Sitting of 12 June 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Court of Chancery.
Reported.—Landlord and Tenant. 3a Small Tenements Rating.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. PUSEY MR. PUSEY moved that the House do then resolve itself into Committee on the above-named Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that the Bill had been before the House Session after Session, and he was bound to say that all the information which he was able to obtain through the principal land agents in all parts of the country led him to a conclusion most unfavourable to the measure. One of the Members for the county of Lincoln was opposed to the Bill, and
1120
every one who wished to see a good understanding maintained between the landlords and the tenants of England would resist a measure so evidently calculated as that was to disturb all the kindly feelings hitherto existing between those classes. To such a measure he should now oppose a decided negative; but, if he at present I failed in checking the progress of the Bill, he was determined, nevertheless, to oppose it at every future stage. He thought that the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Berkshire would be one of the last men in that House to do anything to disturb the relations which had long subsisted between landlord and tenant.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "This House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
MR. S. CRAWFORDwas sorry to differ from the hon. and gallant Member for the city of Lincoln, but he felt bound to support the Bill; he should support it, though he did not think it went far enough. If all landlords were like the hon. and gallant Member, there would be no need of any such measure; but in the northern parts of the country he believed that something of the sort had become quite necessary.
MR. CHRISTOPHERcoincided in the view taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln with regard to the general feeling upon this measure. His own constituents were certainly opposed to it. What was wanted on behalf of landlord and tenant was some measure enabling persons who had settled estates to give tenants some tenure in the lands they occupied on account of monies sunk in them. But if other counties in the country would follow the example of that of Lincoln, the arguments put forward in favour of this measure would have been wanting. He thought that the measure now proposed was preferable to the former Bill on the same subject; but after having read the evidence, he could not avoid saying that he was, on the whole, unfavourable to the Bill now before the House, for he apprehended that it would lead to improper interference between landlord and tenant, and he regretted to observe that there was in the Bill much that ought to be left as matter of arrangement between the parties interested.
SIR G. STRICKLANDsaid, the tenant

1121
farmers of Yorkshire were entirely opposed to this species of legislation; and he was satisfied that any attempt to legislate on the relations between landlord and tenant would give rise to endless litigation. As the Bill was permissive where no permission was required or necessary, and could only be mischievous in its tendency, he should feel bound to support the Amendment that it be committed this day six months.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 22: Majority 43.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
Clause 1.
SIR J. Y. BULLER SIR J. Y. BULLER moved that the words "or of such articles of food for cattle, sheep, or pigs" be struck out.
MR. PUSEYwas proceeding to defend the clause, when
The CHAIRMANsaid, it would be impossible for hon. Members to bear the nature of the Amendment and the objections to it unless they preserved a strict silence.
MR. AGLIONBY, who was seated on the second bench on the Ministerial side, immediately behind the hon. Member for Berkshire, said, "We who are sitting here cannot hear one word."
MR. PUSEYsaid, the words objected to by the hon. Member for South Devon shire were suggested by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, and they formed, in his opinion, one of the most important points in the Bill. It was the practice of all the best farmers in the country, and particularly Norfolk, Lincolnshire, and Suffolk, to purchase cattle and fatten them, but not with a view to derive a profit upon the mere purchase and sale of those cattle. The cattle and sheep were kept for the sake of the manure, and the Committee would call upon the farmers to improve their land for the benefit of the landowner, if they agreed to this Amendment.
MR. AGLIONBYthought the proposition of the hon. Baronet would have been much more intelligible if it had gone the length of striking out the entire clause; but in its present shape it would be detrimental to the tenant, and therefore he must support the clause in its original form.
MR. DRUMMONDcomplained of the vague manner in which the clause was worded. The phrase "improvements" would be a fruitful source of litigation, as it would be hard to reconcile men's minds as to what was really an "improvement" and what was not.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, that the exhortation of the Chairman, that Members should preserve a strict silence, was indeed necessary, because, although in the old House it was said that the debates were one-sided, in this House they were inevitably so, in another sense. Thus, although hon. Members heard every word which came from hon. Gentlemen opposite, yet they could not hear a word of what was said by hon. Members on their own side of the House. They were, therefore, discussing the measure at a great disadvantage, for they heard half, and only half, of what was going on. As the Committee appeared about to resolve itself into a farmers' club, he must admit that he could not pretend to vie in agricultural knowledge with preceding speakers. It did not, however, appear desirable to him to place such artificial manures as guano and bones upon the same footing as food purchased for the feeding of animals. The tenant did not receive an immediate return from the guano and bones, but a great portion of the food for animals did give him a large and immediate return. It was said that these animals were regarded by the farmer as machines for converting food into manure, and that they were not bought and fed with any expectation of profit. So far as his experience went, that was not a true description. He believed that cattle, sheep, and pigs, if bought with judgment, did return a large and considerable profit, even although the farmer should give them food for fattening them more speedily. It would be said that no harm could result from the operation of this clause, because it would not come into operation unless by agreement between landlord and tenant, without which it would not be binding upon the former. But by the 9th clause he found that this agreement, in default of some stipulation to the contrary, would be binding upon the remainderman. If the tenant for life should enter into an imprudent bargain, that was his own affair, and he might be left to look after his own interests. But he could not consent that the reversioner should be bound by an agreement which would be a still worse bargain for him than for his predecessor. He

1123
believed that the words objected to would give rise to very considerable disputes between landlords and tenants, and he would therefore vote for their omission. From what he knew of practical agriculture, he could not think it right to make the landlord pay for the tenant's purchase of hay, for instance, because it was often better farming economy to purchase hay than to grow it, and particularly in water meadows.
MR. S. HERBERTquite agreed that food might be purchased and vet cattle might be fed at a profit; but with that exception he differed from the whole of the right hon. Baronet's remarks. He did not think that the question, whether cattle could be fed with a profit or not, was at all an element in this discussion. The right hon. Baronet was ready to include artificial manures, and also allowed that improvements having a permanent effect on the property could fairly be charged against the reversioner; but if he admitted guano and similar manures, he (Mr. S. Herbert) could not see any principle on which he could exclude the oil-cake, for instance, from which manure was made. If arrangements were allowed to be entered into with respect to compensation for artificial manures, what ground was there for such an interference with the rights of property as to prevent similar arrangements being entered into with respect to the feeding of cattle, sheep, and pigs? He would venture to Say that a better argument against the law of entail (which he believed to be essential to the stability and well-being of the country) could not be used than to urge that the system of entails obstructed the improvement of the land, which would otherwise be effected. He should oppose the omission of the words proposed to be struck out, because he thought the law ought not to prevent landlords from making bargains with their tenants, which were necessary for the improvement of the soil.
MR. AGLIONBYthought that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon had been led away in his opposition to the clause by the system of farming in the northern counties, and had totally overlooked the practice pursued in the south. In Hampshire and other southern counties, it was customary to fold sheep on small pieces of land, and feed them highly principally for the sake of manure for the land for the next crop.
MR. FLOYERsaid, the principal objection
1124
he had yet heard urged against the clause was that it would lead to endless litigation. He would support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devonshire, because he thought it would be very difficult to settle the question of compensation with regard to the food given to cattle; and the result must be that differences and disputes would arise.
MR. NEWDEGATEthought that some improvement might be made in the mode of valuation, but was not prepared to recognise so great a change as was proposed by this Bill. If they passed this Act without some limitation on parties to charge their successors, which would inflict a wrong upon those successors, they would most effectually invalidate the law of entail. If a person having a life estate had power to charge his successor to an unlimited extent, as he would under this Bill, the measure, instead of being a benefit* would be an injury, for it would be an absolute encouragement to the tenant for life to beggar his successor. He had hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berkshire would have introduced a clause with regard to the power given to the tenant for life to charge his successor; and he (Mr. Newdegate) begged to give notice that, on the report being brought up, he would move the introduction of a clause limiting the power of a person in possession of a life estate to charge the interest of his successor.
MR. PUSEYsaid, the principle involved in the Clause was nothing more than the tenant-right of Lincolnshire, and the result of very minute inquiries made by two successive Committees of that House. With regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon as to the profitable feeding of sheep and cattle, he might be right so far as Scotland and the north of England were concerned, but his observations did not apply to the south and west. In his belief the two kinds of manure used by the farmers—that derived from artificial substances put into the land, and that derived from the feeding of animals, ought to be placed upon the same footing. The right hon. Gentleman asked if any prudent gentleman was likely to saddle his property with this sort of charge for feeding sheep and cattle. In answer to that, he could tell him that the Earl of Yarborough had introduced this very principle into the management of his property in the Isle of Wighe. It was rather inconsistent

1125
on the part of the hon. Member for South Devonshire, who always took a very desponding view of such matters, to suppose that the farmers would, under this clause, rush in with such an amount of capital for the improvement of the land by artificial manures as would completely overwhelm the landlords.
SIR W. JOLLIFFEbelieved that the clause, as it stood, would give rise to a great deal of litigation among the farmers. It was all very well to tell him that it was founded upon the tenant-right of Lincolnshire; but there was also a tenant-right of Surrey with which landlords were saddled, and how were they to graft the tenant-right of Lincolnshire as to sheep and cattle upon the other? Really the landed interest was not in such a condition as to warrant the imposition of a burden like this. They had only to read the reports of the Times Commissioners as to the state of agriculture in those districts which they had visited, in order to be satisfied of the impolicy of a proposal like this. The enactment of a provision of this kind would only lead to discontent and disappointment, and therefore he would vote for the omission of the words included in the Amendment.
MR. K. SEYMERsaid, the supporters of the Amendment conjured up all sorts of Contingencies, such as landlords making imprudent bargains with their tenants, and the probability of the interests of the remaindermen being injured; and, on the ground of these, they justified the omission of the words relative to the sheep, cattle, and pigs; but, as he thought these contingencies should not weigh against the benefits of the measure, he would vote for the retention of the words.
COLONEL SIBTHORPwas not surprised that lawyers should be found supporting this Bill, as it would bring grist to their own mill, He was opposed to the measure out and out, and would, therefore, vote for the Amendment.
SIR J. GRAHAMmust remind his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire that the results of the application of artificial manures, such as guano or bones, were much slower than the effect produced by the use of articles purchased for feeding sheep or cattle, and which included a return partly from the animal and partly from the land; therefore, he did not feel the force of the observation made by his hon. Friend, that the two kinds of manure were to be placed exactly on the same footing. Again, he demurred to his general statement, that
1126
there was no profit from the feeding of sheep and cattle. He believed that if sheep or lean cattle were judiciously purchased, and properly looked to in the feeding, they might be brought to market at a good profit. [Mr. PUSEY: That is in the north.] But there were lean cattle in the south as well as in the north, and he did not see why they could not be reared there with equal profit. Taking the present price of wool, as well as the price at which the animal might in ordinary circum stances be disposed of, he believed that a lamb bought with judgment and kept for twelve months, would yield a very good profit to the farmer. He would not now enter upon a premature discussion of the ninth clause, which concerned the reversioner, but reserve his observations on this subject till the clause was before the Committee. This question had been treated as a constitutional question, and he thought there was something rather strange in that observation concerning it; but when he heard the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Wiltshire, with respect to the effect it might produce as regarded remaindermen and the law of entail, then he must say it had a constitutional aspect. If the law of entail was to be attacked, let them attack it openly; but let them not attack it insidiously by a measure of this kind, which would place the remainderman in a most disadvantageous position.
SIR J. Y. BULLERviewed with alarm all those measures that enabled the gentry of this country to saddle their estates with burdens that would go down to their successors. He was confident that the landed interest could alone overcome the difficulties which might beset them by being free from debt. By this clause a landlord might be assailed by two or three outgoing tenants at once, claiming compensation from him at a time when he was unable to give it from want of money. As to the profit to be derived from feeding cattle, he certainly went with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, rather than the hon. Member for Berkshire. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that if these words were struck out, they would raise the price of meat. If he (Sir J. Y. Buller) thought that would be the case, he would press his Amendment just all the more strongly.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 84: Majority 19.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive.
Clause 9.
MR. T. GREENEproposed an Amendment, to the effect that the word "owner" should not extend to the incumbent of any eeclesiastical benefice.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the condition of land held by the Church was lamentably unsatisfactory, owing to the absence of any power to charge that land for improvements. At the same time, it might happen that a clergyman in possession of a living might have ample means besides those derived from that living, and, having sanctioned improvements, might leave the living the next day, and so throw the burden of them on his successor. He, however, intended to move an Amendment on the bringing up of the report, that persons in possession of a limited estate should not have the power of charging the estate of his successor beyond a certain amount.
MR. PUSEYsaid, the Bill was founded on the practice in Lincolnshire, in which county there were many holders of glebe land, and the practice had not been abused.
SIR J. GRAHAMproposed that the consideration of this part of the Bill should be postponed in order that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire might have an opportunity of framing his proviso, because, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lancaster were agreed to, it would be equivalent to an enactment against all improvements of glebe. At the same time there ought to be some limitation of the outlay, and that the consent of the patron and ordinary should be required.
MR. T. GREENEsaid, there was a strong feeling that some protection should be given to the clergy; and in order that the subject might be fully considered he would postpone his Amendment until the bringing up of the report.
MR. TRELAWNYobjected to the clause generally, and moved its rejection.
MR. TURNERobjected also to committees of lunatics having the power referred to.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the words in the clause should have been "committee of the estate of the lunatic," and not of the lunatic himself. What his hon. Friend proposed was, that the same power should be given to the committee of the estate, subject to the approbation of the Court of Chancery, as the lunatic himself would have had.
MR. WALPOLEthought that it would be expedient to omit that portion of the
1128
clause which gave power to the mortgagee or incumbrancer in possession to enter into any agreements on behalf of the owners. The effect of allowing this power to the mortgagee in possession would be, that it would be in his power to allow money to be laid out upon the land, which would throw a greater onus upon the mortgagor with respect to the principal and interest which he would have to pay, in order to disincumber his property. In point of fact, it would enable the mortgagee to improve the mortgagor out of his estate. Upon the other hand, he thought that the mortgagor ought not to be allowed to alter the value of the security without the consent of the mortgagee.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, that the case of a mortgagee in possession was somewhat rare; but, if a mortgagor himself were disqualified from improving his estate under this Act without the consent of all who had charges upon it, the expense would be so enormous, and the delay so great, that he would lose the advantage of such improvement. In the first instance, however, he certainly thought the House should strike out the words proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst to be omitted.
MR. PUSEYsaid, that the principle of the Bill was that no charge should actually fall upon the land, but upon the incoming tenant. The clause had been carefully prepared by a skilful conveyancer, and he believed it was precisely similar to the provision which existed in the Drainage Act.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that he would take the opportunity of referring to the clause with respect to the rights of mortgagees in the Drainage Acts, and hoped that upon the bringing up of the report the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would consent to strike out that portion of the clause to which he had referred.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 46: Majority 71.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. TURNER, after presenting a petition in favour of the Bill from the solicitors practising in Chancery, proceeded to express the gratification he felt at the circumstance

1129
of his Bill being approved of by the gentlemen whose petition he had just presented. A measure which obtained the approval of those through whose instrumentality it was to be carried into effect, was the more likely to be worked to a beneficial end. The conduct of the solicitors in Chancery, in petitioning in favour of the measure, was a proof that the imputation frequently cast upon them of being unwilling to concur in reforming the practice of the court, lest their interests should thereby be injuriously affected, was altogether unfounded. It was not without considerable hesitation he had ventured to introduce a measure for diminishing delay and expense in the Court of Chancery, for no one was more sensible than he was of the great difficulty of dealing with the subject. The consideration which he had found it necessary to bestow upon the details of practice in the preparation of this measure, had convinced him of the absolute necessity of proceeding with the most scrupulous care. In many instances, whilst proceeding in the execution of the task he had proposed to himself, it had become apparent to him that the evils resulting from some of the regulations which had originally suggested themselves to his mind, would have been greater than the evils they were intended to remedy. Another consideration influenced his determination to proceed with the utmost caution, namely, the enormous amount of the property subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, and the great danger which would arise from any incautious disturbance of that jurisdiction. The control of the Court was by no means limited to the funds vested in the hands of the Accountant General; it extended to all personal property vested in trustees of every description, and it was probably not saying too much to affirm, that as much as half the personal property of the kingdom, as well as a large portion of real property, came under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. It was no light thing to create disturbance in the administration of such a mass of property. There were other considerations which had induced him to doubt whether he should be justified in bringing forward the measure now before the House. He looked back to the many able and experienced men connected with the Court of Chancery who had preceded him in that House, and who were most desirous of accomplishing reforms in the court in which they practised: among whom might be mentioned the father of the present
1130
Solicitor General, the late Sir John Leach, the Lord Chancellor himself, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall. It might appear presumptuous in him to attempt that which the eminent men referred to had failed to accomplish. Nothing but a deep sense of an imperative public duty could have induced him to persevere in the task he had undertaken. It had fallen to his lot to see so much property wasted in inquiries in the Court of Chancery—to behold so many families utterly ruined in consequence of the honest discharge of duty by some of their members, that he felt it to be an obligation which he owed to the House and the country to bring forward a measure for the remedy of these evils. In the first place, it might be desirable to explain why his Bill went no further. As the Bill was originally devised, it embraced a scheme both for preliminary proceedings and the working of suits in the Masters' Offices; and he had proceeded so far in the prosecution of the plan as actually to have had the clauses as to preliminary proceedings drawn, and the scheme for the Masters' Offices arranged, when it came to his knowledge that the Judges of the Court were preparing some orders to regulate the practice in those respects. It was his opinion that the Judges of the Court were the persons best fitted to effect reforms, and that by diligently applying themselves to the consideration of the subject they would be able to accomplish more in the way of the removal of evils and the saving of expense than could be accomplished by the enactments of any Act of Parliament. The moment, therefore, he became aware that the Judges of the Court were directing their attention to the preliminary proceedings, and the proceedings in the Masters' Office, he had communicated to them every thing which had occurred to him upon either blanch of the subject. The Judges had proceeded on their own plan, with reference possibly in some degree to his suggestions, and, in his judgment, they had produced a result which was, in many of its features, far superior to the scheme he originally formed. He hoped and believed that the new orders issued by the Judges in Chancery would lead to extremely beneficial results, and he felt happy in being able to state that already they had been so extensively adopted by the profession, that in the course of a few weeks no fewer than 120 claims had been entered under them. The Bill proceeded upon a new principle as regarded the practice of the Court of Chancery.

1131
Hitherto it had been the rule of the court to administer complete justice in all cases in which it interfered. For instance, the court would not deal with a portion of property; it would have the whole property before it as well as all the parties in any way interested in it, although they might not be in any manner interested in the particular question which had brought the case under the jurisdiction of the court. The consequence of this endeavour on the part of the Court of Chancery to do complete justice was, that in many instances it incurred the opprobrium of doing injustice. The heavy expenses complained of in Chancery proceeding, chiefly resulted from this attempt to work out a perfect system of justice. Against this evil his Bill was mainly directed. It occurred to him that, in cases relating to the construction of a will, deed, or any other instrument, when all parties agreed, and were only desirous of obtaining the decision of the court, it would be most desirable to allow them to state a special case for the opinion of the court. By this means executors and trustees would be able to ascertain what the law was, and to act in accordance with it, without the necessity of involving the estate in an expensive suit. Take, for example, a simple case, that of a question arising as to the right to a share in a residuary estate. The claimant files a bill, and all persons interested in the estate, though having no interest whatever in the particular question, are made parties in the suit, and served with an order of the court. The suit comes on for hearing, and is then referred to the Masters' Office, where all the accounts are required to be taken, and a great expenditure of time and money takes place before a very simple point can be settled. The Bill proposed to get rid of all these preliminary inquiries and taking of accounts, and to enable parties in such cases to agree upon a special case to be at once filed in the Record and Writ Clerks' Office, and in regular course submitted to the court for its decision. The result of the change would be the avoidance of the inquiry in the Masters' Office, with all its concomitant expense and delay. Take another familiar example of the manner in which the Bill would work. A gentleman sells an estate to another, and a question arises about the title. Under these circumstances the course to be taken at present was for one party to file a bill, to which the other put in an answer; the case is then heard by the court, and referred to the Master's Office; the Master investigates
1132
the title, and finally reports upon it. Here was a series of separate proceedings attended with heavy expense, which would at once be got rid of by enabling the parties to submit a special case to the court. This was a change which could not be effected by the authority of the Judges alone, because an Act of Parliament was necessary to indemnify executors and trustees; and, accordingly, the Bill enacted that any executor, administrator, trustee, or other person making any payment, or doing any act in conformity with the declaration contained in a decree made upon a special case, should be as fully protected and indemnified by such declaration as if the payment had been made or act done in pursuance of an express order of the court made in a suit between the same parties instituted by bill. Another branch of the Bill was framed with the view of relieving executors from a grievous evil to which they were exposed in the present state of the law. A man dies leaving a certain amount of property; the executor pays the deceased's debts, and then distributes amongst the legatees the money to which they are entitled under the will; but he is not protected against future claims. Cases were known in which, after the lapse of twenty, thirty, and forty years, individuals have come forward and instituted suits against executors for debts due from the testator when the executors had parted with every shilling of the assets. In one such instance an executor was proceeded against by a creditor to the estate after the lapse of twenty years, and the executor was made liable for 20,000 l. Years after the death of a testator, a suit might be instituted by a party charging the deceased with having been guilty of a breach of trust, and claiming to have the amount due from him ascertained, and paid by the executor, although in the honest discharge of his duty he had already paid away all the sums which had come into his hands. In order to provide a remedy for this grievance, an executor must, under the present state of the law, procure some person to file a bill who was interested in the estate of the testator, upon which a decree would be made, referring it to the Master to take an account of the testator's property, and to call the creditors in; and when that was done, a decree would be made ordering the legacies to be paid, which decree would be a protection to the executor. It was by these means the Court of Chancery had endeavoured to apply a remedy to this evil;

1133
but the remedy was complicated, and by no means economical. In order to provide a better remedy, the Bill, after providing for the appropriation by the court of a sum of money to meet contingent liabilities, enacted by the 25th clause—
"That in case no debt or liability, or no debt or liability other than a contingent liability, shall have been allowed as aforesaid, or in case any debt or liability, other than as aforesaid, shall have been allowed as aforesaid, then after the same shall have been paid, or provided for by appropriation as aforesaid, all payments made by the executors, or administrators, or any of them, on account of the estate of the deceased person, and all dispositions of such assets made by them, or any of them, on account of such estate, shall, as against all persons having, or claiming to have, any demand upon such estate by reason of any debt or liability, other than persons who may have established under the said order any contingent liability for which no such appropriation as aforesaid may have been made, be as good and effectual as if the same had been made under a decree of the said court; provided always, that nothing herein contained shall in any manner affect or prejudice the rights of any creditor or other person having any demand or claim upon the estate of the deceased, against any assets so paid or disposed of, or against the persons to whom such payment or disposition may have been made, or against any assets appropriated under the provisions of this Act, and the appropriation of which, if made under a decree of the said court in a suit to which he was not a party, would not have been binding upon him."
The Bill touched upon other points of practice, which it would be difficult to render intelligible to the House, and therefore he would content himself with stating generally, that it gave power to the court to hear applications which by the 3rd and 4th of William IV., c. 94, were directed to be heard only by a Master—that it provided for exceptions for scandal, impertinence, and insufficiency, being heard by the court, instead of being referred to the Master—and that it empowered the court to receive proof by affidavit in certain cases, and to make general rules and orders, which were to be laid before Parliament, and to be binding from the making, unless objected to by the vote of either House. He had not presumed to bring forward this measure without communicating with the Judges who administered that branch of the law to which it referred; on the contrary, he had felt it to be his duty to lay a copy of the Bill before each of those learned persons, and he had no reason to think that any one of them dissented from its provisions. From Vice-Chancellor Bruce, with whose learning and talents the House was well acquainted, and who administered a large portion of
1134
equity business with distinguished ability, he had received the most unqualified approbation of the measure. The measure had also met with the full approval of the Master of the Rolls, than whom no Judge was more active in the discharge of his duties, or more anxious for the adoption of safe reforms; and the Lord Chancellor, after having gone through the Bill with the utmost attention and care, had approved of it. He (Mr. Turner) felt honoured in being permitted to inform the House that the principal clauses of the Bill had obtained his Lordship's full concurrence. He could not mention the name of that noble and learned Lord without assuring the House of his firm belief that a strong disposition existed on the part of the noble and learned Lord to set matters right so far as depended on his efforts. If the noble and learned Lord needed any testimony whatever to the manner in which he had performed the duties intrusted to his charge, the House might allow its attention to be directed to what were the duties which devolved on the Lord Chancellor, what was the enormous burden of his administrative functions, and what was the enormous amount of labour involved in the due discharge of those functions; although saddled with these burdens, the noble and learned Lord had most carefully performed his judicial duties; and nobody could venture to deny that seldom had the high office of Lord Chancellor been conferred on a person more fitted to adorn that station than on the noble and learned Lord, who for a series of years, down to the present moment, had filled that office with most admirable zeal, diligence, assiduity, and learning.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that he did not intend to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill. It was almost unnecessary for him to assure his hon. and learned Friend that he concurred entirely in the objects which were sought to be attained by this Bill, having made some slight endeavour himself to carry into effect a measure in a similar direction which had already received the sanction of the House, and gone to the other House of Parliament. In that measure he proposed a mode of taking the opinion of the Court of Chancery upon a special case without rendering it necessary to file a Bill; and he begged to call the attention

1135
of his hon. and learned Friend to some points which he thought of importance, and which led him to suggest a doubt whether his hon. and learned Friend, influenced by considerations of caution, had carried the provisions of the Bill quite as far as they might be usefully carried. He should endeavour shortly to explain what he meant. The provisions introduced with reference to the opening of a special case were made, in point of fact, principally to bear on the construction and meaning of certain words to be found in some deed or other instrument. It was a matter of fact that many persons were interested in the construction of such deed or instrument who could not by possibility exercise a judgment with respect to the course to be pursued in obtaining enforcement of their own rights. In a question involving the construction of a will relating to real estate given to a father during his life, and afterwards to his children, whether it conferred the estate as only in tail, or only for life, with an interest at once vested in his children, it was manifest that his child had an interest. If that infant were a few months old, it would be entitled under the Bill to appear and have the cause discussed before the Court of Chancery. In that case, it was manifest that proceedings would be taken for the purpose of seeing the interests of the child duly represented, and counsel heard, with the view of suggesting the various arguments by which the rights of the infant might be supported. But if the case should be that the man to whom the will related had no child born at all; in that case this Bill would not allow the construction of the will to be ascertained and determined, because there was no person then in existence whose interests would be involved to the extent of that infant. He felt that this was a difficulty of considerable magnitude. In the Bill which he had the honour of presenting to the House, it did appear to him that the interests of unborn persons in such a case as he had indicated deserved regard. His hon. and learned Friend proposed in his Bill that the remainder should be confined to those children who were alive as the successors of the party to the life estate. Suppose there was a child two months or even a week old, that child would have a right to have his case argued before the Court of Chancery; and no doubt proper care should he taken that the interests of all the children should be protected. But the case might be that the man who succeeded to the property
1136
had only been lately married, and had no children born, but there was every reasonable prospect that he would have some. His hon. and learned Friend, however, would not allow of such an interpretation of the will as would contemplate anything of this kind, for he proposed that no question should arise as to the children having an interest under the will who were not in existence at the time of the succession. It must be obvious to the House that children who were born so soon before the period he alluded to, could not have a much greater right in looking after their interests than the children who were born in the next or the immediately succeeeding years. He thought it would be better to leave it to the Court of Chancery to determine all questions of the kind, whether there were children a few months old, or whether there were no children at all. He thought this was a matter of importance; for if they did not allow any questions of interest on the part of those not in existence at the time of the succession to be brought before the court, trustees would often not be able to act in accordance with the provisions of the will. It was a matter of importance that a man should know whether he had, under certain circumstances, an estate in tail or only an estate for life. If an interest were contemplated in persons who were not in existence, the question could not be decided; and, although it might be the opinion of all the most eminent men in the profession that he had an estate in tail, and by a simple easy process might make himself owner of the whole property, he was fettered and tied down to an estate for life from the impossibility of meeting the conditions which were necessary to enable him to bring the case under the consideration of the Court of Chancery. He had mentioned another case with reference to the measure he had proposed, namely, to what extent it ought to be made to apply to persons having an interest in reversions. In the Bill he had introduced, and now before the other House, a discretion was given to the court upon hearing a case to determine to what extent it might find the interests of persons not in existence determinable; and he earnestly entreated his hon. and learned Friend to consider whether he might not with propriety extend the advantage of his measure, by making it apply to cases in which the interests of persons not in existence, of persons having a reversionary interest, might be brought before the Court of Chancery on

1137
questions being raised upon the construction of a deed. Whether the person was really in life or not did not in a matter of this sort seriously affect the question, and the argument of counsel for that particular interest must be as effectual and valid as the argument of counsel with reference to the interest of a child two or three years old. To that principle, therefore, he earnestly invited the attention of his hon. and learned Friend when the Bill should come to be considered in Committee. Assenting to what was proposed with respect to the mode of obtaining the decision of the court, he also fully approved of that part of the Bill which afforded protection to executors. It would be impossible to give them indemnity without incurring the preliminary expense of long, voluminous proceedings, to get the accounts passed. There was one point to which he wished to call attention, with reference to the careful and accurate detail by which the hon. and learned Member had endeavoured to work out the machinery of the Bill. He was somewhat apprehensive lest the powers given in his noble and learned Friend's Bill to make orders and regulations were not sufficiently strong to enable them to carry out the objects intended to be carried out. The proper distinction was, that those matters which were matters of principle should be specified clearly by Act of Parliament; but the mode of carrying them into effect, which related to the technical practice of the court, it was advisable to leave to the discretion of the court, which, with the assistance of its officers, might frame the necessary rules. If that course were followed, impediments would be avoided which had occurred in various cases, but could not have been foreseen, from introducing provisions affecting technical practice. The hon. and learned Gentleman had seen the necessity of giving the Court of Chancery power to make rules and orders under the Bill. These were to have the effect of an Act of Parliament. Although the machinery was admirably well adapted for the purposes of the Bill, sufficient power did not seem given to the court to alter the rules and orders. With respect to exceptions for scandal, &c., the decisions by a Master in Chancery were insufficient; his own private opinion concurred with that of his hon. and learned Friend; and he thought the proposed change beneficial. The tendency of late years was to make the Masters' Office more effective. A return which
1138
had been made on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford showed the vast extent of the incumbrances there, and the necessity that some steps should be taken, either by Parliament or otherwise, for expediting business. All persons admitted a remedy must be applied. In conclusion, he should only make one observation with reference to the diffidence the hon. and learned Gentleman felt in undertaking such a measure as the present, while so many eminent Members of Parliament connected with the profession had projected in vain considerable reforms in the Court of Chancery. The hon. and learned Member would permit him to observe, that if any of those eminent individuals had attempted to effect the object when they sat in that House, it would have been simply useless. It was impossible for them to carry reforms which were now so easy of accomplishment if the manner of carrying them practically into effect could be pointed out to the House. It was gratifying that the hon. and learned Gentleman, having prepared this measure with care, and proposed in it fairness and sincerity, should have been led to turn his attention to the subject; and with respect to any reform he (the Solicitor General) had attempted in the same direction, he had to thank the hon. and learned Member for the assistance he had rendered.
MR. W. P. WOODagreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General in thinking that it was owing to public attention having recently been so much directed to the abuses in the Court of Chancery that they now had obtained the means of carrying out reforms in that court. He wished, however, to direct the attention of hon. Members to a return just laid on the table, which he feared had not received that attention which it deserved. From this document it appeared that there were 1,947 cases in the Masters' Offices. When these cases were brought forward, it was necessary to obtain a warrant for hearing, which warrant only lasted for an hour, unless under very extraordinary circumstances, when it extended to two hours. When a counsel in a case had obtained a warrant, he was expected to open his case in a portion of this time. A second warrant for rehearing could not be obtained for the space of six weeks, and then he had to remind the Masters of what he had said before, and then to get through his case. Another six weeks must then elapse before the barrister on the

1139
other side could be heard. He would refer the House to the return on the table, as to the number of warrants which were taken out in each case. There was one case alluded to in this return which came before the court in 1825, in which not less than 888 warrants had been taken out. In another case—the Attorney General v. Tufnell, who he hoped was not his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, which came before the court in 1833–164 warrants had been taken out. In another case the number was 273, in another 241, and in a third 221 warrants. If they took the average, it would be found that more than fifty warrants were taken out in each case; and when it was recollected that each warrant took six weeks to hear, the House would be enabled to form some estimate of the cause of delay. The House would see that this great advantage would be gained by the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry, that they need not go into the Master's Office at all, and they would get rid of those preliminary inquiries as to who were the parties interested in a case which every one knew before the suit was commenced. In conclusion, he had only to offer the tribute of his gratitude not only to the Lord Chancellor, for the excellent orders which he had lately issued, but also to his hon. and learned Friend for the steps which he proposed to take for the reform of the court.
MR. C. ANSTEYwished to state that at that moment there were cases before the present Lord Chancellor which since 1847 had been declared ready for judgment, but upon which no further steps had been taken. He was sorry to hear that it was intended by the Lord Chancellor to give judgment on those cases without hearing any further argument, although such a period had elapsed since the cases were before him. He confessed that he thought the reforms should have commenced in the Court of Chancery itself, and not in the inferior courts. In 1848 he knew of a case of appeal which was brought before the Lord Chancellor, in which four aged persons were interested, against the Crown. It was strongly urged that judgment should be given with as little delay as possible after the case had been urged, as the parties might not survive. Nothing, however, was done. But these aged parties were now dead, and a new suit had to be instituted by their representatives. He trusted, whoever might be the successor to the present Lord Chancellor, that he would have
1140
more regard to the arrear of causes in the court by a vigorous change in the system.
Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

BURGESS LISTS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read,
MR. TWISDEN HODGES, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said its object was to remedy the existing law, which was liable to abuse. At present, the mayor of a borough, assisted by two assessors, was required annually to revise the burgess list. It happened occasionally, that the mayor was a candidate for the suffrages of these very boroughs, and that circumstance might influence his decision in cases which came before him. He could show the necessity of such a Bill as the present by what had taken place in one borough, and he had no doubt similar proceedings might be adopted with impunity in other places. In the borough to which he alluded, the mayor, two or three years ago, was a candidate for election, and he, in point of fact, had to revise the lists for his own election. That person first of all canvassed the borough, he then proceeded to revise the burgess list, and afterwards he returned to his canvass, and congratuted his friends on the course he had taken. [An Hon. MEMBER asked what borough was alluded to.] He alluded to Rochester, where, in consequence of a number of objections having been raised which were afterwards withdrawn, the proceedings were delayed to such a late period that the lists could not be gone through, so that they had to fall back on those of the preceding year. This he conceived was a grievance to which a remedy should be applied.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
COLONEL SIBTHORP COLONEL SIBTHORP moved, as an Amendment, "That the Bill be read a Second Time that day Six Months." It was intended to affect the whole of the boroughs of England and Wales; and yet he had not heard that there had been one petition in favour of it, whilst the petitions against it had been numerous. He objected to the measure as calculated to entail considerable expense upon the boroughs throughout the country, already sufficiently taxed, and as interfering with a system which had worked satisfactorily, and without a single complaint, as far as

1141
he was aware, for a period of seventeen years. In the Rochester case, to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, an action had been brought against the mayor, when a verdict was given for the defendant upon the merits.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYseconded the Amendment. He objected to the Bill on the same grounds as those mentioned by the hon. and gallant Colonel; and added, that he was acquainted with many towns where party spirit ran high, but he had never heard of partiality being charged against the presiding officer.
MR. BERNAL, in supporting the Bill, admitted that it owed its inception to what had occurred at Rochester. At the same time, he believed that that was not an isolated case; and every one must admit that it was a sound, useful, and constitutional principle that no man should preside as judge in his own cause. With regard to the apprehended increase of expense, he thought that the cost of municipal registration, as at present conducted, was as great as it would be under the proposed Bill. He suggested, however, that the measure should not be imperative in its enactments, but permissive, taking effect only upon a memorial from a certain number of the ratepaying inhabitants of a borough. A clause of that nature might be added in Committee.
VISCOUNT GALWAYopposed the Bill on the grounds already stated. In the borough of East Retford the lists were made up by the overseers; and during the last seven years not a single objection had been taken to the burgess list. His constituents objected to the expense of a revising barrister's court.
MR. S. ADAIRopposed the Bill. Whatever alterations might be necessary in Rochester, there was surely no necessity for passing a practical vote of censure upon every municipal authority throughout the country.
SIR G. GREYsaid, a deputation had waited on him some time ago from Rochester, complaining of the conduct of the mayor; and his answer to them at that time was, that the law provided a remedy against a mayor who neglected his duty, and that, until they had tried that, they had no right to ask the interference of Parliament. An action had since been
1142
brought against the mayor, for whom, however, a verdict had been passed. Without reference to that particular case, he would admit that there might be some difficulty in proving a motive, which he apprehended would be necessary to establish a case against a mayor; but, at the same time, in the absence of any complaints, he thought he was not justified in inferring that the system, as at present established by law, had not worked well. He should, therefore, oppose the Bill. He might just add, that as the law at present stood, the two assessors might overrule the mayor. Those assessors were elected by the burgesses at large; who had therefore the remedy in their own hands, by electing two honest assessors. Under these circumstances, he could see no necessity for the Bill.
MR. SMYTHstated, that in York the expense of revising the municipal lists at present was only the amount of the handbill announcing the revision, no allowance being made to the overseers at all. Feeling that the Bill would entail a needless expense upon corporate towns, he cordially supported the Amendment.
MR. HUDSONhad himself revised these lists upon three occasions, and could bear testimony that under the present system there was no expense whatever. He had presented a petition from Sunderland against the proposed Bill; and he trusted that it would be rejected by the House.
MR. TWISDEN HODGESsaid, that seeing the strong feeling of the House against the Bill, he would not press it.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
Words added. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill put off for six months.

SMALL TENEMENTS RATING BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. HALSEY MR. HALSEY moved the Third Reading of this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
MR. P. SCROPE, pursuant to notice, moved that it be read a third time that day six months. He did so, because he conceived the Bill to be unjust in principle, and that its operation would be injurious to the interests of the poor. The object of the measure was, to render the poorer class of houses, which were at present exempted from the poor-rates and highway-rates,

1143
in consequence of the poverty of the occupiers, liable to these taxes, by transferring them to the owners. He had reason to believe that the number of small tenements at present excused from paying these rates throughout England, amounted to no fewer than 2,000,000. He appealed to the legal Members of the House, whether, from the passing of the Poor Law of Elizabeth until now, the poor-rate had not been considered a personal, and not a property tax? The effect of this Bill, then, would be to make the tax, for the first time, a direct tax upon property; and that, too, with respect to the poorer class of tenements alone—thus instituting a most invidious, as well as an unjust distinction. He admitted that there were inconsistencies and abuses in the working of the present system, which ought to be remedied; and he had formerly suggested a mode by which, in his opinion, the humane principle of the present measure would be carried out, namely, by fixing a line below which all small houses should be exempted; but he could not think that the operation of this Bill would be at all an improvement on the existing system. As far as he could calculate, the present exemptions amounted to upwards of 500,000 l. a year. And upon whom were they going to impose burdens? Upon the poor of the country; for although it was proposed to levy the rates upon the owners instead of the occupiers, it was the occupiers upon whom it would ultimately fall. It was with houses as with carriages, coffee, and sugar; the tax, although imposed upon the producer in all cases, ultimately fell upon the consumer. He was surprised at the conduct of the Government in supporting this Bill. He observed with pleasure that the Prime Minister presided the other day at a meeting of the Society for Improving the Dwellings of the Poor; but he and his Colleagues, by supporting this Bill, would do more to deteriorate the dwellings of the poor, as well as to diminish their supply, than all that that society could do to improve them. He begged to say, too, that the Government ought to have introduced the Bill themselves if they felt that a measure of this kind was required. But he thought it would have been still better if they had induced the hon. Member to postpone the Bill until they had considered it in connexion with the whole law of settlement, of which this subject formed a branch.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the
1144
Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
MR. HUMEopposed the Bill on the ground that it introduced an entirely new principle. If they adopted this measure, the House would, in consistency, be bound to apply the same principle to every house and every estate in the country.
MR. BROTHERTONwould tell the hon. Member for Stroud why the Bill did not apply to other property. Formerly the rents of small tenements were collected quarterly, and consequently the tax-gatherer had some chance of getting payment of the taxes from the occupiers. Now, the landlords anticipated tax-gatherers by collecting the rents weekly, and the result was that it was found impossible to collect
MR. ROBERT PALMERopposed the Bill on the ground that it would be no relief at all to the occupiers, who would be made to repay the owners in the shape of increased rent.
MR. BAINESsaid, that the Bill was so fully discussed on the second reading that he did not think it necessary to go at any length into the matter now. He begged, however, to state that it was altogether incorrect in the hon. Members for Montrose and Stroud to assert that the Bill introduced a new principle. So far from the principle being new, he believed that for a long series of years almost every local Act that had been passed to regulate taxation, had embodied it. The Act which was known as Sturges Bourne's Act contained the same principle as this Bill did; but, without any reason that he had been able to discover, stopped at the minimum limit of 6l. It gave power to the vestry to pass resolutions by a majority to rate the owners instead of the occupiers in cases where the rent did not exceed 20 l., nor was less than 6l. a year. The object of the present Bill was to extend Sturges Bourne's Act below that minimum limit. As he had already said, many local Acts had been passed within the last ten or twenty years to establish the same principle in different parts of the country; and he believed that many more would have been applied for had parties not been deterred by the great expense of local Acts. The object of this Bill was to give to vestries the general power of adopting the principle whenever they should think fit, without applying for a local Act in each case. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Stroud, that it would operate in any respect against the

1145
poor. If he had agreed with him, he would I not have supported the Bill; for he was the last man, and ought to be the last man, to wish to do anything to injure the interests of the poor; but he believed that it would have a directly contrary effect. It was the experience of his predecessors, and it had been confirmed by his own, that the owners of small tenements, finding that the justices would probably excuse their tenants from paying rates, charged them so much more rent than they would otherwise have done; and thus it was the owner who alone benefited by the exemption, and not the occupier. This Bill would not at least render the condition of the occupier worse than it was, while the present ratepayers would no longer have cast upon them the burden which ought to fall upon the mass of property at present excused.
MR. S. CRAWFORDsaid, that from his practical knowledge of the working of the principle in Ireland, he anticipated nothing but injury and oppression to the poor from its application to England.
SIR G. PECHELLgave his support to the Bill, on the understanding that the franchise was to be secured to the occupiers, a provision which he understood was to be proposed at the proper time.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 15: Majority 79.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3°.
On the Question that the Bill do pass,
MR. COCKBURN MR. COCKBURN moved the following clause:—
"And be it enacted, that where the owner of any tenement shall be rated to the relief of the poor by virtue of this Act, instead of the occupier thereof, and such owner shall have paid all money due on account of any rate or rates in respect of such tenement, such occupier shall he entitled to all privileges and franchises to which he would have been entitled if he himself had been rated and had paid such rate or rates; and if such owner so rated as aforesaid shall not have paid such rate or rates, it shall be lawful for such occupier to tender to the overseers of the poor or other person authorised by law to receive the same, the amount of any rate or rates then due from such owner in respect of such tenement; and such overseer or other person so authorised as aforesaid shall be bound to receive the same; and such occupier shall, on the payment or tender of such amount, he entitled to exercise all such privileges and franchises as hereinbefore mentioned. Provided always, that any occupier so paying any rate or rates in respect of any tenement where the owner is rated to the same, shall be entitled to deduct and retain the amount so paid by him from the next payment of rent to be made by him to
1146
such owner, or to recover the same from such owner as money paid to and for the use of such owner."
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said clause be now read a second time."
SIR G. GREYthought more time should be given to consider the wording of this clause.
Debate adjourned till Monday next.
And it being Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till To-morrow, without putting the Question.