to approve and confirm the person which shall be, by the King's highness, or the other patrons, so nomi-
642
nated, elected, and presented unto them to have the cure of these certain people within this certain parish or diocese, or else to reject him, as was said before, from the same for his demerits and unworthiness."
Now, this work, he repeated, came forth with the authority, not only of Cranmer and of all the bishops, but of the King himself. It was a public—a State document. It must, therefore, be taken as contemporanea expositio of the Statute of 25th Henry VIII., which preceded it only by three or four years. If this was the law, as indeed all possible authority proved it to be, then the confirmation must be held to be a judicial act; and two great Judges—he would not say as great as the noble and learned Lord—but two great Judges of the same court had stated such to be the law. In conclusion, the right rev. Prelate was understood to assert the existence of an analogy between the power of the bishops to refuse to induct a clergyman into a benefice bestowed by the Crown, on proved canonical unfitness, and a power in the Archbishop to refuse to proceed to the consecration of a bishop on the same grounds. The right rev. Prelate closed his address by expressing a hope that the law, if proved to be so defective, would be altered, and moving that the petition do lie on the table.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid: I do not anticipate that much difference of opinion will be found to exist between myself and the right rev. Prelate on the main point of the question. The right rev. Prelate began by stating that of nothing was he more convinced than of the necessity of preserving the prerogative of the Crown in the appointment of bishops. He also stated that he would abstain from discussing matters of recent occurrence, particularly certain proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench.
The BISHOP of EXETER: I said no such thing; what I stated was, that I would not go into particular points connected with Dr. Hampden.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: That is to say, the right rev. Prelate was ready to discuss everything with regard to the proceedings except points personal to the individual they affected. I do not think my impression of what the right rev. Prelate stated was very inaccurate; he only draws a distinction between the proceedings and the individual they relate to. I understand the right rev. Prelate also to express a hope that what has recently taken place in the Court of Queen's Bench may be recon-

643
sidered, and that the decision would be reversed.
The BISHOP of EXETER: I did not state that steps ought to be taken to reverse that decision.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am unfortunate in so much misapprehending the right rev. Prelate; but certainly I shall abstain from discussing what has taken place in that court at all, principally, he-cause the Chief Justice of that court is present; from him anything respecting it would better proceed, and I believe he is ready to give any explanation. My object in rising is merely to state what the law is at present, and what it will be if the prayer of this petition is granted, or what the right rev. Prelate suggests be carried into effect. As the law now stands, and as it has stood for three centuries, the right to appoint bishops is vested absolutely in the Crown. That law the right rev. Prelate wishes to alter. [The Bishop of EXETER: No!] Then the right rev. Prelate likes the law as it is. [The Bishop of EXETER: No, no!] The right rev. Prelate, then, neither likes the law as it is nor as it is not! The law is, that the Crown shall appoint the bishops without reference to any other authority or power intervening between the appointment and its confirmation. How was that done by the Act of Henry VIII.? A form of election by the Dean and Chapter was preserved. The petitioners pray that the penalties attached to a refusal to elect be done away. Suppose the Crown took away those penalties; the Dean and Chapter might then either elect the person appointed by the Crown, or they might not. Does not the Act expressly say the Dean and Chapter shall elect the person named by the Crown? Asking to be relieved from the penalty was, in fact, saying—Give to us, the Dean and Chapter, the power of electing the bishops. It was a claim to a veto, or a right not to elect the party named by the Crown. The right rev. Prelate was favourable to the right of appointment remaining in the Crown; but he wished some other ecclesiastical authority, he did not explain what, whether the Archbishop or an assembly of the Church, to intervene between the appointment and its completion. The effect of it would be simply this: the Act of Henry VIII. makes certain matters matters of form; but the real power is reserved to the Crown. The proposal of the petition, and of the right rev. Prelate, has exactly the same object, only in another
644
shape; the difference being that the petitioners seek to make the nomination of the Crown the form, and the authority of the Church the actual power. I cannot say I am prepared to go that length; and if your Lordships are not prepared to say that the arrangement made at the Reformation, and then considered necessary for the preservation of its doctrines, shall no longer be a security—that the appointment of bishops ought not remain in the Crown, but shall be vested in the Church, then, as you value the Reformation—as you value the principles on which it is founded, and the blessings you enjoy from it, you ought not for a moment to entertain an idea of making an alteration in the provisions by which it is secured.
The BISHOP of CHICHESTERsaid, that the subject was of the utmost importance, and he did feel that the whole question was not before them. He did not think the prerogative of the Crown was in any way assailed by saying there was yet another question involved in the election of a bishop. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had spoken of the Act of Henry VIII. as a provision simply for guarding the prerogative of the Crown, in the nomination of bishops, against encroachment on the part of its own subjects. But he need not advert at any length to the arguments adduced in the Court of Queen's Bench; he need only remind the House that it was stated there over and over again, while high legal authority and much historical evidence led to the same conclusion, that such was not the object of the Act; it was intended simply to exclude the power of the Pope of Rome. If what the noble and learned Lord had stated must be received as correct, he feared they must prepare for a crisis in the history of the Church in this country. The bishops were prepared to submit to all that the law required of them, but they could not submit to a sinful compliance with the interpretation now put upon it. His sense of duty compelled him to say that if this doctrine prevailed, they must run the risk, if not the certainty, of a schism in the Church. He had felt it his duty to state his impressions with respect to this question; it was one requiring great caution and deliberation, and most serious attention ought to be bestowed on it by the Ministers of the Crown.
LORD DENMANsaid, that it did not appear to him to be a very convenient or proper course for a Judge to enter into

645
discussion in that place respecting his own administration of the laws in a court of justice. He could only say, of this case, that on no occasion to his recollection had he devoted so much time or bestowed so much inquiry upon any subject which had come before him, nor did he recollect any subject which had occasioned him greater anxiety. So that, if he had erred in any way, it was not without the most careful endeavour to prevent it, and the most diligent search after the truth; he would add that never, upon any occasion, had he risen from an inquiry with a more perfect conviction that he had the good fortune to arrive at it. He felt the deep responsibility which rested upon him, when he came to that conclusion in opposition to opinions which he so justly respected; but having done so, he as a Judge was not entitled to withhold it. However great the respect he felt for his learned brethren, and notwithstanding the extreme pain with which on every occasion one Judge differed from another on questions of great interest and importance, still that Judge must pronounce the dictates of his own conscience, and give full effect to his own opinion. He was, however, far from thinking that any expression that fell from him on that occasion could stand the test of the admirable keenness and sagacity with which the right rev. Prelate had observed upon it. But he might say, with regard to the particular passage on which the right rev. Prelate had most enlarged, referring to the alternative of the Archbishop's resigning, that the report was not exactly correct. He had mentioned that not as an alternative provided by the law, but as the last resort of that high functionary, if required to do an act condemned by his own conscience; and he had first spoken of the impossibility of supposing that such a case should arise. A deacon was not ordained without inquiry into his life and conversation; he did not become a priest without renewed inquiry; when the priest was recommended as one fit for the office of bishop—nominated by the Crown, and elected by the Dean and Chapter, and the Archbishop approved of the election and nomination; was it to be maintained that the result of all these advantages was to place him in a position in which all his enemies might have an opportunity of bringing forward any scandal against him?—in fact, that these presumptions in his favour should place him in a position in which all mankind might, if they pleased, come forward and indulge any prejudice against him? He
646
would not, however, enter on the argument, but he would merely state what it was that the Judges were called upon to do in the late proceeding in the Court of Queen's Bench. They were called on to issue a mandamus directing the Archbishop to hear certain objections against the Bishop of Hereford, on this specific ground that, according to the ancient practice, before confirmation, the appearance of objectors having been challenged, once at the church door, and once in the church, the Archbishop was bound to hear any objectors whatever prefer any objections whatever—in any country or in any age a practice not proved to have obtained—a one-sided proceeding, which provided for the assumed fact that no opposers would appear, but made no provision for hearing them, or urging their allegations if they did appear. In other ceremonies such forms had kept their place, but merely as matters of form. But on the late occasion, the form was sought to be converted into a practice powerful enough to set aside the appointment of a bishop by the Crown. For as his noble and learned Friend had truly observed, the power could not in fact be in the Crown if the Archbishop had a power, before confirmation, to call upon all opposers to come forward—to hear their objections—and, upon his opinion upon those objections, refuse the confirmation and consecration of the person nominated by the Crown. One expression had dropped from the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter), as to the opinions of his (Lord Denman's) two learned brethren on the bench who had differed from him. He had called them "the friends of the liberty of the Church." He had noted the phrase, that he might found upon it this observation, that, in his opinion, no one who had an opportunity of considering the subject, could doubt that his learned brother Mr. Justice Erle and himself had conferred a great benefit upon the Church by putting a stop to the issue of the writ of mandamus. A document had been read by the right rev. Prelate, to which he had attached great weight. The right rev. Prelate had said, that this document showed the intervention of the spiritual authority to have been at that time contemplated in the appointment of Prelates. He (Lord Denman) would not commit himself to any opinion on the value of this argument; but he thought it clear that the paper referred to furnished an argument on the other side, which was also deserving of consideration. For if the King

647
and the Archbishop had their minds turned to that very subject, and yet had abstained from interfering with the Act of Parliament, this might be thought a proof that the spiritual authority could not interfere, as of right, with an appointment made by the Crown, though it might act, as it had in later times, in the way of remonstrance and persuasion, before the appointment was made. With respect to the petition presented by the right rev. Prelate, he did not think so harshly of it as his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor). He looked at it as merely seeking the repeal of the penalty of prœcemunir'e, as affecting certain of the clergy; and, as in his (Lord Denman's) opinion, the Archbishop was imperatively called upon to confirm the election of a bishop, he thought that penalty unnecessary. Indeed the penalty of prœ munire was in its own nature objectionable, and unworthy of a civilised country. No man ought, for any offence, to be placed out of the protection of the law, and he should gladly see the title prœmunire expunged from our code. He thought he could suggest a much better remedy in the present case, and would refer to another document, probably also penned by Cranmer, and approved by a much better King than Henry VIII.—an Act of Parliament passed in the first year of Edward VI. (The noble and learned Lord here read the repealed Statute of Edward VI., conferring on the Crown the deirect appointment of bishops.) The same power was given to the Crown with respect to Irish bishops by an Act of Queen Elizabeth, which was still in force. An Amendment of the 25th Hen. VIII., by substituting this simple process for the cumbrous machinery of congé d'élire and lettre missive, would be a great improvement of the law, and would avoid the scandal of similar questions arising in Westminster Hall for the future. To this extent he should be happy to lend his aid to the right rev. Prelate as a reformer.
LORD CAMPBELLhighly approved of the line of conduct pursued by his noble and learned Friend; for he considered it would be most inexpedient as well as derogatory to the high character which he maintained, and the high position which he occupied, if he came before their Lordships in this irregular manner to justify the course which he took in his judicial capacity in the Court of Queen's Bench. No Judge, who had a proper respect for his character or his office, would set such a precedent. In the case to which such
648
frequent reference had been made, the Court of Queen's Bench must be considered as having decided the question: true it was that the Judges were equally divided in opinion, but the rule of law in such a case was against the issuing of a writ of mandamus. In a recent important case which was before their Lordships, and in which the question was the validity of marriages in Ireland without the presence of a priest apostolically ordained, their Lordships were equally divided, and yet the judgment was delivered against the validity of such marriages; and such marriages were in consequence now held by the law of England to be invalid. The right rev. Prelate had anticipated frightful consequences as likely to result if the law were to remain as his learned Friend had laid it down in the Court of Queen's Bench, and had referred to the Act of 25th Henry VIII. as an Act which was passed when the Reformation was not completed; but that Act as it stood ought more properly to be regarded as the 1st of Elizabeth, when it was revived—a period when the Church was presided over by Protestant prelates of the greatest learning and ability, who had decided upon the proper mode in which to conduct the ceremonies and proceedings necessary to the appointment and consecration of a bishop. The right rev. Prelate compared this case to those cases which took place with reference to the appointment of Ministers in the Church of Scotland by lay patrons; and he had referred to an Act introduced by a noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) by which a power was given to object to the sufficiency of any person appointed to a living in Scotland; but the right rev. Prelate ought to recollect that in Scotland and England, when a person was appointed to a living by lay patrons, the presbytery and the bishop had a full power to inquire into the morality, the doctrine, and the learning of the person so nominated, and to refuse to admit him if he was not deemed fit in any of these particulars. It had been laid down that the Crown, and the Crown alone, had the power of appointing bishops; but he (Lord Campbell) would ask, did it follow, that because the Crown had that power, a Turk, a Jew, or an infidel, was likely to be selected to fill the office of bishop by the Crown? Did it follow that there was any danger of such consequences, if the judgment of the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench was admitted? That such a result was likely to follow from ad-

649
mitting the decision of his noble and learned Friend, was, in his (Lord Campbell's) opinion, an exaggeration of the right rev. Prelate, for he could not imagine how any such consequence could follow. His noble and learned Friend had stated that the person appointed must be a priest who had been apostolically ordained; and he would ask, how could it be supposed that any danger to the Church could arise from that, when they considered the advantages which the Sovereign had in the way of ascertaining the most fitting person for the office? Could it be said that the Sovereign, with all the advice and assistance which the Crown could command, would not be as likely to come to a correct decision as to the most fitting person to fill a vacant bishopric, as any other authority, and be quite as well capable of ascertaining his learning, morality, and orthodoxy? The question before the Queen's Bench, however, was of a different character. It was whether all the world was to be permitted to appear at Bow church, and be there at perfect liberty to bring forward all manner of objections against the bishop elect. If the election was duly conducted, the person so nominated was still to be consecrated; and if they referred to the form of consecration appointed by the Church, and established by Act of Parliament, their Lordships would see that all necessary and due precautions were provided; and hence it was that it was not necessary to hear all persons who might come forward with objections before confirmation and consecration. (The noble and learned Lord read parts of the "Office for the Consecration of Bishops.") There was a sufficient test established by that form of ordination, and if the bishop elect refused to agree to it in every particular, he would not be consecrated. Was not that form a perfect guard against the danger which the right rev. Prelate feared? It was, in his opinion, a perfect guard against any such danger—it was the form which had prevailed for 300 years, and now, after such a lapse of time, were they to be called upon to decide against the opinion and practice of the ancient Church? True, the petition presented by the right rev. Prelate only prayed that the penalties of prœmunire should be abolished; but did not the right rev. Prelate wish that the right of objection to the bishop should extend to all mankind? [The Bishop of EXETER: NO.] Did not the right rev. Prelate wish that
650
the law upon this point should be materially changed? If not, he (Lord Campbell) might concur with him as to the alteration of some forms; but he could not consent to such an alteration in the law as would in his opinion be fraught with danger, and which he, as a sincere friend of the Church of England, could not advocate.
The BISHOP of ST. DAVID'Swas unwilling to let it be supposed that all the statements of the right rev. Prelate received the unanimous and unqualified assent of every Member of that bench; and "he was desirous of availing himself of that opportunity of expressing his opinion upon some of the subjects which had been brought before them. There were many parts of the right rev. Prelate's observations in which he most heartily concurred; but he would confess that he did not feel the same alarm for the state of the Church in consequence of the recent decision in the Queen's Bench which was felt by the right rev. Prelate who introduced this subject to their Lordships; and he would say, that from some expressions which had been used, and from the tone of his address, he regarded it as something like an augury of an approaching storm, which, unless it was prevented by the wisdom of the Legislature, would be calculated to shake the Church, if not the State, to its foundations. Though he assented to much of what his right rev. Friend had said, he would repeat it, that he could not agree in the opinion that there was any necessity for alarm as to the position of the Church. He could not agree with him in considering the power of the Crown in this matter, even as it now stood, and even if it were left as it now was, to be so alarming, so dangerous, so humiliating, so monstrous, and so tyrannical as had been represented. If the prayer of the petition had been for no more than an alteration in the law, so far as it affected the appointment, election, confirmation, and consecration of a bishop, he should have heartily supported it. He conceived it to be a prayer which probably echoed the real wishes of the greater part of the Church and of the country; for he did believe that the time had arrived, and that circumstances had arisen, when it was absolutely necessary that some change or other should be made in the law; and he was delighted, on that account, to hear his noble and learned Friend (Lord Denman) express a similar opinion. When it should have been proved by experience that the present system was mischievous and trou-

651
blesome, then, undoubtedly, it would be high, time to make an alteration. Therefore, he agreed with both his right rev. Friends in desiring that there should be some change effected in the forms of the law. But some of his right rev. Friends went a great way further than this; and it would seem as if the inevitable tendency of what they proposed—though such might not be their intention—would be to make a transfer of the power which now rested in the Crown to some other. [The Bishop of EXETER: No, no!] He did not say that his right rev. Friend had stated to whom he proposed to transfer that power, but he did say that there was an argument which he had not yet heard answered, and which was advanced by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack (the Lord Chancellor) that the tendency and real aim of the prayer of the petition was, in some way or other, to accomplish that object—that it was to transfer the power now residing in the Crown, reserving the point as an open question to what other authority that power was to be transferred. Now, the utmost change that he (the Bishop of St. David's) was prepared to assent to, as at all desirable, was that an alteration should be made in the forms of the law, by which the power now substantially residing in the Crown should be really secured to it. At present, he was not prepared to go a single step further. He said also that the Legislature should not go one step further than that. With regard to the position of the Church upon this question, it did not appear to him that it was deserving of the epithets which his right rev. Friend had thought fit to apply to it; and he trusted that the feeling of alarm expressed by his right rev. Friend was not shared in by the great body of the community, whether lay or ecclesiastical. He trusted that there was not that deep discontent with the institutions of the Church which rendered it impossible to retain them without material and radical alterations. The right rev. Prelate, in alluding to the power of the Crown in the nomination of bishops, overlooked a modifying circumstance which had a most important bearing on the subject. His right rev. Friend had spoken as if the power hitherto exercised in substance by the Crown, and which might be, by an Act of the Legislature, still reserved and secured to it, was absolutely unlimited and unqualified. Now, it was not by any means a power of that description; and his right rev. Friend seemed to have forgotten that
652
most important feature in the case, that when the Crown exercised this power it was most strictly limited as to the subjects upon which it was exercised. It was not a power of nominating anybody who might be thought proper, but it was a power the exercise of which was limited to a certain class of persons who, in the eye of the law, he must be permitted to contend, were all equally well qualified to be the subjects of election. And he did conceive that one of the errors or oversights of his right rev. Friend was that of making too great a distinction between the superior and inferior orders in the Church. He appeared to have forgotten that, after all, there were no qualifications that could be required for the functions of a bishop which were not also equally required for a presbyter. With respect to any other qualifications, they were comparatively immaterial. True, the choice of the Crown might not always fall absolutely upon the best qualified person; but the law presumed that, until the case was proved to be otherwise, all presbyters—the only class from which a bishop could be selected—were equally qualified to fill the higher office: it was simply the transfer of a man from one sphere, which he had been found capable of filling, to another which he was presumed, and might fairly be presumed until the contrary was proved, to be competent to fill. He said, then, that in vesting the head of the State with such a power as this, the Church was not submitting to a state of things of which any of its members had reason to complain as a matter of grievance, or as ground for interference by the Legislature. But it was obvious also that this was not the only limitation to which the power of the Government was subjected. There was another which he considered of equal importance with the one he had mentioned, and as an equally unquestionable reality—he alluded to public opinion. There never was a period in which the power of the Crown in the appointment of bishops was more subject to the wholesome and legitimate influence of public opinion than the present. And he would venture to go one step further, and say that there never was a time in the history of this country when there was less probability that public opinion would have either a less wholesome or legitimate influence on the matter. Therefore it did appear to him a remarkable circumstance that this should be the particular epoch in the history of the Church and the State, when public opin-

653
ion was to be sounded upon the question, whether it was or was not advisable to make a radical and fundamental alteration in the state of the law upon the subject. If that was not the meaning of this petition, or if it was not the meaning of his right rev. Friend, then he confessed that he had probably been wasting their Lordships' time as will as his own by dwelling long on a point of most trivial importance; but he thought he could not so far have mistaken the language of either of his right rev. Friends as to suppose they considered themselves addressing the House on any other question; but whilst he said this—whilst he contended that the state of things was not quite so deplorable as had been represented—he wished, on the other hand, in the most distinct manner, to express his unqualified assent to every syllable that fell from his right rev. Friend, and which he was glad to hear had received the assent of another right rev. Prelate, as to the force and effect of the act of consecration. He was well aware, and their Lordships well knew, that there might be great and reasonable difference of opinion. It might be a question whether the act of election, and even of confirmation, was simply ministerial; but with regard to the question whether the act of consecration was not a personal act, which bound in the most solemn manner the conscience of every party who engaged in it, he could not have the slightest hesitation in saying that he most fully assented and agreed in every syllable that fell from his right rev. Friends on the subject. On the whole, it did appear to him, that if his right rev. Friend had expressed the meaning of the petitioners, they had not only been labouring under an exaggerated idea of the evil of the present state of the case, but likewise that their view of the remedy which they proposed for it was exceedingly imperfect and confused. He might admit that the present state of things was not the best possible state. The wide difference that separated the present form of proceeding from those which prevailed in the primitive ages of the Church, was a consequence not of any improvement, but of corruption in the Church; but that was not the question for the consideration of their Lordships or of the Legislature. Where an evil was pointed out and a remedy was to be proposed, we had to compare the present state of things, not with one that existed in times long past, but with any which existed in our own days, or which by any legislative
654
enactment we were able to bring about. He must say that, however bad the state of things in the Church of England might be in this respect, when we compared it with that which existed in other communities—and he would say in all other religious communities with which he was acquainted—he could not conceive the difference to be so disadvantageous, so mortifying to the members of the Church of England, as it must be in the estimation of his right rev. Friends. When he heard what was proposed as a substitute for the existing state of things, he should be better able to make up his mind whether it was desirable or otherwise. If the power which now resided in the Crown, or any portion of it, was to be transferred in any way either to an ecclesiastical conclave or to a popular assembly, he, for one, would rather retain our present institutions, with all their admitted anomalies and inconveniences, than he would accept either of what he considered to be infinitely greater evils, with the sense of imaginary danger. He had thought it his duty to state how far he was obliged to modify the assent which he could give to the proposition of his right rev. Friend. He could leave this question with perfect tranquillity in the hands of the Legislature, because, even if they should do nothing—even if the law should be allowed to remain in the state in which it now was—he did not think we should suffer any more intolerable grievance than we had been labouring under for many centuries. He entertained a hope that at some moment a wholesome change would be made in the form of the law; but whether the substance or not should be touched, was to him completely indifferent; or rather, judging from the light which had hitherto fallen on the question from the views that he had hitherto seen proposed, it would be better for the Legislature to permit the present state of things to continue substantially the same, than to open the door of innovation, of which no man could foresee the ultimate consequences, and which might threaten both Church and State.
The BISHOP of EXETER: After having already occupied so much of their Lordships' time, he would not unnecessarily trespass longer upon it. But some things had been said by the three noble and learned Lords who had addressed the House, and by his right rev. Friend who had just sat down, which demanded from him some brief reply.

655
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had astonished him by the principal remark which he had thought fit to make on what he (the Bishop of Exeter) had said on the respective rights of the Crown and of the Church in the appointment of bishops.
"The right rev. Prelate (said the noble and learned Lord) is willing and anxious that the Crown should have the absolute right of naming the person to be made bishop; but then the Archbishop must have a right to judge of the fitness of the person so nominated by the Crown. My Lords (said the noble and learned Lord), of what worth is the right to nominate, if another party is to decide on the qualifications of the person nominated?"
He was, he repeated, astonished to hear such an argument, if argument it could be called, proceed from such a quarter. Why, the noble and learned Lord knew by experience, better than any man in that House, that the power of nominating to preferments was of great value, even though others had a right and duty to judge of the fitness of nominees, and to reject them if they were unfit. The noble and learned Lord exercised—he knew not how often in every year—the right of presenting to benefices in the gift of the Crown, subject nevertheless to the right of the bishop to judge of the qualifications of the persons presented by him. And this right of the bishop was not a mere nominal one; it was one repeatedly acted upon. He had himself, since he had been bishop, often considered judicially the qualifications of parties presented to benefices, and more than once in cases of parties presented by the Crown. This right he had exercised, and should continue to exercise. It was a right distinctly stated by the great statute "Articuli Cleri," which declared not only that it should be the law in future, but that it ever had been in times past—thus recognising it as the common law of England. The terms in which this was stated were remarkable; for they applied expressly to benefices in the gift of the Crown, and were so large as to apply in their reason to all benefices, whether bishoprics or others:—
"Of the ability of a person presented unto a benefice of the Church, the examination belong-eth to a spiritual judge; and so it hath been used heretofore, and shall be hereafter."
He would next advert to something which had been said by a noble and learned Lord, who, he was sorry to see, had since left the House (Lord Denman). That noble and learned Lord had agreed with him
656
in wishing that the present course of proceeding in the election of bishops, with all its mockery and its profaneness, should be done away; and he had suggested that a course should be taken, which while it removed these scandals, would leave the power of the Crown such as the noble and learned Lord thought it ought to be—not only absolute in the appointment of bishops, but also without a right in any one to judge of the fitness of the Crown's appointment. This he had said would be effected by reviving the Statute of Edward VI., c. 2, which gave to the Crown the right of appointing bishops by letters patent. The noble and learned Lord had read to their Lordships the provisions of the statute to that effect; but he had omitted to read another part of the same statute, to which he must now call their Lordships' attention, and which he heartily wished the noble and learned Lord were present to hear. The Statute of Henry VIII., revived by the 1st Elizabeth, which was now the law of the land, required the Archbishop to consecrate the person elected, nominated, and presented to be Bishop under the penalties of prœmunire. But the Statute of Edward VI. which the noble and learned Lord said would give to the Crown the same power as was claimed for it under the Statute of Henry VIII., and which, therefore, he desired to see revived, enjoined not the consecration of the person nominated under any penalty—no, nor did it enjoin consecration at all—it simply said that the person to whom the bishopric was so collated "may be consecrated"—thus recognising the right of the Archbishop to refuse to consecrate if the person were unfit.
He must now make some remarks on what had been said by the noble and learned Lord near him (Lord Campbell). That noble and learned Lord had rested his argument on what he must say perfectly astonished him, considering the high stations which his noble and learned Friend had filled, and the still higher, which, if he lived, he would probably be called to fill. He had read to their Lordships the questions put to, and the answers made by, a bishop at his consecration—and these, he said, were all the security for his fitness which the law contemplated, or which was in itself expedient. But was it possible that the noble and learned Lord could see in those inquiries and their answers anything more than a mere engagement for the future? And what if the

657
party was utterly untrustworthy?—what if he had been already proved guilty of perjury, or was otherwise utterly disqualified? He really could not permit himself to abuse their Lordships' patience by dwelling longer on such a matter. He turned, therefore, to what had been said by his right rev. Friend behind him. His prime argument had been, that a bishop must be taken from the presbyters of the Church, and, therefore, in that one condition they had a sufficient security. What was it possible that his right rev. Friend should think less security necessary for the qualification of a person nominated to be bishop, than was necessary for the holding of any inferior benefice whatever? No presbyter presented to a rectory or vicarage was exempt from inquiry by the bishop into his qualifications for the charge. Was less care to be taken in admission to the highest office of all? Again—did his right rev. Friend affirm that none but presbyters might be made bishops? Why, at a not very remote period of the history of this very Church there was a notorious instance to the contrary. In James the First's time, when the episcopacy of Scotland was restored, certain Scotch ministers, who had not received episcopal ordination, were to be consecrated bishops. Bishop Andrewes objected that they were mere laymen. Archbishop Bancroft admitted this to be true, but reminded Andrewes that in the ancient Church there were several instances of laymen being advanced at once to the episcopate, mentioning Ambrose of Milan, who was a mere civil officer. Upon this Andrewes assented, and the consecration proceeded. Such is the account given by Heylin in his History of the Presbyterians. Besides, his right rev. Friend ought to bear in mind that the Statute of Henry VIII. did not confine the Crown to presbyters; it spoke generally of the persons nominated by the Crown to be bishops.
Before he sat down, he thought it necessary to answer the demand made on him by all the noble and learned Lords, that he should state what he thought a fit and proper course to secure the right of the Crown, and the right which he claimed for the Church. Thus challenged, he hesitated not to say, that, while he thought that the Crown ought to have an absolute right to nominate the future bishop, the Archbishop must have a right, on specific objections being stated, judicially to decide whether the person be cano-
658
nically qualified, or be canonically disqualified. If the Archbishop reject him, he would willingly see a right of appeal given to the party; and he would propose that the court of appeal should be the same as was constituted by a Bill now on their Lordships' table (Clergy Offences Bill) as a court of ultimate appeal in cases of heresy. He had the more confidence in proposing such a court, because it had been devised in a Select Committee on the Bill up stairs, at which all the noble and learned Lords had attended, and given their most valuable judgment. The result had been the unanimous agreement in constituting a court which should consist of Bishops and other divines, together with several Judges, both of the common law courts and also of the ecclesiastical courts. The right rev. Prelate thanked the House for the patience with which they had heard him.
Petition to lie on table.
House adjourned.