Sitting of 4 June 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Collection of Rates (Dublin); County Cess (Ireland); Newgate Gaol (Dublin).
2o Pupils Protection (Scotland); Sheep Stealers (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED, By Mr. Lawrence Heyworth, from Glossop, for the Adoption of Universal Suffrage.—By Mr. Lushington, from Westminster, for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Pontefract, against the Marriages Bill.—By Mr. W. Lock-hart, from Glasgow, for an Alteration of the Burgage Tenure (Scotland) Act.—By Captain Pechell, from Matthew Phillips, Engineer and Surveyor, for the Appointment of a Committee to ascertain the best Means of Employing and Sustaining the People—By Mr. Coles, from Andover, respecting Assessment to the Poor Law.—By Mr. Brotherton, from the Ellesmere Union, for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers.—By Mr. Rice, from Dover, for the Suppression of Promiscuous Intercourse.—By Mr. Duncan, from the Royal Burghs of Scotland, against, and by Mr. Ewart, from Dumfries, for an Alteration of, the Public Health (Scotland) Bill.—By Viscount Jocelyn, from King's Lynn, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death.—By Mr. Henry Hope, from Gloucester, for an Alteration of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. Beckett Denison, from Bamsley, Yorkshire, for an Alteration of the Small Debts Act.

THE PALACE COURT.
MR. B. OSBORNEwished to put a question to the hon. Member for Marylebone upon a subject respecting which great anxiety was evinced out of doors. He desired to know what course the noble Lord meant to pursue about the Palace Court?
LORD D. STUARTbegged to say, in reply, that he had not given any notice of a Motion with respect to the Palace Court hitherto. He had merely confined himself to moving for some returns with regard to that court. Those returns were not as yet laid upon the table, but he believed they would be forthcoming within a very short time. Not long ago he had put a question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, inquiring whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in any measure for doing away with the Palace Court or not. The answer of his hon. and learned Friend was not very explicit. His hon. and learned Friend did, however, lead him (Lord D. Stuart) to expect that the Government had a measure of the sort in contemplation. If he should find, and he should do all in his power to ascertain the point, that the Government did not intend to bring in a Bill for the purpose in question,
1094
he should himself introduce a measure, which he hoped would receive the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex.
MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, that perhaps the hon. and learned Attorney General would have no objection to state when he would bring in his Bill for the abolition of this court?
The ATTORNEY GENERALreplied, that the subject had been for a long time under consideration, and that the principal difficulty was with respect to the compensation to be granted to the officers.
MR. B. OSBORNEasked whether the Bill would be certainly brought in in the present Session?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was impossible to answer the question with certainty until he knew the nature of the claims of the several officers.
Subject dropped.

INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
SIR L. O'BRIENsaid, that unless he knew the names of the commissioners to be appointed under this Bill, he must, as a matter of duty to his constituents, move that it be read a third time that day six months.
MR. J. STUARTseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he did not believe the Bill would effect any of its proposed objects. He denied that Ireland was so circumstanced as to call for so extraordinary a measure. So far from Ireland requiring facilities to sell land, the fact was that half the property in that country had changed hands twice over within a very short period. In France, a Bill very like the present was introduced under Louis Philippe by a very able lawyer, but was rejected by a large majority. A change of proprietary never could relieve agricultural distress. Mr. Longfield, one of the witnesses examined before the Committee, declared that the only difficulty in selling land in Ireland was caused by the Registration Act; while Mr. Butt, another witness, considered the great difficulty was want of purchasers. If the Court of Chancery was not fit for its business, why not

1095
reform it, or bestow on it the powers of those commissioners to he appointed under the Bill? As to the measure itself, it violated every principle of law and justice, and would still further alienate Ireland from this country. The House had tried confiscation after confiscation, but Ireland was to-day in the state which Spenser described it as being in the days of Elizabeth, while her people were flocking to the shores of America, and carrying with them feelings which were not favourable to the legislation of this country.
MR. GROGANfelt it his duty to oppose the third reading. The amendments were not improvements, and in the course of his experience he never knew such an Algerine measure proposed in Parliament. No English Member would trust three unnamed commissioners with such extraordinary powers in England under any pretence whatever, and he thought they should hesitate before they consented to make such a precedent. In the present state of feeling he did not think it good policy to apply different legislation to the two countries.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he felt bound, in justice to the constituency he represented, to state the grounds on which he thought the Bill should not pass. In many of its objects—such as affording facilities for sales of land as far as was consistent with the rights of property—he fully concurred; but he thought that, to carry the main object, two sets of machinery, one judicial and the other administrative, were required, and that some special administration should be directed to distressed properties, more particularly those in Chancery. Before the Consolidated Fund was saddled with this large additional expense, it was the bounden duty of the Government to explain why the Irish Court of Chancery was to be superseded. Admitting that the existing machinery of the Irish Court of Chancery required modification, he denied the justice or the expediency of sweeping it altogether away. The Bill proposed the continuance of three commissioners for five years, at an aggregate annual salary of 7,000 l., and he thought it only due to the country to explain why this additional expenditure could not be saved. The Bill had been so loosely framed, that whilst it provided that the commissioners should not sit in Parliament, it assigned no court for them to sit in. He objected to any legislation which should enable a commission of this character to supersede the high
1096
legal functionaries composing the Irish Court of Chancery. It was not pretended the court had not time to discharge its duties; but the Government came down with a Bill, not to administer insolvent property, but to transfer all property at the request of the slightest incumbrancer from the highest court of equity in the country to three Government commissioners. He would not, as an Irish barrister, consent to be a party to any measure to affirm that those high functionaries, the Lord Chan cellor and the Master of the Rolls of Ireland, were not able to perform their business, or to frame new rules, such as they were empowered to do by the Act of last year—a power which was transferred to the commissioners by the present Bill. Was all Ireland in such a state as to require this measure? Were there no places in the laud where the hardworking and industrious had invested their earnings, and the result of their toil and labour in the purchase of land, to which this Act would not extend? And yet it applied to all Ireland, solvent and insolvent. If the rights of property were thus invaded and taken from under the settled control of the laws, the Legislature did injury to the constitution, and struck at the very roots of society. They were separating Ireland every day from England by such laws as that. It would be fair and honest policy to apply it to certain parts of Ireland, or even to appoint a commission to and the Court of Chancery; but he could not consent to vest such arbitrary power over all the country in the hands of three men. Even the very right of appeal to the Privy Council was left to the will and pleasure of the court to be appealed against. The Court of Appeal consisted of six Members of the Irish Privy Council; but it should be remembered that those persons were not really a judicial body. To the discretion of this body was left the altering the rules of the commissioners. He asked whether it was fair so to legislate for Ireland—whether it was wise to go on alienating the people of that country by such a course of policy? The scheme propounded by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth did not contemplate, as this Bill did, the superseding by a commission of the Irish Court of Chancery. His commission would have proceeded to the spot, and have sought to negotiate between conflicting interests; whereas the present commission might adjudicate upon titles, and declare the priority of incumbrances in the absence of the

1097
parties interested. A Parliamentary title was of value in proportion as the people had confidence in the Legislature; but he did not think that the present course of legislation was calculated to give that confidence. Any man having a claim to the property could get it placed at his mercy. On the allegation that there was no such thing as a marketable title to be found in Ireland, it was proposed to appoint commissioners, with plenary powers of investigation; no provision was made for the supervision of any court; and a tribunal which should act on a loose popular principle was to be substituted for that which now existed. The commissioners were to have the power of taking any man's property on the application of any incumbrancer, and of deciding according to their discretion, and without appeal, on the rights of all parties having an interest. The measure tended to encourage frauds on the part of tenants for life; of which description was one of the few cases of sale attempted under the Bill of last year—he referred to a case which occurred in the north of Ireland. To supersede the functions of a court which Parliament last year thought perfectly competent to deal with the question to which the present Bill related, was neither a wise nor a judicious course. It was a course calculated to shake the confidence of the country in the administration of justice by the ordinary tribunals. The commissioners were to be exempted from that control to which other tribunals were subject; their decisions could not be subjected to review by mandamus, certiorari, injunction, or any other proceeding. If a title were to be given good at once against all challenge, the more emphatically necessary was it that the question should be decided on in such a way as should be perfectly consistent with the general rules as to property, and subjected to the review of the judicatories which usually regulated all rights of property. To pass such a measure was not dealing fairly with those parties who had, to the best of their ability, and in the midst of great difficulties, been endeavouring to discharge their duty on the properties they had inherited. On the other hand, cases of collusion might occur between owners and incumbrancers, for the purpose of forcing a sale to the disadvantage of the other creditors, who would then be loft to their general remedy against the person; so that the Bill might be made an instrument for perpetrating perjury and fraud. The Government by this measure
1098
declared in substance that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was of their own selection, and who was a highly eminent man, was incompetent for the discharge of his duties, and must be superseded by the commissioners. It might be asked whether the commissioners were to appoint masters, whether their court was to be open to the public, whether professional assistance was to be allowed, and where were they to sit? If Parliament were to pass a Bill for the purpose of compelling purchasers to buy, there was abundance of property for sale. One of the Masters in Chancery had told him that he had for sale 300,000 l worth of property, but had sold only to the extent of 3,000 l. A portion of the Goldsmiths' property, the Bles-sington estates, and also Mr. D'Arcy's, in the county of Tyrone, and a number of other large properties, all in the north of Ireland, were at present for sale. There were at present under Chancery receivers, estates to the value of upwards of 2,000,000 l., which the Government had it in their power to manage as they pleased, but of which the management was an utter disgrace. Were that management such as it ought to be, it would soon have the effect of restoring confidence and of elevating the value of property, which was now selling at eleven years' purchase, but which, some years ago, would have fetched thirty years' purchase. It was provided that the commissioners should not be liable to an action at law for anything done by them in the exercise, or the supposed exercise, of their powers. But why apply a Bill which conferred such powers to the whole of Ireland? Why not rather confine it to the properties which were placed in such peculiar and special circumstances as might have suggested the measure? Commissioners and receivers might be appointed, as in bankruptcy proceedings, to act with reference to those peculiar and special cases. He objected to the Bill as being levelled at the whole of Ireland, as superseding the ordinary tribunals, and as declaring them incompetent to modify their rules so as to meet the emergency; but, if the House were resolved to proceed with the measure, the responsibility was theirs and the Government's. It was something for him at least to know that he had done what he could to prevent the measure from being carried into a law.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, he had given the Bill of last Session, on this subject, a qualified support, but had felt bound to resist

1099
some of its provisions (which, however, the Government had obstinately retained), because he thought those provisions, so far from carrying out the excellent principle of the measure, would operate as a practical prohibition and injunction against the investment of capital in landed property under mortgage in Ireland. He regretted that the Solicitor General had not introduced a clause into this Bill, repealing the Act of last Session—so far as the provisions he had mentioned were concerned—retaining the clauses which independent Members had introduced—such, for instance, as that most valuable clause which the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin introduced into the former Act. If the learned Colleague of that hon. and learned Gentleman had had as much experience of courts of equity as he had had of the common-law tribunals of his country, he (Mr. Sadleir) believed he would not have so strongly pressed on the House his views against this Bill, as damaging the existing rights of property. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman think he could preserve the leading characteristics and main features of the equity courts of Ireland, and at the same time entrust them with the functions proposed to be vested in the commissioners under this Bill? He had said that a large quantity of property already stood decreed for sale, but had not been sold as yet. Now, that very fact was a reason why he (Mr. Sadleir) was favourable to the creation of a new and independent tribunal for effecting sales. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman think that property could continue perpetually in the master's office without ruin to the owner, or without destroying the industry of the tenants, and retarding and obstructing the industrial development of the country? If he had taken the trouble to examine into the cases, he would have found that in each instance where masters offered landed property for sale, they were obliged to offer it to the intending purchaser clogged with a series of conditions, binding him to go into court before the Chancellor, and perhaps afterwards before the House of Lords, should there be an appeal, to defend some obscure old testament, or sustain some doubtful deed—conditions which were quite sufficient to deter capitalists from purchasing, even in the most prosperous times. He (Mr. Sadleir) assumed that the commissioners would turn their attention at once to the circumstances and position of the incumbered estates for the sale of
1100
which application may be made to them, and that they meant altogether to dispense with those expensive written pleadings by which, according to the costly and dilatory system of the Court of Chancery, the most simple and indisputable titles had heretofore to be established. After having ascertained the circumstances of and the title to the property—which they might do in a summary and effective manner—he assumed that they would next proceed to discover the undisputed and disputed demands upon the estate, and having effected a sale, he supposed they would, having reference to the priority of the claimants, distribute the proceeds among the first class of claimants, and place the residue of the money under the control of the Court of Chancery. He (Mr. Sadleir) was anxious to support the third reading of this Bill, because he thought it not only enunciated the principle of the Act of last Session, but took a bolder ground, and recognised the necessity for a distinct tribunal to administer the affairs of these estates, ascertain the incumbrances, and effect the sales. Nevertheless, if the hon. and learned Solicitor General did not take a further step so as to extend the efficacy of the Bill, and give to it a more comprehensive character than it at present possessed, he greatly feared that it must also break down, like the Act of last year, for want of purchasers. This was the third edition, "revised and corrected," of this Bill, and yet, unfortunately, some of the best suggestions that had been made were not included in its provisions. The absence of one feature, in particular, from this Bill he extremely regretted. He meant that the Bill as it now stood, deprived persons who were owners of life-interests in property in Ireland, as well as their creditors, of the power of putting this Act in motion. A majority of the incumbered estates in Ireland were those in which parties had life-interests; and what objection could there be to giving those parties, as well as their creditors, the right to sell a portion of the estate? Every interest in land, however limited, ought to be brought under the power of the commission, at the instance of the owner; and the same right ought to be given to the creditors. This would be really and practically to facilitate the sale of estates in Ireland. As long as this commission existed, no man could effect a sale except under it; and on this account it was most desirable that the provisions of the Bill should embrace all classes of interests.

1101
The absence of such provision was the great weakness of the Bill. He would notice the defects which he conceived to exist in the Bill, and hoped that the hon. and learned Solicitor General would act on the suggestions he was about to offer. With respect to the 16th section, he thought it might be usefully altered by giving the owners or incumbrancers of any estate the power of applying for a sale. He thought they ought to expunge the 17th section altogether, the effect of which, he thought, would be to narrow the operation of the Bill. With regard to the 23rd section, he was of opinion that those individuals who had lent money in the character of trustees, under the operation of Lynche's Act, should be allowed to become purchasers of those estates on which they had lent money. By the 25th section he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to give a power to the commissioners to apportion the quit rents. But as the clause now stood they had no such power. With regard to the 25th section, the hon. and learned Gentleman had neglected to provide for the production of the tenant's lease or equitable agreement. He did not think it would be considered a hardship on any party if the commissioners had a power to compel the production of the tenant's lease, when the landlord, as was frequently the case in Ireland, held no counterpart. There was another consideration which made him regard the Bill as it stood as a most puny effort to grapple with a great and pressing difficulty, and that was, that in cases where the owner of an incumbered estate in one part of the country was desirous of selling that estate for the purpose of acquiring by purchase an incumbered estate in another district, which had gone out of its hands, in consequence of the imprudence, it might be, of some improvident ancestor, he would be unable, whilst the commission existed, to effect a sale upon fair terms, except through the medium of the commissioners. Another defect was, that the 12th section did not give sufficient power to enforce the production of deeds, and compel the attendance of witnesses, thereby weakening the means for checking fraud and deception. It was true the 14th section was in and of the 12th; but it supplied only a very clumsy mode of enforcing the wishes of the commissioners. He would beg to urge upon the House the importance of enabling the commissioners to proceed at once to effect the sale of those bankrupt
1102
estates, which already had been placed under the control of the Court of Chancery and Equity Exchequer in Ireland. Nothing could be more calculated to stop that system of emigration, which, for the sake of the interests of the country, should receive some kind of check. Nothing could be more calculated to give the tenantry some hope for the future, than to find that the commissioners, under this Bill, were enabled to offer for sale those bankrupt estates which, for several years, had been under the control of the equity courts in Ireland. Where vast arrears of rent had accumulated on such estates, it would be necessary that an adjustment should be come to with regard to them; for it was notorious that purchasers were frequently annoyed and harassed by proceedings taken to enforce the payment of arrears that were treated as irrecoverable previous to their purchase. He was sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, in dealing with the question as to the partition of land, had confined the measure to the partition of incumbered estates. He was sorry that he did not agree to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Limerick, and adopt means by this Bill to effect, where necessary, the speedy and economical partition of estates not incumbered. A most serious objection taken by him to the present Bill had reference to the properties of those parties whom he called the professional absentee proprietors of the country. They were, unfortunately, not very likely by this Bill to hold out even an inducement to those owners of property to part with at least a portion of their large possessions in Ireland. He was sorry the Bill was not framed in such a way as would afford them an advantageous mode of parting with the estates of which they were owners. He alluded, of course, to those gentlemen who had for years been absentee proprietors. When he considered the great and flagrant evils resulting from this system, he wished the Government had introduced something into the Bill to induce those absentee proprietors to divest themselves of those estates. With regard to the evils of absenteeism, he begged, in the first instance, to refer to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tam-worth—an opinion most deserving of the attention of the House, and delivered at a time when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary for Ireland, and represented an

1103
Irish constituency, and therefore had an opportunity of forming an accurate opinion on the subject. The speech was made in reply to the memorable statement of Sir John Newport, in the year 1816. The right hon. Gentleman then said, that if he were asked from what measure the greatest benefit to Ireland would accrue, he would say from a measure that was calculated to induce, or, if that was not sufficient, to compel those individuals to reside in Ireland who spent the money they got from Ireland elsewhere. At a later period. Chief Justice Blackburne stated, before a Committee of the House of Lords, that absenteeism, independently of its abstraction from the country of so much wealth, produces great mischief in the whole frame of society. The names of absentee proprietors were rapidly and daily increasing; and he saw nothing in any projected reform with respect to the poor-law that did not continue the practical bonus which hitherto had been held out to those absentee proprietors with regard to the poor-rate. It seemed to him that they would be precisely in the same state as at present when the projected Poor Law Amendment Act became the law of the land. At present, if a man wanted to exonerate himself from a just and fair demand on foot of poor-rates, he had only to become an absentee. To show the extent to which absenteeism had reached, he referred to a barony in the county of Kerry, where, out of 100,000 acres, 92,000 belonged to four absentee proprietors, and the remaining 8,000 acres belonged to small proprietors, one-half of whom were absentees. He thought that the establishment of an effective system of registration was necessary; for under the present system, there was great delay and difficulty in vouching titles to lands. So long as those anomalies existed with respect to real property in Ireland, so long must capitalists decline to become extensive purchasers of incumbered estates in that country.
MR. HENLEYhad expected that the hon. Gentleman who just sat down would conclude by moving that the Bill be recommitted, for though he had in the commencement of his speech stated that he intended to vote for the third reading, he seemed to have given every reason, both in detail and in gross, against the Bill. How any Gentleman could vote for the third reading of a Bill which he had so pulled to pieces, he (Mr. Henley) could not understand. He would now state the reasons
1104
that prevented him from voting for the third reading of the Bill. In the first place, the Bill came before them under a title that was not true—it did not deal with incumbered estates alone. It was alleged that there are in Ireland a vast mass of incumbered estates, which it was necessary to let loose for the sake of the country at large; and that might be a good object; but they did not confine the application of the Bill to that object, nor did they take any security at all that the Bill would be confined to that object. There was in Ireland, as in all countries, a great deal of property without a marketable title, and this Bill would enable parties having such properties to avail themselves of its provisions and sell their estates. They might thus forestall the sale of incumbered estates at a sacrifice that every person would not be disposed to make. They had done many things by this Bill which many persons thought would shake the rights of property, and for a purpose which they had taken no step to secure, because the Bill might be put into operation to effect an object entirely dissimilar to that contemplated. He next objected to the nature of the commission. They did not take care that the gentlemen who were to supersede the Court of Chancery should execute their functions in public. A man might have his interests dealt with, and absolutely destroyed, by three gentlemen sitting with closed doors, the public not knowing what was going on. The commissioners would probably have most complicated questions to decide, and they had no right to withdraw those questions from the ordinary tribunals of the country, and yet give the parties no power of appeal except at the will of the judges themselves. Those commissioners, before they sold an estate, must inquire in a certain degree into the nature of the incumbrances upon it, and that inquiry must to a great extent, be ex parte. However judicially constituted their minds may be, there must be some kind of impression created on them by that process. After an estate was sold, then came the distribution of the funds, and persons would not be satisfied to have the money produced by the sale distributed by men who had made an ex parte inquiry, and, therefore, were not looked upon as impartial judges of the matter. He wished the Bill had been so framed as to effect the objects in view; but he felt assured that in its present shape it would not secure those objects.
The SOLICITOR GENERALwould not detain the House by entering into the minute details relating to this Bill, which had been gone into at considerable length by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow. He would only refer to the leading points to which they had drawn the attention of the House, and he thought that was the more satisfactory, because this Bill was carefully considered in Committee, and those little details with regard to the working of the measure were more fit to be discussed in Committee than on the third reading of this Bill. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had fallen into an error when he spoke of the inconsistency of the hon. Member for Carlow; for the objections he made to the Bill were directly opposite to those made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. The improvements suggested by the hon. Member for Carlow were such as he thought might be considered in a future Session with advantage. With respect to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he begged to differ with him in opinion with respect to the operation of this Bill: he (the Solicitor General) believed it to be strictly confined to incumbered estates. An objection had been raised to the measure, on the ground that it proposed to supersede the existing tribunals of the country; and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin had asked why they could not reform the present Court of Chancery, and why the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland was not competent to carry the provisions of the Bill into effect? There was no person who could be found second to himself in praising that most excellent and learned Judge, or in believing that he would be fully competent to carry into effect any measure of this description; and it was a great satisfaction to him to consider that this Bill had the fullest sanction of that noble and learned Lord. With respect to reforming the Court of Chancery, his hon. and learned Friend had forgotten the difference which existed between attempting to reform an old established system, and attempting to carry into effect, by a new and temporary one, something which the established system had been found manifestly insufficient to perform. It was impossible to hear the details referred to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, upon a
1106
former occasion, without feeling that the Court of Chancery, as at present constituted in Ireland, was incompetent to perform those duties which, under the existing state of things, were required, in order to allow persons who were desirous of disposing of their estates an opportunity of doing so. Its incompetency did not arise from any indisposition on the part of those who presided in that court, but by reason of a system which had grown up through a long series of years, partly arising from the complication of the system itself, and partly from the defective system with respect to incumbrances on land which prevailed in that country. A necessity for an altered state of things had now arisen; and instead of attempting to reform a system in which they would be met by the claims of a vast number of persons interested in fees derived from a number of offices of different descriptions, which it would be almost impossible accurately to ascertain, he thought it would be much more desirable to appoint three competent persons, who, by devoting their time and attention to the subject, might be able to lay down proper rules upon which to proceed; and see whether, by getting rid of every species of technicality, and looking in a broad and common-sense view at the whole question, they might not devise some plan by which they might deal in justice with the division of land, or the distribution, among those who were entitled to it, of the proceeds of the sale. The measure was but a temporary one, and no great evil could arise from its failure; but if by effecting, without due consideration, great changes in the Court of Chancery, they produced evil results, the injury might be irreparable. The duties of this commission, when appointed, would be confined to the consideration of two classes of cases—the disputed and the undisputed. The latter class of cases would, no doubt, be disposed of rapidly. In the disputed cases the commissioners would have the power of obtaining the assistance of all the courts in Ireland, in order to enable them to come to a safe and accurate decision on the subject. They would be empowered either to pay the money relating to the sale of disputed estates into the Court of Chancery, to be distributed by that court; or they would have the power, by summary jurisdiction, of dealing themselves with the interests concerned, and of obtaining the opinion of any one of the

1107
courts of law to enable them to solve any question which might be essential to the due distribution of the property among the persons interested. He believed that if a similar plan were adopted to that of the commissioners in deciding on the West Indian compensation, of dividing the cases into the two classes of disputed and undisputed, there would be found to be very few, comparatively, that they could not decide upon at once. An objection had been urged to the efficacy of this measure, on the ground that there would be a difficulty in finding purchasers for the property. In his opinion, the contrary would be the result. There was, at pro-sent, no lack of sellers; and he felt convinced that the effect of the Bill would be to produce a large number of purchasers. He had received communications on this subject from a large class of proprietors in Ireland, and from various quarters, not only suggesting points for the improvement of the measure, but all expressing their sincere desire to see it carried into effect. There were other points which he might be desirous of referring to, but on that occasion he would not detain the House. With regard, however, to his own feelings, he must, before concluding, express the gratification he felt for the assistance he had received from a very old and sincere friend of his, Mr. Coulson, without whose great abilities and legal knowledge he should have found it impossible to have presented to the House a Bill which he really believed would carry into effect that which was the object of all parties, and which would be a useful and beneficial measure, though not alone able to carry into effect those reforms which they considered necessary to the regeneration and amelioration of the existing state of things in Ireland.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 12: Majority 105.

List of the AYES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Bromley, R.

Armstrong, R. B.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Baines, M. T.

Brotherton, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Busfeild, W.

Bass, M. T.

Campbell, hon. \V. F.

Bellew, R. M.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Bernal, R.

Cobbold, J. C.

Blackall, S. W.

Cobdcn, R.

Blair, S.

Corbally, M. E.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

1108

Craig, W. G.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Crowder, R. B.

Melgund, Visct.

Cubitt, W.

Moffatt, G.

Currie, H.

Monsell, W.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Moore, G. H.

Damer, hon. Col.

Morison, Sir W.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Deedes, W.

O'Connell, J.

Devereux, J. T.

O'Connell, M.

Ebrington, Visct.

Oswald, A.

Ellis, J.

Paget, Lord A.

Evans, J.

Paget, Lord C.

Ewart, W.

Palmerston, Visct.

Fagan, W.

Parker, J.

Foley, J. H. H.

Patten, J. W.

Fordyce, A. D.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Pugh, D.

Fox, W. J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Greenall, G.

Rice, E. R.

Greene, J.

Rich, H.

Grenfell, C. P.

Roche, E. B.

Grenfell, C. W.

Romilly, Sir J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Russell, Lord J.

Guest, Sir J.

Rutherfurd, A.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Sadleir, J.

Harris, R.

Shell, rt. hon. R. L.

Hawes, B.

Sidney, Ald.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Headlam, T. E.

Stanton, W. H.

Heyworth, L.

Stuart, Lord D.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Tenison, E. K.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Hood, Sir A.

Thompson, Col.

Howard, Lord E.

Thornely, T.

Humphery, Ald.

Townley, R. G.

Jervis, Sir J.

Trelawny, J. S.

Keogh, W.

Vane, Lord H.

Kershaw, J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Kildare, Marq. of

Wawn, J. T.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Williamson, Sir H.

Lacy, H. C.

Willoughbby, Sir H.

Langsten, J. H.

Wilson, J.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Lewis, G. C.

Wyld, J.

Lushington, C.

Young, Sir J.

Maenaghten, Sir E.

TELLERS.

Martin, J.

Tufnell, H.

Masterman, J.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Richards, R.

French, F.

Spooner, R.

Grace, O. D. J.

Stuart, J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Turner, G. J.

Henley, J. W.

Jones, Capt.

TELLERS.

Napier, J.

Dunne, Col.

Newdegate, C. N.

Grogan, E.

Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3o, and passed.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply,
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the report of the Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates which sat last Session,

1109
it was stated in the first paragraph that the Chancellor of the Exchequer having revised the estimates with the utmost care, had made reductions to the amount of 246,000 l., the total amount required being 3,700,000 l., instead of 3,946,000 l. It now appeared from the papers laid on the table that 3,946,000 l. had been spent. He would be glad to have this apparent inconsistency explained.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to reply, that formerly it was customary to vote the gross amount without including the fees, and that in the case referred to the vote included them.
The House then went into Committee of Supply—Mr. Bernal in the chair.
The following votes were agreed to:
110,117 l. for superannuations and retired allowances and compensations to persons formerly employed in the public service.
4,100 l. for Toulonese and Corsican emigrants, &c, and American loyalists.
2,000 l. for the National Vaccine Establishment.
2,000 l. towards the support of the Refuge for the Destitute.
On the vote of 8,990 l. being proposed for Polish refugees and distressed Spaniards,
MR. REPTONsaid, he thought the time had come when, according to the promise of the Government, an end would be put to these Polish grants. After the speeches that had been made last Session, and the movement that was agitating the country in respect to financial reform, he was surprised that this vote should again appear in the estimates. When they looked at the prominent part the Poles had taken in the affairs of Europe, the impropriety of this vote became more glaringly perceptible. Every observer of the events of the day must have seen that no revolution had taken place in Europe in which the Poles had not taken a distinguished part—["Hear, hear!"]—he repeated, a very distinguished part, although he might differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the estimate to be put upon their conduct. He did not deny but that there were many worthy and respectable men belonging to the Polish nation, and there was one in particular whose name ought always to be mentioned with respect in that House—a nobleman distinguished for his benevolent exertions in the sister country. But he thought the House had a right to know who were the persons who received the
1110
money, and by whom it was distributed. If men of distinguished position in the world of science or letters were made the recipients of the public bounty, their names were published, and he could not see why a sum of money should be voted, and that the House should be in perfect ignorance of who the persons were who received the grant, how it went, and who distributed it. If any one would go into the lobby with him, he would divide the House against this vote.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad promised the House last year that an inquiry should take place into the application of this grant, and that those who were able to earn their own subsistence should be struck off the list. That inquiry had been made, and several names had been struck off in consequence, other persons had withdrawn their names, no vacancies which occurred were filled up, and after the present year no portion of the grant would be given to any refugees under a certain age. It would be, however, a hard measure to strike off all the names and discontinue the vote; and, indeed, the fact was as to many of these refugees that they must either be maintained by the charity of the nation, or be relieved by the parish in which they had lived as casual poor. He thought it far better that they should be maintained by the former mode, and that the grant should be gradually reduced in amount, as circumstances permitted. In the year 1847 the grant was 11,000 l.; in 1848 it was reduced to 10,700 l.; and in the estimates now before the House it was further reduced to 8,990 l. After the reductions made during the present year, the vote would be reduced to about 2,800 l.
MR. REPTON, after this explanation, would not divide the House.
Vote agreed to.
On the vote of 6,423 l. for miscellaneous charges formerly on the civil list, the hereditary revenue, &c.
Mr. LUSHINGTONsaid that, early in the present Session, he had given notice of his intention to oppose so much of this vote as referred to the Regium Donutn. It was his intention to have carried that project into execution. When the grant was proposed last year, a strong opposition was opposed to it, not only out of doors but in the House, and a division took place of a very strong and marked character as against that grant; and he supposed that the opposition then organised would have

1111
been continued to this Session. He was, however, surprised to find that a perfect silence upon the part of the Dissenters had prevailed upon the subject during the present Session. Last year, several petitions were presented from influential bodies of Dissenters. This year, one solitary petition only had been presented, and that from an obscure village somewhere in Derbyshire. He felt, therefore, very much puzzled as to what course to adopt. It was not his business to meddle with the concerns of the Dissenters. If they relaxed in their exertions with respect to this grant, it was not his business to force the Committee to a division, upon what, to all appearance, they approved of. He personally felt some objections to the vote. He thought it exceedingly wrong to force upon the Dissenters a grant which they declared was so obnoxious to their feelings. Notwithstanding that, as they had not come forward this Session to present any petitions on the subject, he thought that he should offend the propriety of the House, if he were to come forward with any opposition to the vote. He begged leave, therefore, to withdraw the resolution of which he had given notice in the early part of the Session.
MR. WYLDsaid, that the Dissenters had not relaxed their efforts; but they felt that, as that House was at present constituted, they could make but very little way with their opposition to the vote. From the return which had been presented to the House, for the year 1847, the recipients were—166 Presbyterian ministers, 443 Independent ministers, and 461 Baptist ministers; making a total of 1,070 individuals, each of whom would receive, supposing the grant, 1,695 l., equally divided, 22 s. He hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would consent either to abandon this vote now, or that he would promise not to insult the general dissenting body, by proposing it on a future occasion; if not, he should feel compelled to divide the Committee.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he could not give the assurance which the hon. Gentleman required, because, so far was this sum from being forced upon the Dissenters, that Dr. Rees and other gentlemen who had the distribution of it, stated that they had many applications for it, and that it was, in fact, accepted as a matter of charity. The grant began in the time of George I., who was graciously pleased to make it out of the civil list; and Parliament, after settling
1112
the civil list, had since provided the sum required to make this grant good. 'It was quite impossible to contend that this grant had been repugnant to the feelings of the Dissenters from the time of George I., and therefore be could not give any promise that he should propose that the grant be withdrawn.
MR. J. B. SMITHinquired whether there was any list of the dissenting clergymen who received these moneys?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid there was not; but the hon. Gentleman would get all the information he desired if he would read the evidence given by Dr. Rees.
LORD J. RUSSELLobserved, that the distributors of the money had no objection to furnish a list which might be referred to in private.
MR. LUSHINGTONhad no doubt that the recipients of the money did not object to its receipt, but the dissenting body generally did object. He hoped that the Committee would draw a distinction between those persons and the conscientious body to which they professed to belong. Dr. Rees was an interested party; and therefore, making due allowance for the frailty of human nature, his evidence did not possess the weight which otherwise would have attached to it.
MR. WYLDwished to ask the noble Lord whether he knew a single congregation of Dissenters which acknowledged that its minister had received any portion of this grant? Though he was, from conviction, a member of the Church of England himself, he constantly got letters from Dissenters complaining of this grant being made, and it was to be observed that only the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Independents, participated in it.
MR. BRIGHTthought the House would not be justified in assuming, because there were no petitions against this grant, that the opposition of the Dissenters thereto had been relaxed. He believed that there had not been the slightest change of opinion among them with regard to the grant; but after the discussion which had taken place last year, it was not probable that the Dissenters would come again to the House during the present Session. He thought it a most unconstitutional proceeding, and a grossly wrong course, that the Treasury should hand over 1,695 l. to be distributed by parties of whom that House knew nothing, and who were not responsible to it. Dr. Rees might publish what

1113
he liked with regard to the distribution of this fund; but he, for one, would not believe that there were 1,000 Dissenting ministers who were so mean as to receive these alms, or to accept of such a paltry sum as 22 s. positively and openly as charity. If money were voted in charity by a board of guardians, a list was kept of those who received it; but here was a sum distributed by a person who was not responsible to that House, to parties whose names were not furnished to that House, or even, as it appeared, to the Treasury, which ought at least to have such a list. He believed that, as the noble Lord perfectly well knew, the first list that was published of the names of the recipients of this grant would be the last. He should without hesitation say that there ought to be an end to the practice of voting this money. Let there be an end to it, and the result immediately must be, that the several congregations would make up whatever might be necessary for placing their ministers in an honourable position. There were, it was said, upwards of 1,000 ministers receiving this money, who were not only unknown to their own congregations as recipients of it, but who were equally unknown to the Treasury; and the causes were likewise unknown which induced those ministers to be guilty of the meanness of accepting such paltry assistance.
MR. W. J. FOXobserved, that this was the only grant of public money which seemed not to be acceptable to its nominal recipients. In his opinion, the money ought in the first instance to be offered to the known and acknowledged representatives of the Dissenting body, and no portion of it should be offered to any other class of persons; then it would be possible to ascertain whether the parties for whose benefit it was intended, were really disposed to receive it. He conceived that the present practice was open to very great abuse. Of course Dr. Pye Smith, and others with whom he was associated, were men altogether above and beyond all suspicion; but it was pretty well known that these votes were clearly open to abuse, and might at any time be rendered subservient to political purposes and undue influence. The money, instead of being given to aged or infirm ministers, was supposed upon pretty good grounds to reach the hands of youths who were only just entering on the ministry, or of men who, not possessing talent or information sufficient to procure them a good position as ministers, were obliged to
1114
eke out the means of their subsistence by pursuing other avocations. If it turned out upon inquiry that there were not now any very glaring abuses, yet it was well known that such things had been, and that they might arise again; therefore was it the duty of Parliament not to consent to any such vote as that now under consideration, the more especially as it was a manifest violation of the principles of dissent; and it must be against the feelings of any men in society (those, for example, who differed from the Dissenters) to contribute to that which they believed to be dangerous and bad.
MR. KERSHAWwas quite of opinion that if the distribution answered to the description which had been given of it, it ought to be got rid of at once. The House, however, he hoped, would bear this fact in mind, that some of the religious denominations were in the habit of collecting from 50,000 l. to 60,000 l. per annum for the support of institutions of their own. Snrely such a body ought not to be involved in so petty a grant as the present; a grant to no one knew whom. In fact, there was every reason to believe that the money either went to unworthy persons, or did not go to Dissenters at all. It was really too paltry a sum to be given to any body of Dissenters; and there could be no doubt that congregations were anxious to reject it altogether. Independents, Baptists, Presbyterians, and all, wished to prevent their ministers receiving such sums as 20 s. or 30 s. He stood there as the advocate of the voluntary principle. His objection to the present vote was founded upon that principle; and he also objected to it because he could discover nothing about its application.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, it would be hardly possible to give the names of the persons on whom this money was bestowed. In the case of private alms, the hon. Member for Manchester would surely not expect that lists should be published. A person in narrow circumstances might receive 5l. if given to him privately; but he would probably reject such a gift if he knew that his name was to form one in a list to be published amongst the Votes of the House of Commons. He was very glad that the recipients of alms were not to be held up to the notice of the public. The names of the committee who dispensed the alms might be given, such as Dr. Rees, and eight others—three Presbyterians, three Independents, and three Baptists. As to

1115
the Treasury, they exercised no influence whatever; they never inquired who received the money, nor did the receipt of it imply any connexion whatever with the Government.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, they had eight or nine names, certainly; but such things, as the House well knew, were always managed by one or two persons. It was always a hocus-pocus affair. As to that illustration about a gift of 5l. being bestowed secretly, the noble Lord gave it to the House last year. It might be all very well to talk of secret alms when a man was giving away money of his own, but the case was different when they were dealing with the money of the nation. This Committee was not to give away 1,600 l. or 1,700 l. without letting the world know who received it. If the noble Lord were as much a Dissenter as he was reputed to be—["Hear, hear!"]—yes, he certainly was some time ago in the habit of attending a Dissenting chapel, until hon. Gentlemen opposite put a stop to it—surely, then, the noble Lord, supposing him to be as much a Dissenter as he was reputed to he, must know that it was not in the policy of that body to accept money under the circumstances in which this gift was made.
Afterwards Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 4,728 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay, to the 31st day of March, 1850, Miscellaneous Allowances formerly defrayed from the Civil List, the Hereditary Revenue, &c., for which no permanent provision has been made by Parliament."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 52: Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Blair, S.

King, hon. T. J. L.

Bright, J.

Lacy, H. C.

Brotherton, J.

Langsten, J. H.

Cobbold, J. C.

Martin, J.

Cobden, B.

Mullings, J. R.

Drummond, H.

Connell, J.

Ellis, J.

Sandars, G.

Evans, J.

Smith, J. B.

Ewart, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Fagan, W.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Fox, W. J.

Thompson, Col.

Greene, J.

Thornely, T.

Harris, R.

Trelawny, J. S.

Henry, A.

Wawn, J. T.

Heyworth, L.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Hollond, R.

TELLERS.

Humphery, Ald.

Wyld, J.

Kershaw, J.

Lushington, C.

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Bagshaw, J.

Armstrong, R. B.

Baines, M. T.

1116

Bass, M. T.

Matheson, Col

Bellew, R. M.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Blackall, S. W.

Mitchell, T. A.

Blakemore, R.

Moody, C. A.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Busfeild, W.

Paget, Lord A.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Paget, Lord C.

Craig, W. G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Cubitt, W.

Parker, J.

Denison, J. E.

Raphael, A.

Ebrington, Visct.

Rich, H.

Evans, W.

Romilly, Sir J.

French, F.

Russell, Lord J.

Frewen, C. H.

Rutherfurd, A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Shell, rt. hon. R. L.

Hawes, B.

Smith, J. A.

Hay, Lord J.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Spooner, R.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stanton, W. H.

Hood, Sir A.

Vane, Lord H.

Howard, Lord E.

Wilson, J.

Jervis, Sir J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Lewis, G. C.

TELLERS.

Lockhart, A. E.

Tufnell, H.

Lockhart, W.

Hill, Lord M.

Original Question put and agreed to.
MR. J. B. SMITHasked how much longer the descendants of Sir Thomas Clarges were to have 500 l. per annum of the public money? Since this preposterous annuity had been granted by Charles II., the descendants of the grantee had received more than a million sterling of the taxes.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the grant was originally payable out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, which were clearly at the disposal of the Sovereign for the time then being. These hereditary revenues had since been given up to the public for a consideration, but given up with all charges upon them; and the descendants of Sir Thomas Clarges were as much entitled to their annuity as any Gentleman in the House to his estates. The same equally applied to the sum annually voted to the widows and children of poor refugee French clergymen. Upon the establishment in this country of a French Protestant Church, after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, provision was made by the Crown out of the hereditary revenues for the maintenance of the widows and children of the successive ministers of that Church.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that at the commencement of every reign the Crown might retain the hereditary revenues, or consign them into the hands of Parliament. The sums now under consideration formed part of the charges settled on the Sovereign,

1117
and could not be well refused by the House.
Vote agreed to; as were the following votes:—
1,000 l. for the Foundling Hospital, Dublin.
12,093 l. for the House of Industry, Dublin.
On the vote of 800 l. for the Female Orphan House, Dublin,
MR. W. FAGANsaid, this establishment was of an exclusive nature, it being required that the children who were inmates should be instructed in the doctrines of the Established Church. Now, in Dublin the proportion of the Catholic to the Protestant population was 5 to 1, and throughout Ireland 8 to 1, and he therefore considered that the Irish Catholics had a fair claim to a portion of this fund. He did not object to the vote, for he believed the House would not be unwilling to increase it, but he contended for such a distribution as would admit Irish Catholics to a participation in the advantages of this or similar establishments.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, it was true the institution was exclusively confined to Protestants, but he believed this was the only vote of the kind which Parliament was asked to sanction. The grant bad been made for many years, and he thought it would be a great hardship to withdraw it. He might observe that the vote had been diminished by 200 l. since last year.
MAJOR BLACKALLwished it to be understood that the institution was not entirely supported by Government money. An amount was raised from private sources nearly equal to the Parliamentary grant.
MR. W. FAGANasked whether the Government would give any undertaking that the assistance offered to this establishment would be extended to others accessible to persons of all religious opinions?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould hold out no such hope, as he was now taking steps to diminish the present grant as much as possible.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following votes:—
2,250 l. for the Westmoreland Lock Hospital, Dublin.
800 l. for the Lying-in Hospital, Dublin.
1,500 l. for Dr. Stevens's Hospital, Dublin.
3,800 l. for the House of Recovery and Fever Hospital, Cork-street, Dublin.
500 l. for the Hospital for Incurables, Dublin.
1118
On the vote of 37,183 l. to defray the expense of Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.
MR. TRELAWNYsaid, he thought that if the House sanctioned this vote, they ought to go a step further, and pay the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland. The vote was clearly not one of religious principles; but it was a question whether it would not be advisable to make some effort to secure the allegiance of the priests, as the friends of order in Ireland, by paying them in the same way that other dissenting clergymen were paid.
Vote agreed to; as was also the vote of 7,096 l. for charitable allowances charged on the Concordatum Fund in Ireland.
MR. HAYTERstated, that he did not intend to propose the vote which stood next on the Paper—1,000 l. for the Metropolitan Sanitary Commission. The vote of last year would, he believed, be sufficient to cover the expenses of that commission for the present year.
On the vote of 14,652 l. for the expense of the General Board of Health,
MR. VERNON SMITHobserved that, as this was a new vote, it would be extremely desirable to have some information with respect to it. He would like to know whether the present was to be a permanent vote.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated, that a portion of the vote was permanent, and that the other portion was an advance, to be repaid by the localities benefited.
MR. F. FRENCHsaid, he considered that the English Board had gone to work like men of business. They had found a total absence of all local preparations for the visitation of the cholera; but in consequence of the appointment of medical inspectors, and sending down officers to every locality where the disease appeared, not one half the expense had been incurred last year which was incurred in 1832.
MR. HENLEYcalled attention to some items in the estimate for expenses contemplated under the Nuisances Prevention Act, and inquired whether it was necessary to appoint two superintending medical inspectors?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained, that this vote was taken as a matter of precaution to meet expenses which might be requisite if the cholera should again break out; but it did not follow, because the vote was taken,

1119
that the money would necessarily he expended.
MR. HENLEY: Then the vote ought to have been put under the head of "civil contingencies."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained, that the established rule was not to put any charge under the head of "civil contingencies," which could possibly be foreseen.
MR. VERNON SMITHthought the duties of the board were not defined with sufficient strictness. The last report they had issued related to the printing of the papers of that House—a very extraordinary subject, as it appeared to him, for such a board to interfere with.
Vote agreed to.
On the vote of 2,447 l. for the salaries and incidental expenses of the Central Board of Health in Dublin,
MR. F. FRENCHsaid, this board was appointed under an Act of last year, which required the Irish Poor Law Commissioners to enforce by their officers the suggestions of the board. He believed, however, that the only step which had been taken had been the issue of a circular recommending the adoption of certain sanitary regulations in each poor-law union; but, except in Dublin, and one or two other large towns, no attention had been paid to those recommendations. The result had been that a great many cases of cholera had appeared, and, in the course of a very few months, no fewer than 5,000 persons perished from that disease in the city of Limerick. He did not think, however, that the Poor Law Commissioners were to blame. Between 300,000 l. and 400,000 l. was annually levied and expended in charity in Ireland; but the Commissioners had no power to establish an efficient control over the expenditure, and he was satisfied that at least 100,000 l. of the amount was totally thrown away.
MR. MONSELLsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that no precautionary measures were taken in Limerick in anticipation of the cholera. Every precaution was taken by the Poor Law Commissioners in Dublin, and by the Limerick board of guardians, and the deaths which ensued were not owing to their neglect, but to the reduced state of the population from destitution.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, it was useless for that House to pass Acts, or any board in Dublin to frame regulations, unless the local boards throughout the country
1120
set themselves vigorously to work to put those Acts and regulations into execution. With respect to the medical charities in Ireland, he was aware of their unsatisfactory state at the present moment, and he could assure his hon. Friend that the subject was not lost sight of.
MR. GROGANinquired whether there was any probability of any general measure being introduced during the present Session relating to the sanitary condition of Ireland?
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, that the subject was of great importance; but the great difficulty was, that it was almost impossible to apply to Ireland an effectual sanitary measure on account of the extreme poverty of the population. Nevertheless, the matter was still under consideration, and he had not abandoned the hope that, during the present Session, he might be able to lay on the table of the House a general measure on the subject relating to Ireland.
Vote agreed to.
The following votes were then agreed to:—
18,000 l. to defray a moiety of the cost of executing certain works of navigation in Ireland connected with drainage.
838 l. for works and repairs in the British Ambassador's house at Paris.
On the vote of 12,000 l. towards defraying the expense of rebuilding the British Ambassador's house at Constantinople being proposed.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYinquired what the whole cost would be of building this residence?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONstated that the original estimate was 40,000 l., but he was afraid that the expense would exceed that estimate. In Constantinople it was impossible to find houses already built fit for the residence of European authorities, and all European ambassadors there lived in houses constructed by their respective Governments. The present expense was occasioned by the former residence of the English Ambassador, which was built of wood, being destroyed by fire, and the present residence was being constructed with stone.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYwas quite aware of the difficulty of getting a suitable residence in a city like Constantinople; but if they did not take care there would be no end to the expense, as the Turks had the greatest faith in our ability to pay any sum that could be extorted.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that though he was afraid some unnecessary extravagance might have taken place in connexion with the construction of the Ambassador's residence, yet that now the most rigid orders had been sent out that no expense but what was absolutely requisite should be incurred; and he believed that building the house with stone would, in the end, be found an economical proceeding.
Vote agreed to.
On the vote of 16,000 l. for militia and volunteers in Canada.
MR. VERNON SMITHobserved, that this expense was essentially colonial, and ought to be thrown on the colony.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the vote was brought forward in consequence of pre-existing arrangements; but an intimation had been given to the Governor of Canada that it would not be deemed fair to continue it beyond the 30th of April next year.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following:—7,300 l. for lighthouses abroad; 3,000 l. for Lybster harbour; 488,000 l. for the Commissariat Department; 43,872 l. for the Commissariat Department (half pay).
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

SUPPLY.
The report of the Committee of Friday last on Supply was brought up by Mr. Bernal.
On the vote of 3,540 l. for defraying a portion of the expense of the Ecclesiastical Commission for England.
MR. VERNON SMITHexcused himself for making an objection upon the report, which he had not offered in Committee of Supply, on the ground that the estimates had been so rapidly pushed through on the day immediately after the holidays, that a fair opportunity had not been afforded to him. There was a strong feeling abroad in favour of examination into those matters, and of economy, although it might not be participated in within the walls of that House; and he thought Her Majesty's Government would have done well to pay some deference to that feeling. This vote was one of the cases in which a complete disregard had been shown to the report of the Committee of last year, which was to the effect that
"As the duties of the persons for whose salaries this vote was proposed, was confined to the
1122
management of ecclesiastical property, the charge might fairly he defrayed altogether from the funds of the commission."
He contended that there was no better reason for placing this vote upon the public estimate, than any other charge for the management of private property.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that his right hon. Friend was not quite correct in saying that the estimates had been brought in on the first day after the recess, for, an objection having been made, they were not brought in until the day following. With respect to this vote, he had given the reason for it several times in that House; and it had been for several years under the consideration of Parliament, and approved of. The ground upon which he had always rested this vote was the reason stated to him by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, after the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commission. He (Lord J. Russell) had pointed out to the Archbishop the example of Queen Anne's Bounty, the expense of which was defrayed out of the funds of that bounty; but the Archbishop represented, and truly represented, that when that bounty was given, funds belonging to the Crown were surrendered to the Church, and out of those funds the Church could well afford to defray the expense; but that in this case there was no proposition to increase the funds of the Church. What was now proposed was not to augment the funds of the Church, but to make a different distribution, which was thought to be better as concerned a number of congregations and the lay interests of the community. Such being the case, it appeared that the public should bear the expense, rather than the special funds of the Church. That had been the statement of the Archbishop, and upon that representation he (Lord J. Russell) had, in 1836, placed the votes upon the estimates for the year. As the case stood at present, the House would consider what the consequence would be of requiring this vote to be defrayed out of ecclesiastical funds. It would be, that, pro tanto, those funds must be diminished, which were now applicable to the increase of spiritual instruction in many populous parishes. If there was a wish for economy abroad, there prevailed likewise a strong feeling in the public mind that the spiritual instruction of the people should be provided for by a distribution of ecclesiastical districts. Of course, then, the moans of supplying these spiritual wants would be lessened by this sum of 3,540 l. He thought,

1123
however, that should it he found that the funds of the Church were very considerably increased owing to the different management of the property, and that in future years a considerable sum should remain at the disposal of the commission, then it might be right to alter the original arrangement, and to place a great part, perhaps the whole, of the expense of this commission upon the ecclesiastical funds.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that some years ago there was a great call for church extension, and the plan adopted was to lay violent hands on the property of other people. Now, having robbed them, the proposition was to make them pay for the distribution of the plunder. Now, without going into the question whether the spoliation had been right or wrong, those who had committed, it had no right to complain of paying a small sum for the distribution of the spoil.
MR. VERNON SMITHwould not press his proposition to a division.
Vote agreed to.
On the vote of 125,000 l. for Education, Science, and Art,
MR. EWARTtrusted the Government would assent to the very reasonable proposition he had to make, which was—
"That a statement be made by a Minister of the Crown of the appropriation and results of the sums voted for education, as well as of the sums voted for the promotion of literature, science, and art, on the introduction of the class of estimates especially devoted to those subjects."
Statements were made for the Army and Navy Estimates, and he could not see why a statement should not be made on the more important subject of education, and also of the sums appropriated to science and art. He trusted another year would not elapse without such a statement being made to Parliament.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that he held a document in his hand, giving an account of the expenditure of the vote for education upon schools and teachers. The information desired by the hon. Member was given in an abridged form in the Minutes of the Committee, but the items of detail would be too numerous to be given in the Votes. He had prepared a statement with regard to the last year's vote for education; but it was, in fact, only an abridgment of details which were given by the Committee of Council on Education; and the House would observe, that this made the great difference between this vote, and the votes for the Army, the Navy, and the Ordnance. There had been expended, for the
1124
erection of 188 and the enlargement or improvement of 129 elementary schools, and for supplying 460 such schools with books and maps at a reduced price, 47,421 l.; for the erection of three training schools for schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, 9,300 l.; towards the erection of a Government training school at Kneller Hall for schoolmasters in union workhouses and in schools connected with public establishments, 18,546 l.; for the stipends of pupil teachers (1,783 boys and 829 girls) apprenticed to the masters or mistresses of elementary schools, and for gratuities to those masters and mistresses for instructing them, 18,608 l.; for augmenting the salaries of 63 schoolmasters and five schoolmistresses who obtained certificates of merit in 1847–8, 1,492 l.; to ten training schools for nearly 200 students not having resided less than one year, who on leaving the institution obtained certificates of merit, 4,825 l.; for grants to the National Society, British and Foreign School Society, and the Education Committee of the Church of Scotland, towards the expenses of training schools, 3,750 l.; and towards the expense of emigration as a reward to hoys from ragged schools, 1,500 l. He could add that there was good reason to hope that the plan adopted was improving the character and attainments of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, and raising the standard of education in the schools of the country.
Vote agreed to.
On the vote of 1,500 l. for the National Gallery,
MR. VERNON SMITHwished to know whether the Government had made any better arrangement for the deposit of the pictures presented to the country by the late Mr. Vernon, than the cellar under the National Gallery, where the best pictures were hardly perceptible against the light; and could not in fact be seen at all, unless people went up quite close? Had the Government made any arrangement with the Royal Academy, or for the building of another National Gallery?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that he would be glad if better accommodation could be provided for the paintings; and the only reason why it was not so provided was, that it would occasion a greater outlay than in the present state of affairs he felt himself warranted in proposing.
Vote agreed to, as were the remaining ones.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES BILL.
MR. HAWESsaid, that it was not his intention to occupy the time of the House at any length in introducing the Bill which he had now the honour to ask permission to bring in. Those Members of the House who had read the papers already laid on the table, would in a very great degree have mastered the details of the Bill which he had now to submit. That Bill was framed with the view of meeting the wishes of the colonists themselves, and, as far as possible, proceeded on the basis of the constitution which now existed in New South Wales. Some time ago, in 1847, his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department addressed a despatch to the Governor of New South Wales, raising the question of a new constitution for that colony, and holding out the constitution of New Zealand as a model. That despatch attracted much attention in the colony, and the opinion of the colonists was made known by resolutions adopted at public meetings, declaring that any change in the existing constitution would be unacceptable. His noble Friend, therefore, at once determined to abandon his own opinions—to defer to those of the colonists, and to frame a general constitution for the Australian colonies similar to that which now existed in New South Wales. That constitution consisted of a governor and legislative council of thirty-six, of which one-third were members appointed by the governor, and the remaining two-thirds elected by the people. This constitution had worked in a manner generally satisfactory to the colonists, as the papers on the table showed; and therefore, after much consideration, it was determined to adopt it as the basis of a future constitution for these colonies severally. The object of the present Bill was, therefore, to establish this constitution. In New South Wales a desire had long existed for a separation of a portion of that colony—the southern portion—Port Phillip, from the colony of New South Wales. The first object of the Bill was, therefore, to create Port Phillip a separate and distinct colony under the name of Victoria. The next object was to confer on all the Australian colonies, including New South Wales, Victoria, Van Diemen's Land, South Australia, and Western Australia—the latter conditionally—a constitution similar to that now existing in New South Wales. He said "conditionally" as regarded
1126
Western Australia, because, until it was in a position to defray the expenses of its own government, it was not thought expedient to confer upon it representative institutions. Another object was to create a federal union of these colonies for certain general purposes. It was intended that these colonies—having each separate and independent legislatures—should be empowered to elect certain members to form a general assembly of the whole union. This assembly would have its functions and powers defined in the Bill, the purpose being to confine these functions to defined and fixed objects, of what might be called imperial importance as regarded the united provinces. The general assembly would have power to establish a supreme court. It would have the regulation and management of weights and measures—of the post-office within the colonies; it would legislate on all matters concerning roads, railroads, and canals, traversing more than one colony—it would have the superintendence of beacons and lighthouses—and would generally have the regulation of all matters affecting the common interests of the colonies. The Bill also made provision for a civil list for the colonies. It was not indeed proposed to alter the civil list where it was established, as in New South Wales; but, on the other hand, it was proposed to give power to the legislative councils to alter its amount. It was proposed to give these bodies power to alter or reduce the salaries of the civil officers Comprised in the civil list, by Bill, whenever they thought proper, with one exception. It was not proposed to give them power to alter the salaries of the governors or the judges without the sanction of the Grown. All other items might be altered by Bill, which would come into operation without any suspending clause, in the colony to which it applied. This power was not possessed by the New South Wales legislature. It was further proposed to give power to each governor to alter the distribution but not the amount of the civil list fixed for his colony by the general council. Another object of the Bill was to readjust certain sums which were now appropriated for the purposes of public worship. By the existing Act, a sum of 30,000 l. was set aside for this purpose yearly in New South Wales, and was distributed according to certain proportions, which it became necessary to reconsider on the eve of new colonial arrangements. The Bill provided that the sum of 28,000 l.

1127
should be retained for New South Wales, and a sum of 6,000 l. was allotted for the new colony of Victoria—au arrangement to which he hoped no objection would be made. In Van Diemen's Land a considerable amount, no less than 14,000 l or 15,000 l., was devoted to a similar purpose. It was, however, a convict colony, and anybody would see that in such a settlement it was necessary to take more ample means for the purpose of providing spiritual instruction than would be requisite under other circumstances. These sums were not devoted to any particular sect, or he should rather say that in New South Wales they were divided between Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, and Wesleyans. In South Australia no such provision had hitherto been made, and it was not intended now to assign any particular sum for this purpose. Another object of the Bill was to amend the constitutional Act of New South Wales, as regarded municipal corporations called district councils. In 1842 these councils were created, and empowered to levy rates for certain local purposes. The Act establishing them, however, proved quite ineffectual; and it was now proposed to enable municipalities to dissolve existing councils, and apply, if they thought proper, for the creation of new ones, in such a manner as to lay the foundation of a sound system of municipal government. It was also proposed to give these colonies a very important privilege, not hitherto conceded directly by the Imperial Legislature. There was but one chamber in New South Wales. It was intended that in future the colonies should have the power of altering and varying their own constitutions, and, if they so pleased, of establishing two chambers, or adopting the old form of colonial government—that of a governor, a council, and assembly, in lieu of a governor and a legislative council. The colonies would thus have power to preserve their constitution in harmony with an enlightened public opinion. At the same time, it would be provided that any such changes before they took effect should be sanctioned by the Grown. Another great object of the Bill was to attempt to place the colonial trade on an equal footing between colony and colony, so as to place them in their commercial relations to each other on precisely the same footing as the counties of England. The general council or assembly would have power to amend the several
1128
tariffs as they thought fit. In the case of any of the colonies desiring an alteration in the tariff, they would have to proceed with an address to the Governor General of Australia—an office created by the Bill—who would have the power to summon the general assembly. As to Western Australia, that colony would not be included in the arrangements which he was enumerating; but a provision would be made in this Bill by which that colony would be admitted to the advantages enjoyed by the other colonies, so soon as it was in a condition to defray its own local expenses. He had now given a brief description of the Bill, the details of which, he hoped, would be found in strict harmony with the principles which he had indicated. He was aware that many desired that a different constitution should be given to these colonies—that the old form of colonial government of two chambers should be adopted; but this Bill proceeded upon the basis of leaving undisturbed the existing constitution of New South Wales—an arrangement which would be the most acceptable to three colonics out of the five. However, he repeated, that if the colonies chose to adopt another form of government, they would be at full liberty to modify the form of constitution under which they were to live, as their own interests might prompt them. He had only to add, that the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members in a couple of days, and he hoped that its provisions would be well considered before any opinion was pronounced upon them. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that as this Bill would lead to considerable discussion in its progress though the House, it would be premature on that occasion to enter at length upon the subject; but he wished to offer one or two observations which occurred to him upon the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, the more so, as the observations which he had to make would be generally favourable to the principle of the Bill; for, in his opinion, both the Minute of the Privy Council and the Bill itself promised a considerable advancement in the principles of colonial legislation; and his object was to assist the hon. Gentleman in rendering the Bill as efficient as possible. Before, however, he adverted to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, he would allude to the state of the franchise in our Australian colonies, upon which the

1129
hon. Gentleman had not touched. At present there was no franchise except in New South Wales; but he supposed that the hon. Gentleman intended to make some provision for the franchise in the other colonies, He apprehended no difficulty in doing so with regard to South Australia; but in Van Diemen's Land and New South Wales he saw very considerable difficulties. In New South Wales there already existed a very limited franchise, and he felt the difficulty of conferring those large powers of legislation which he admitted to be desirable, with a franchise so limited. He was not himself sufficiently acquainted with the state of society in those colonies to form any decided opinion as to the possibility of extending the franchise; but he should think that some provisions might be introduced for the purpose of extending it beyond its present limit, and he hoped that Parliament would not forego the present opportunity of conferring that extension, if it could with propriety be conferred. He fully concurred in the policy of giving free institutions to these colonies; but it would be productive of great danger and difficulty if they constituted anything like an oligarchy there, which possessed the character of freedom in relation to this country, but in relation to the great mass of the population a very different character. He would therefore wait, as to the subject of the franchise, until he saw the provisions of the Bill which the hon. Member was about to introduce. As to district councils, although he was inclined to think that it might be extremely well if there was something of the kind in Australia, he doubted if it was wise to go so far as the hon. Gentleman proposed; for the question of district councils was not quite res integra in those colonies; there was already a prepossession against them, arising from the total failure of the Legislature in its attempt to introduce them. He desired to carry the principle of local government as far as possible; but, since that mode of government was under a cloud, in consequence of the unsuccessful attempt which had been made, he doubted whether it was wise to impose those district councils upon the colonies by an Act of Parliament. The colonics knew nothing about district councils, except that they had been enacted by a law for New South Wales, but had never come into existence, and that even the name of them was extremely unpopular. He now approached a most important question—the
1130
constitution of the legislative body—whether there should be a double or single chamber; and, expressing no confident opinion, but stating freely what occurred to him on the subject, he hoped that something more would be done than the hon. Gentleman proposed towards suggesting to the colonies that form of legislation which was not only consecrated to our recollections and sanctioned by long experience, but which had received such new and marked testimony in its favour from the experience of the United States of America. The hon. Gentleman was acting, and he thought properly acting, on the public sentiment of the colonies, rather than on any abstract theory, however sanctioned by experience: the evidence of the sentiments of the colonies on the subject was very scanty, but so far as it went it was not unfavourable to the principle of a double chamber. Sir William Denison said, that under the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, he recommended the adoption of a second or upper chamber; and Sir Charles Fitzroy, writing on the 11th of August, 1848, with particular reference to the state of the colony of New South Wales, expressed his opinion that the general feeling of the community was that the introduction of a second chamber would be extremely advantageous; and New South Wales was the only colony where there was any primâ facie objection to a double chamber, because already there was in that colony a single legislative chamber. However, the utmost extent to which he would go would be to reverse the form of legislation which the hon. Gentleman proposed to adopt. The hon. Gentleman proposed to constitute, in the first instance, a single chamber, but with power to resolve itself into a double chamber; he, on the other hand, would propose to constitute in the colonies which had at present no representative institutions, in Van Diemen's Land, South Australia, and Victoria, a double chamber, with power to combine themselves into a single chamber; leaving New South Wales as it was, with a single chamber, but giving it the power to resolve itself into a double chamber, if such a proceeding was deemed requisite. The great anxiety, however, which he felt on this subject, was when he considered the constitution of the federal legislature; he felt that there must be great difficulty in working a federal legislature, unless it was constituted upon the principle of a double chamber. Nothing would afford a

1131
stronger illustration of that than the admirable working of that principle of a double chamber in the United States. The effect of it was to bring different elements into play, and so to maintain the balance of power; and it would be with the greatest regret that he should relinguish the hope of bringing into play that same principle in all our colonies. In the Federal Legislature of America, one chamber was constituted by direct election; in it the population was represented according to its numbers; in the other the States were represented as constituting political unities; and thus many of the advantages which this country enjoyed from an hereditary aristocracy were obtained. The greatest difficulty, therefore, he felt to be with regard to the federal legislature; they were met at once by the difficulty, whether the representation was to be on the basis of population, or to be founded upon the notion of treating the different colonies as individual political bodies. According to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, New South Wales would have half—twelve out of the twenty-five delegates; and although he admitted that New South Wales was entitled to a considerable share of the representation, it seemed to him, on the other hand, most important that the other colonies should enjoy a perfectly free and fair representation; and in no way could both objects be attained except by adopting the principle of a double chamber. He entirely approved of the proposal to confer upon the colonies the power of modifying their own constitutions, and their own civil lists; but he had some doubt as to the civil list of Van Die-men's Land—whether it should remain as at present. The salary of the Governor of Van Diemen's Land, though by no means too high in proportion to his duties and the importance of the situation, was certainly a very high salary if considered simply with reference to the colonial community; and though he was unwilling to increase the colonial charges in the estimates, he thought it not unjust that we should take upon ourselves and bear on our own estimates a portion of that charge. [Mr. HAWES: We do so.] If that was so, he was quite satisfied. Now, he hoped that, during the discussion on this Bill, the House would be informed what were the views of the Government as to the bearing of this measure on the question of transportation. He was afraid that that was the great difficulty of every Government in the matter of colonial legislation; for, no
1132
doubt, there was great difficulty in uniting free institutions with a system of transportation to any great extent; but the hon. Gentleman not having alluded to that subject, he would not further advert to it, except to express his hope that the views of the Government in reference to it would be stated to the House in the course of the discussions on the Bill. There was only one other point on which he wished to make an observation, and that was an observation more in the nature of an objection than any that he had yet made. On the other points he had not yet pretended to express any decided opinion, which he should not feel himself at liberty to qualify hereafter, or which he should feel inclined to press against the deliberate opinion of Her Majesty's Government. He confessed that he did not understand that passage of the report of the Privy Council which recommended the establishment of one uniform tariff in the Australian colonies by Parliament. He thought there was great danger in any such proposal; for it was an extension of the sphere of Parliamentary legislation. Parliament had not hitherto interfered with the customs regulations of these colonies. Although in some instances Her Hajesty had been advised to refuse Her consent to such regulations, no direct Parliamentary interference had been attempted. He entirely granted that uniformity in the colonial tariffs would be productive of great advantages, and he should be glad to see the different colonial constitutions embrace that view of the matter by legislation of their own; but he was extremely unwilling, when he saw no intolerable inconvenience, there being now a very considerable commerce carried on between these colonies: in the absence, therefore, of any overruling necessity, he should be extremely unwilling to extend the sphere of Parliamentary legislation by direct enactment; and there was a still further objection to that proposal, because the power of altering that uniform tariff was to depend upon the general or federal legislature: the general or federal legislature was to have in its hands the whole subject of the customs duties, and might enact one tariff for New South Wales, and another for Van Diemen's Land, as there were different duties upon spirits in England, Scotland, and Ireland; but no other body could make those changes, and, therefore, whilst Parliament was now invited to proceed to direct legislation on this subject, the colonial

1133
organ which was to have the control of these tariffs was not to be called into existence until a contingency happened which might never arise, for the federal legislature was not to assemble until two of the colonies should concur in summoning it to meet. This uniform tariff might consequently remain in force for a considerable time; it would probably excite great jealousy and irritation of feeling amongst the colonists, and seriously mar the grace which this proposed measure would be understood to confer. He had no further observations to make upon that occasion; with respect to those which he had made he had spoken freely what occurred to him, and he hoped that the spirit in which his suggestions had been offered would not be misunderstood.
MR. VERNON SMITHagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that a discussion of the proposed measure at that time would be premature; and he also agreed in almost all the other observations which that right hon. Gentleman had made. Certainly one very great difficulty was in the formation of the federal legislature; and it was a very momentous question whether it should consist of a single or double chamber. He believed that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, in his book on the colonies, had given his decided opinion in favour of a double chamber, founding that opinion upon the experience of its good effect in America, and of the bad effect of a single chamber in France; and he (Mr. V. Smith) hoped that the Government would pause before they determined on establishing a single chamber in those colonies, and especially a mixed chamber, composed partly of representatives and partly of nominees, which wanted altogether the democratic principle of a single chamber. Indeed, he viewed with great apprehension the notion of a federal government at all; for he believed that the distances which it would be necessary to travel, and the difficulties of communication, would render it much less easy to work in Australia than it was in the united States. The right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to the proposed alteration as regarded the churches; but that was a considerable alteration in principle. The present principle was, to pay a stipend in proportion to the voluntary contributions of the different sects. [Mr. HAWES: Only in South Australia.] He understood it to be proposed now to divide the sum between them according to the last census; and
1134
that no alteration of the population afterwards should make any difference. [Mr. HAWES: No, no!] Then he had misunderstood the proposal, and would wait till he saw the Bill. His principal reason for rising was this, to warn the House that the great danger of making these experiments was the manner in which they might affect the colonists themselves. He should not object to making the experiments, if they were not dealing with the interests of men who were at so great a distance, of whom they knew little, and who were extremely jealous of interference on the part of the British Parliament. But it was clear that amongst the colonists there was not the slightest notion of this attempt to impose upon them a federal government. They would see in the papers laid before the House that a petition had been presented from New South Wales, praying that they would not grant any constitution to the Australian colonies which had not received the sanction of the colonial legislatures. He did not mean to say that they were bound to pursue that course; but he did think it might be wise to ascertain whether the proposed measure was likely to be received by the colonists themselves with anything like a unanimous feeling; because, if not—however desirable it might be to legislate on the subject—it might be better to wait for a year or two. If this measure was not likely to be received with unanimity, he would ask where was the difference between it and the scheme of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, which was objected to by the Government the other evening? The objection made to that scheme was, that the English Legislature ought not to pass such a Bill without the consent of the colonies. He would not say that this Bill would be rejected by the colonists. It might probably be assented to by them; but he thought that they ought to wait until that fact could be ascertained. Some of the colonies had an objection to the system of combination, especially Port Phillip, where the inhabitants had refused to elect a representative, or rather, in mockery, had elected the noble Lord the Secretary of the Colonies himself. If, therefore, the Bill was not acceptable to the whole of the colonies, it might be productive of considerable mischief, instead of good. Again, they would find that for New Zealand a Bill had been sent out from this country, which the Government found it would be impossible to carry out, and it had to be altered. Such a state of things

1135
ought to be avoided: though he had no doubt that the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office had assented to the scheme with a view of promoting the happiness and good government of the colonies, yet he must urge upon the noble Lord not to press it forward until the opinion of the colonists themselves, relative to it, could be ascertained.
MR. M'GREGORconsidered the measure which had been brought forward by the Government the most liberal which had ever been offered to the colonies. With respect to their legislative powers, the colonists were, under the Bill, to have the whole management of the civil list, with the exception of the settlement of the judges' salaries and that of the governor. He considered that provision of the Bill so founded in wisdom that it would be impossible for the colonists not to accept it. With respect to the question of federal governments, the various colonies were to have separate local governments, excepting on matters which concerned the interests of all; and he believed that no difference would exist as to the policy of that provision. With respect to the tariff, he apprehended that each colony would have the power to regulate the scale of its own tariff, the federal government only interfering to see that the measures of one colony did not interfere with the interests of another. As a whole, he considered the measure most liberal and just; and, as such, he trusted it would be accepted by the House.
MR. J. E. DENISONacknowledged the extreme importance of the measure, and trusted that full time would be given for its consideration before it was passed into a law. He was sorry to observe, from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, that great difference of opinion existed on the measure. He would not then enter upon the question of the establishment of a federal government, or whether there should be a single or double house of legislature, except to bear his testimony to the extreme importance attached to the double legislature in the United States. There were so many questions of importance in the measure, that he did not know whether those which had been alluded to, or those which had been omitted, were the most important. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last had said that the local legislatures were to have the management of the civil list. Now, he wished to
1136
know whether that power was to extend to the management of the land fund? Whether the local legislatures were to have the power of deciding at what prices the public lands in the colonies were to be sold, or whether every acre—good or bad—favourably or unfavourably situate, was to be sold, independently of those legislatures, at an upset price of 1l, per acre? He wished to be told whether that matter was to be left to the local legislatures—to that House—to each colony individually—or to the federal legislature, if one ever met?
LORD J. RUSSELL: Sir, in answer to the question of my hon. Friend, I beg to state that there is an Act of Parliament, passed some time ago, with regard to the price of land; and I conceive that it will not be in the power of the New South Wales, or any other colonial legislature, to alter an Act of Parliament. Whether or not they should get that power, may be a proper question for discussion when this Bill is farther advanced. I shall not discuss the measure at the present moment. I have heard with great interest the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, making various suggestions; and I think it is better not to give a decided opinion upon those questions at the present moment, but to leave the whole of them for discussion afterwards. With regard to one point on which the right hon. Gentleman has laid considerable stress—a point certainly of considerable importance—whether there shall be one assembly, or whether there shall be a council and an assembly, as we have in our older colonies, I think the right hon. Gentleman has hardly laid sufficient weight on the objection which the people of New South Wales have made to the proposition of a council and assembly. The right hon. Gentleman says that in the United States the institution of the Senate is of the greatest importance, and is most valuable in maintaining harmony in the whole of the States, and in the general working of the constitution. I quite agree with him; and I think that if you could form such a senate as that of the United States, it could not fail to be of the greatest value; for I consider that the good working of the constitution of the United States is mainly owing to the particular form of the Senate. But those who hesitate to constitute such a body in New South Wales, say that the whole value of a senate or a council depends upon the elements

1137
out of which it is composed; and they say that when they can find in the colonies such eminent men as the United States have sent to this branch of the legislature, and with the same character as legislators—because these men are remarkable for talent and character, and for their weight and consideration in their respective States—when you can find such persons, there can be no doubt that they, meeting together, would form, in combined shape, an institution of great weight and authority. But they who object to the formation of such a body in New South Wales, say we have no such materials out of which to form a council; and if we have no such materials—if we have no class of persons among us who, from their property, and the consideration in which they are held in their respective neighbourhoods, would form a body to whose decisions independent men would how, then we should in their place have a council composed of the mere nominees of the Crown, and of persons holding office, who would interpose between the executive and the assembly, taking from the executive the responsibility of putting their veto on the acts of the assembly, and at the same time their acts would not have that weight which the property and personal character of the members might give. That is a question which I think depends very much upon the state of society in a particular country. I do not think that in all our colonies of North America, the constitution works equally well. I know that in Lower Canada a similar body which was framed by the Crown, with a view to interpose a barrier between the executive and the assembly, was found to be of little use, because they did not carry with them the sentiments of the people at large. At the same time I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in New South Wales there is a great balance of opinion—the feelings of different parties are very close, and it is a point on which we should not hastily pronounce a decided opinion. Those who object to a council and an assembly—who are in favour of only one assembly—say that some years hence, perhaps, it may be desirable to have two houses, but that constituted as society now is, one house would be preferable. I am quite willing to leave that and the other matters as subjects for further consideration.
MR. J. E. DENISONexplained, that he had not asked whether the colonial assemblies could override an Act of Parliament,
1138
but whether the Act itself would be modified to give them powers.
CAPTAIN HARRISthought this a most unpropitious time to propose new constitutions, when the minds of men throughout the world were so unsettled on these points, and that by submitting different forms of government for the option of the colonists, they were throwing an apple of discord amongst men who, from their habits and pursuits, had neither inclination nor leisure for their arguments. Ministers should have profited by their failure in New Zealand, and abstained from these crude experiments until a few years more of the development of these colonies would enable them to decide upon the best form of constitution.
Leave given.
Bill to be brought in by Mr. Hawes, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Labouchere.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS,—1a Defects in Leases, 2a Landlord and Tenant.
Reported.—Apprehension of Deserters (Portugal).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Brougham, from Wim-borne Minster, Wellington, and Llanrwst, for Extending the Jurisdiction of County Courts; also from Finsbury, for the Establishment of Home Colonies.—From Bristol, Norwich, and other Places, against the Endowment of Roman Catholic Priests in Ireland.—From Roxburgh, and Edinburgh, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill,—By the Duke of Buccleuch, from Roxburgh, Edinburgh, and Perth, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill; also from Selkirk, against the Running of Passenger Trains on the Sabbath; also from Auchtermuchty and Perth, to remove from the Statute Book those Enactments under which the Rev. J. Shore has been Incarcerated; likewise to refer all international Differences to Arbitration by Neutral Powers.—By the Earl of Malms-bury, from Wales, for Protection from unrestricted Foreign Competition.—From Old Alresford, Bishops Sutton, and other Places, for the Repeal of the Malt Tax.—By the Earl of St. Germans, from Bolton, that Boards of Guardians may be Empowered to grant Superannuation Allowances to Poor Law Officers.—By Lord Stanley, from Frome, for an Alteration in Dispensing the Grants made in favour of Public Education.—From Sowersby, White-stone, and Thirsk, against the Granting of any New Licenses to Beer Shops.—From Lancaster, for the Adoption of a System of Secular Education, to be supported by Local Rates.

EDUCATION—THE NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
LORD STANLEYpresented a petition on the subject of national education; and, in presenting it, he trusted the noble Marquess opposite would excuse him if he repeated a question which he had put in the early part of the Session, with reference to the application of the fund for the Schools of the National Society. The petition was from the in-habitants of the deanery of Frome, and, after complaining of the operation of the
1080
management clauses under which the funds were distributed, prayed that the interference of the Government might be limited to two points—namely, that the site of school buildings shall be legally secured by trusts legally constituted; and, secondly, that the school shall be open to Government inspection within certain limits, as arranged in 1840. Early in the Session, he had put a question to the noble Marquess upon this subject, when he was informed that a correspondence was then going on upon the subject between the Government and the heads of the Church. He had now to ask if that correspondence had been brought to a conclusion, and whether terms had been agreed upon between the Government and the heads of the Church tending to remove the objections which were entertained by a large body in the Church?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas sorry that he could not state that that correspondence had been brought to a conclusion. He hoped, however, that it soon would be. As far as related to the Committee of Privy Council, it had come to an end. He was happy to be able to inform their Lordships, that certain arrangements had been made by that Committee which were deemed satisfactory by many distinguished Prelates of the Church, and even by many of the objectors to their former proceedings. There were, however, certain persons—but he believed that their number was not large—who still objected to the regulations and conditions which the Committee considered to be indispensable for carrying out the intentions of Parliament. He thought it proper that the correspondence should be brought to a conclusion before it was presented to Parliament; but if he should find that any considerable time was likely to elapse before it was brought to a conclusion, he would lay it upon the table as far as it had gone, as he was most anxious that the attention of both Houses of Parliament should be called to the subject.
LORD STANLEYobserved, that one reason which had induced him to put this question was, that he had seen that the vote on this subject had passed, sub silen-tio, in the other House of Parliament. He, therefore, thought, that the time had now come when their Lordships ought to under-stand what the conditions were upon which future grants to these schools were to be made.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, that as

1081
he was not aware of the intention of Lord Stanley to put this question to the noble President of the Council, he had not come down to the House prepared to make any observations upon it. One observation, however, had been made by the noble Baron which appeared to him to require an answer on his part. The noble Baron had spoken of the correspondence as a correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the rulers of the Church. Now, that was not quite correct. The correspondence had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Committee of the National Society. It was true that the Committee of the National Society comprehended several rulers of the Church; but he distinctly asserted, that the rulers of the Church were not responsible for the acts of the National Society, and that the Church itself was not responsible for them. He would say more than that; he assorted that great inconvenience had arisen from the notion that the National Society represented the Church. In the remainder of the noble Baron's observations he must express his own concurrence. He thought that Parliament should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the mode of expending the public money which was disbursed by its authority for the purpose of educating the poor, and on the conditions on which it was to be dispensed. He trusted that Government would attend to this point, and afford some explanation; for at present it seemed that the clergy had no choice save that of accepting the money on the terms of the Government. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that some years ago he had moved an Address to Her Majesty, praying that Parliament might have an opportunity of expressing its opinion with respect to one of the most important questions that could occupy the attention of the Legislature—the mode in which popular education could be promoted throughout the country. Certain it was that great dissatisfaction prevailed among a large portion of the members of the Church as to the conditions imposed upon the grants by the Committee of Privy Council; and he did not think that those apprehensions so entertained in the Church were by any means allayed. He did not think that these apprehensions were justly entertained; at least, he did not entertain them himself to the extent to which they were entertained by the parties to whom he alluded; but, he thought, consideration was
1082
due to the scruples which were felt; and, whether those scruples were just or not, Parliament should be put in possession of the Minutes of the Council before they assumed the shape of an Act of Parliament.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEexpressed his concurrence in the observation of the right rev. Prelate, that these Minutes should be before Parliament, in order that any errors into which the Committee of Privy Council might have fallen should be at once corrected. With that view they had been, and they would be, laid from time to time before Parliament.
Petition to he on the table.

LEASEHOLD TENURE OF LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Order of the Day for bringing up the Report of the Committee being read,
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, there were some Amendments which he wished to propose in the Bill, and moved that the reception should be postponed for a short time, as he had appointed to-morrow to meet with some gentlemen from Ireland who were interested in the Bill, and dissatisfied with some of its clauses.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, the Bill had already stood over for ten days; nevertheless, he had no objection to postpone it till to-morrow, if that would meet the views of his noble Friend.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he understood some of the provisions of this Bill were much objected to by the Irish Society of London, as it was believed that the operation of the measure would deprive them of the moral influence they now exercised over their tenantry in the discretion which the present law allowed them to exercise with regard to subletting, and which it was now proposed to oust them from, giving them instead a small pecuniary compensation, which they did not want. The Irish Society had some claim to the consideration of their Lordships, as, through the exercise of their discretion, they had been able to maintain on their estates the very best tenants in Ireland. They were desirous, before the Bill passed, to state these objections, either at the bar of the House, or before a Select Committee. If the noble and learned Lord would say that the Society had no cause for apprehension, he had nothing further to say to the passing of the measure; but if not, he thought the matter was worthy of consideration before the Bill finally passed.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not

1083
feel himself called upon to commit himself to a professional opinion; but of this he was certain, that his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor had most anxiously and deliberately considered the interests of all parties, and from the clauses which had in consequence been introduced, he believed that the apprehensions of his noble Friend were entirely unfounded. Further than this, the most ample opportunity had been afforded for the discussion of the Bill on the previous stages. He should most strenuously oppose the measure being sent to a Select Committee.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had presented a petition from the Irish Society on this subject. They wished to be heard by counsel against the Bill; but when his noble and learned Friend put the question to him, if it was not an unusual thing to hear parties at the bar on a private complaint against a public Bill, he was bound to state that that was a valid objection, for in all his experience he had never met with a precedent for such a proceeding. Nevertheless, he thought that some indulgence ought to be shown to this Society, for a more meritorious class of landlords did not exist. He was hopeful that their Lordships would give them relief at another stage of the Bill.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, the Bill had already boon discussed in two different stages, and in one of them the particular case now alluded to was noticed by the noble and learned Lord who brought in the Bill. He stated that he had taken into consideration the propositions made by the Irish Society, but that, after full consideration, he saw it was impossible to make any exemption on their behalf. No doubt it was still open to any noble Lord to bring forward the subject again, either now or at some future stage.
LORD STANLEYsaid, the discussion alluded to took place one night after a discussion on the navigation laws, and when there were only four noble Lords present.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, so far as he was concerned, he would be quite satisfied if his noble and learned Friend would put off the measure till to-morrow.
The EARL of LUCANsaid, no discussion had taken place on the Bill that was worth the name. He hoped it would be referred to a Select Committee only for one half-hour to dispose of this subject.
LORD CAMPBELLcould not agree to the suggestion.
The EARL of LUCANthen moved that the Bill be recommitted.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, it would be quite open to his noble Friend to move tomorrow that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and he thought that if the noble Lord wished to have the Bill fairly and candidly discussed, that would be a better course than pressing the matter further at present.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEbegged to remind the House of what they were about to do, before they proceeded to a division. The Order of the Day for bringing up the Report being moved, his noble and learned Friend was asked to defer the Report till to-morow, a request to which he immediately acceded, and their Lordships were now called upon to adopt the unprecedented course of resisting the postponement of the Order of the Day under these circumstances.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYsaid, that the noble and learned Lord first resisted the postponement on the ground of the necessity of pressing forward the Bill, and he now resisted the Amendment of the noble Earl for the very opposite reason, and on the ground that a postponement was necessary.
After a short discussion, the last Motion was withdrawn. Original Motion agreed to.

THE CALEDONIAN RAILWAY COMPANY.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he had a petition to present from certain proprietors of stock in the Caledonian Railway Company, stating some facts which, from their gravity, were entitled to their Lordships' most serious attention. He believed there was no principle which their Lordships were more disposed to maintain, in the ease of railway companies, than that the money subscribed on the faith of the Act of Parliament for the construction of railways, should be employed strictly in the way that the Legislature authorised: but in the case of the Caledonian Railway Company, this principle, according to the petitioners, had been entirely departed from. He was not going to impute any personal corruption or dishonesty to the directors in the misapplication of the funds. The directors were, he believed, personally above suspicion in the matter, and nothing could be further from his intention than to make any allegation reflecting in the slightest degree on their personal characters; but at the same time their Lordships were not, on that account,

1085
to overlook the mischief that had been done. This railway was one of the two great lines intended to form a communication between England and Scotland; after proceeding as far as Carlisle, it branched off in two directions, by lines leading off to Glasgow on the one side, and to Edinburgh on the other. The Committee had reported favourably of the line, and had recommended the Bill specially to the consideration of Parliament. The Bill was afterwards amended, and between 3,000,000 l. and 4,000,000 l. were authorised to be raised and appropriated for the great national purpose of forming a direct communication by railway between the capitals of the two countries. Out of these 3,000,000 l. or 4,000,000 l. the directors had, however, employed, in the purchase of shares in other railway companies, no less a sum than 381,000 l., every sixpence of which had been withdrawn from the purpose for which Parliament had authorised it to be raised. He held in his hand a list of the several railways, eleven in number, to the purchase of shares in which this fund had been applied. Now, how had the shareholders been dealt with? They knew nothing of these transactions—they were ignorant of the mode in which their money had been expended—and they now found themselves in possession of nearly 400,000 l. of shares of other lines that were not marketable, and on which they might be liable at any time to further calls. If such practices were permitted, their Lordships had better at once give up all control over the conditions they imposed in those Acts of Parliament, and in future there would be no need to apply a single sixpence to the purposes for which the funds were authorised to be raised, but the directors might be at liberty to devote the money of the shareholders, as they had done in this instance, to speculative projects of another kind. The shareholders stated in their petition that they had been excluded from a knowledge of the accounts until the month of February in the present year, when this misapplication of their money was first discovered, and no blame was, therefore, to be attached to them. It was for their Lordships to say whether these directors, or any others so misconducting themselves, were entitled to any favours from Parliament, and whether the prayer of this petition, which was against the second reading of a Bill now on their Lordships' table (Bill for the Lease of the Glasgow, Barhead, and Neilston Direct Railway), should not be acceded to.
1086
He was therefore resolved to take the sense of the House, on the second reading of the Bill to which he alluded, on the inexpediency of entrusting new powers to directors who had already so misconducted themselves.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the noble Lord had rendered a great service to the country by the zeal and perseverance which he had shown on this subject. Since he had himself brought the subject of railway management before their Lordships, he had been in communication by correspondence with a great number of shareholders, directors, and other persons interested in various ways in railway undertakings, and he could assure their Lordships that that correspondence was of the most extraordinary character. He had received many hundreds of letters, and had read a large percentage of them; and he would have road the whole of them but that he found all those which he did read of precisely the same character. They all presented the same melancholy picture of distress inflicted by these companies on persons who could not afford to speculate—persons living on small incomes, widow ladies, maiden ladies, and trustees of orphans who had exceeded their powers from the charitable motive of obtaining the means of better providing for those committed to their care, all of whom were persons least adapted for speculating or for gambling—for why should it not be called by its proper name? He could not describe to their Lordships the pain with which he read these afflicting details. The uniformity of their complaint was, that they had been taken in by speculators—now an attorney, now an engineer, now a surveyor, but, above all, by speculators who belonged to neither of those classes, but who were gamblers in the share-market, but who were not holders of shares except for the moment, and till they got to a premium, when they transferred them to some unfortunate person, who was ruined in the course of a year or two afterwards. He had been blamed by persons who were ignorant of what was passing on the subject, for having contented himself with making a statement only, and he had received letters asking him why he did not take the most obvious course, and bring in some measure on the subject. Why? For this simple reason, that a notice of a measure had already been given by his noble Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle), and he felt that it could not be in better hands. Why, it was asked.

1087
did he not lay the axe at the root of the evil by promoting a system of audit of railway accounts? That was the very thing he did; the whole of his argument throughout his statement was to promote a system of auditing railway accounts. He supported his noble Friend both last year and this in his effort to establish that system. He agreed with his noble Friend that those parties who violated the provisions of an Act of Parliament which conferred on them extraordinary powers, were not exactly the persons who were entitled again to come to Parliament for an extension of those powers. All such Acts of Parliament were in themselves a violation of the common law of the land; a violation of marriage settlements, of rights of inheritance, and of the enjoyment of property; and no extension, therefore, of their Lordships' high legislative authority to any parties ought ever to be granted unless they stood recti in curià. If what was alleged in these petitions as having been done by those parties did not actually amount to fraud, yet they were most unwarrantable and most unjustifiable acts, and he therefore hoped his noble Friend would persist in his intention of opposing the Bill that was now pending before their Lordships at as early a stage as it was practicable. He wished, however, to ask his noble Friend whether the parties had had an opportunity of being heard in answer to these allegations?
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the moment he received the petitions he put the parties in possession of the fact, and informed them that the Railway Committee would have the whole matter placed before them. The Committee was still sitting, and was open to the parties; and, if they felt desirous of being heard, the Committee could be called together and they might be heard to-morrow.
LORD BROUGHAMwas completely answered; and he heartily rejoiced that their Lordships would be able to oppose the second reading without the tedious and expensive formality of going into Committee upon the Bill.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEagreed with his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) that these transactions were of a most pernicious and ruinous description. They were not only illegal in themselves, but contrary to the covenants upon which the company obtained their powers from Parliament, and must be detrimental in the highest degree to the interests of the parties
1088
themselves. Their Lordships and the public owed a considerable debt of gratitude to his noble Friend for the labour he had bestowed, and the efficiency with which he had applied himself to such cases as the present. His noble Friend had said that he had no intention to impute anything dishonourable on the part of the persons implicated in this transaction; he (Lord Wharncliffe) thought it but justice to those parties to say, that whatever might have been the error committed by them in the management of the Caledonian Railway, there was this distinction between their cases and several others which had been brought before the House—that all those errors and acts of illegality had been committed by the parties with the sole view of promoting the interest of the proprietors, and not for their own personal advantage.
The DUKE of BUCCLEUCHhoped, as the noble Lord opposite had declared it to be his intention to oppose the Bill now pending, he would look carefully into its provisions before doing so, as its rejection might inflict very serious injury on the shareholders and the public. He concurred with what had fallen from the noble Lord who had just spoken, and was convinced that neither the chairman nor the directors had acted with any view to promote their own interests, and that, though they might have been in error, yet what they had done was intended to advance the interest of the company at large.
LORD MONTEAGLEdisclaimed having cast the least imputation on any of the parties concerned in this transaction, many of whom were friends of his own.
Petition read, and referred to the Select Committee on the Audit of Railway Accounts.
Certain accounts of the Caledonian Railway Company were ordered to be laid before the House forthwith.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.
LORD PORTMANmoved that this Bill be now read 2a. His Lordship said, that this measure had received very serious consideration in the other House; and he had undertaken to bring it before their Lordships, because, upon a former occasion, he had introduced a Bill himself, which was submitted to a Select Committee. That measure, however, was not proceeded with, owing to the difficulties of the subject. Since that period, a Select Committee of the House of Commons had taken evidence

1089
in relation to it, and the result of their investigations was a conviction that it was expedient to pass a Bill wholly permissive, allowing persons having limited estates to hind their heirs by agreement to grant compensation to tenants for improvements. The Bill was divisible into three parts. The first enabled parties having limited interests in land to enter into such agreements; the second made some improvements with regard to emblements; and the third allowed tenants to remove engines, buildings, and other fixtures erected by them. He would not conceal from their Lordships his opinion that the first part of the measure would require some amendment. It was proposed that parties having limited estates might enter into agreements with tenants to grant compensation for temporary improvements upon their farms, by the purchase and use of such manures, or of such articles of food for cattle, sheep, or pigs as might be specifically mentioned in the agreement, or for durable improvements by draining, marling, chalking, claying, or otherwise amending the soil, or by works of irrigation, or by the construction of new fences. In the case of temporary improvements no notice was required to be given by the tenant to the landlord of his intention to lay out money for which he should require compensation, except in the last year of a holding for a term of years; but in the case of durable improvements, the tenant was not allowed to execute any works for which he would be entitled to claim compensation, unless he furnished beforehand a statement in writing of the work to be done, and the estimated cost, and unless the landlord or his agent agreed, in writing, to its execution. This part of the Bill also contained provisions, which he considered very large, giving either party a power to terminate the agreement; so that if the bargain should turn out not to be satisfactory, the tenant could break it, and claim compensation from the heir, who, under the clauses as they stood, had no protection. It would, therefore, be necessary for their Lordships, in case they agreed with the principle of the Bill, to adopt measures in Committee, with a view to protect the interests of the reversioner. The excuse for legislating at all upon the subject was, that great injury was often done to farms by outgoing tenants, during the last two years of their terms. They neglected to improve, and ceased to expend capital; they "sheared" the land, as it was called, and left the incoming tenant to restore
1090
it to a proper condition. But there was another power to which he deemed it right to direct attention. In the case of land occupied by a subtenant, the original tenant was to have the power of making a bargain with the tenant in occupation, possibly to the extent of binding the landlord to pay the compensation which might be claimed at the expiration of the lease, or upon the death of the lives. In such eases, as the Bill provided no check upon the middleman, it would be necessary for their Lordships in Committee to devise some means for protecting the landlord from injustice in dealings between the first tenant and the occupying tenant. The next part of the Bill related to emblements, which, as their Lordships knew, were the profits of growing crops. For instance, a tenant of land, held under a lease for lives, ceasing to be tenant by the death of the last life, he having sown the seed in the ground was entitled to reap the crop. It had been found that where emblements were claimed, considerable damage was often done. The Bill, therefore, provided that where that was the case, the valuers should deduct compensation for use, occupation, and damage of the land, as a set-off against the claim for emblements. The last part of the Bill related to the removal of engines, buildings, and other fixtures, and it proposed to make the law uniform in this respect with the law relative to fixtures in trade. The tenant, therefore, was empowered to take them away, having first given the landlord the opportunity of purchasing. As the law now stood, the tenant was bound to leave them upon the soil. The object of the Bill was, then, as their Lordships would perceive, to assist tenants in the cultivation of the soil; but he was bound to repeat that it was not so perfect in its details as it might be made in Committee, with the assistance of the noble and learned Lord below (Lord Campbell), and of his noble and learned Friend now absent (the Lord Chancellor), whom he hoped shortly to see in his accustomed place.
The BISHOP of St. ASAPHasked if the Bill contained any provisions with respect to ecclesiastical property? It appeared to him, as it stood, that any person having a life interest in such property, might make bargains to bind his successors, just as any other landlord.
LORD PORTMAN, in reply, said, there was no direct provision of the sort.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, the Bill was absurd in some clauses, and injurious in the

1091
rest. It was absurd in those that were permissive, and unjust in those that were compulsory. It enacted, that persons might make agreements which they had the power to make already; whilst with regard to the compulsory clauses, anything more grossly unjust, or more likely to lead to fraud, could not have been framed. For example, a tenant for life was enabled to make an agreement with the occupier to lay out any amount of money whatever upon the land, and make it chargeable to the remainder-man within twelve years. So absurdly was the Bill framed, that though permanent improvements were divided from temporary improvements, the tenant might claim, eleven years after he had reaped the crop, compensation for the necessary outlay in the ordinary tillage of the soil. The expenses and profits of claying, soiling, marling, subsoiling, and every imaginable process in agriculture, were to be estimated and apportioned between landlord and tenant. The landlord was to keep a constant watch lest the tenant made an improvement, as he, the landlord, might have to pay for it; and the tenant was to have compensation for manuring a field or putting up a fence, all to run over twelve years. The remainder-man was thus liable for matters which were of common and daily operation; and the tenant for life might escape the whole of the burden which he ought to bear, by agreement with the occupier. He admitted, however, that the portion of the Bill which related to emblements was an improvement; but with regard to the subject of fixtures, he thought it would be better to leave it to be dealt with by special arrangements between the landlord and the tenant. Where there was a yearly tenancy, and a sum of money was laid out by the tenant, there was always an agreement by which the occupier did not lose; and wherever it was the practice to have yearly tenants, he found agriculture had advanced infinitely more than in those parts where it was the invariable practice to have leases. There were, however, other objections to the Bill. One was, that it would lead to an immense amount of litigation, and another, that there would be so much difficulty in the way of the valuers ascertaining the respective interests of the parties, that the good understanding which now prevailed between landlord and tenant would be destroyed. At the end of twelve years, how were they to estimate the value of so much manure applied to the land in
1092
that time, or any other improvement not durable? He repeated that the good understanding between landlord and tenant would disappear, especially where there were tenants at will, and both looked for justice from Acts of Parliament instead of mutual agreements. Under these circumstances, he should move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read the second time this day six months.
LORD CAMPBELLwas by no means prepared to agree to the Bill as it stood; but he could not consent to its rejection upon the second reading, because it contained some good provisions, and was capable of great improvement. He doubted whether the first part of the Bill could be practically applied. All such matters, he thought, were best left to individual contracts; but the other parts of the measure relative to emblements and the removal of fixtures, in which the existing law was defective, were improvements. He objected, then, to the first part of the Bill, because it would cause litigation; and he supported the last part of it, because, with some amendments, it would stop litigation. For these reasons he could not consent to its rejection at this stage. He suggested that it should be read the second time, and pass into Committee, where it could be discussed in detail. That being done, he reserved to himself the power of saying aye or no upon the Motion for the third reading.
The EARL of WICKLOWthought the Bill liable to objections, but these could be stated in Committee; and if his noble Friend could not then make the alterations thst were deemed necessary, it would be competent to move the rejection of the Bill on the third reading. He believed the Bill was capable of improvement, and would therefore support the second reading. His noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) said, it was already competent to parties to make agreements, and that this measure was not required. He forgot, however, that the Bill was necessary to meet the case of tenants for life; and he trusted, therefore, that he would not persist in his opposition to the second reading.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, the Bill gave power to charge the reversioner, and that was a principle which he, as well as the noble Lord (Lord Campbell), regarded as unjust. He thought it monstrous to allow one man to throw a burden upon the property of another.
On Question, that "now" stand part of the Motion,
House divided. Content 9; Not-Content 5:—Majority 4.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly.
House adjourned till To-morrow.