Sitting of 28 June 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Reported.—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Militia Ballots Suspension; Militia Pay; Nisi Prius Officers; Metropolitan Burials; General Board of Health (No. 2).
3a Crime and Outrage (Ireland); Incumbered Estates (Ireland); Distressed Unions (Ireland); Holloway House of Correction; New Zealand Government; Suitors in Chancery Relief; Commons Inclosure Acts Extension; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Poor Law Board Continuance; Inland Revenue Office; Savings Banks (Ireland); Thames Embankment; County Rates; Excise Summary Proceedings; Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues; Valuation (Ireland); Metropolitan Sewers; Friendly Societies (No. 2).

SMITHFIELD CATTLE MARKET.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYpresented a petition from certain Owners and Occupiers of houses and other inhabitants in St. Mary's, Islington, against the proposed site of the New Cattle Market in Copenhagen Fields, or within seven miles of St. Paul's Cathedral. The Petitioners considered it to be a great grievance that that site should be selected for such a purpose. One of the most serious evils of the
1332
present Smithfield Market was the existence in that populous neighbourhood of a large number of slaughterhouses, gutspinning works, knackers' yards, and other appendages of a great cattle market. Mr. Grainger made an official inspection of these tenements in 1849 by direction of the General Board of Health, and received abundant evidence from the clergy, schoolmasters, and the inhabitants generally, of the large amount of sickness caused by the poisonous effluvia proceeding from the above establishments. The whole atmosphere was tainted by the foul exhalations; and he was informed by one clergman, whose church was opposite a knacker's yard, that the stench was so oppressive that he could neither open the windows of the church nor of the adjoining school. Supposing a proper site were selected, and proper regulations provided, it was most desirable that such establishments as slaughterhouses, boneboilers, &c, should be connected with a great cattle market; but, if Copenhagen Fields were allowed to be appropriated as now proposed, either the whole of that populous and growing neighbourhood must be polluted and rendered unhealthy by the collection of these noisome trades in its centre, or the metropolis must continue to suffer from all those evils which had given rise to so much public complaint, arising from the slaughtering of cattle, gutspinning, &c, as now carried on in all parts of London. If, on the contrary, a proper site were chosen, a large portion of the above noxious trades would be at once transferred out of London by the parties engaged in them; and there could be no doubt that, at no distant time, the metropolis would be entirely freed from what constituted, at present, a most serious and universally recognised sanitary evil. Now, it appeared to him that the site of Copenhagen Fields was very ill chosen. It was in the midst of a district already covered with streets and rows of new houses. There were many fine villa residences close to the site of the market. Building was rapidly proceeding in the whole locality, extending from Copenhagen Fields towards Kentish Town and Highgate. New streets were being laid out, and there was no doubt that within ten years Highgate would be joined by buildings with London. The land around Copenhagen Fields being all either built upon, or intended to be speedily built on, enhanced the price of building ground. It was reported that very lately eight acres and a half of land at Upper

1333
Holloway, and therefore more distant than the site of the proposed market, were sold for 10,000 l. He could not speak too strongly of the mischief which would accrue from the setting up a cattle market in the centre of such an extensive population. It had been declared in the Smithfield Bill that no new cattle market was to be erected within seven miles of St. Paul's Churchyard; but, if he was not misinformed, Copenhagen Fields was within three miles of that Churchyard. He therefore hoped that their Lordships would give attention to the prayer of this petition. Petition to lie upon the table.

THE MILITIA—THE "BIRKENHEAD."
On Motion that the House go into Committee on the Militia Ballots Suspension Bill, and the Militia Pay Bill,
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he wished to make a few observations on this Bill before their Lordships went into Committee, as he had not yet had an opportunity of stating his opinion—which, perhaps, might be of little value—upon any of the recent measures regarding the defence of the country. He could only concur in the present measures for regulating the militia on the ground that the state of our defensive preparations required some improvement, and that no other measure less exceptionable had been proposed. His opinion was, that it would be better for us to have an additional regular force than any militia at all; and he agreed in every word which had been said the other night by a noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) on that subject; and with regard to the whole proposal, he had only this to say, that he regretted that those means for augmenting our forces had not been provided many years ago, when the highest military authority in the country lamented that our means of defence had been allowed to fall so low. Let their Lordships look to the consequences of not doing the right thing at the right time; for now, when they were proceeding to do it, they were asked by every Frenchman they met, "Is there any ground for alarm? Is the French Government not to be trusted? Is there any doubt as to the friendly feeling of the French people?" The only answer that could be given to such a question was this, "No, there is no such doubt—there is no such alarm—we are only doing now what we ought to have done 20 years ago, and which if we had then done, no such umbrage and no such suspicions in regard to the
1334
proceedings of the French Government or the French people, as your question seems to anticipate would have arisen." His opinion was that any scheme of the nature of a militia was one of the worst modes of raising troops that could be imagined. It acted as a tax on one class of the community, and as a compulsory service on another. It was also a tax exacted by lot; and, if the objections on that ground were got rid of by any system of insurance or mutual guarantee, or any system of clubs to equalise the pressure, still it operated as a poll-tax, and was open to the worst charge next to that of drawing lots who shall pay the tax, namely, that it was a tax imposed by head without any regard to the capacity of the party on whom it fell. For these reasons he thought that a militia force was the worst species of force which we could have resort to. Objectionable as the plan was to get troops, it did not enable you to get what you wanted—good troops. You expended your money for purposes of war, and got a bad instrument for your purpose. You got very bad troops, until they had been trained continuously for months, perhaps years. Nothing but the circumstance that this Bill was the only plan proposed, induced him to support it. He trusted, however, that before many months elapsed, a sounder plan would be proposed.
The EARL of CARDIGANrose to move that certain Minutes which he held in his hand from the Adjutant General's Office, be printed.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, the noble Earl was out of order; he could not make such a Motion at that time: he must make a separate Motion, after the present Motion had been disposed of.
The EARL of CARDIGANsaid, that the House would perhaps allow him to proceed with his remarks. The Minutes to which he alluded were those which had been ordered to be produced on a former night in consequence of its having been alleged by a noble Earl on the opposite benches that cetain troops had been embarked in the Birkenhead for the Cape of Good Hope who had not been instructed in firing with ball cartridge. The noble Earl, on looking into those Minutes, would find that he was mistaken upon that point. But, even supposing that there were any defect in that part of their military instruction, the soldiers embarked in the Birkenhead had shown that they were not deficient in all the higher points of military

1335
discipline. Never was there a more brilliant or a more beautiful exemplification of discipline than that exhibited by those gallant but unfortunate soldiers. Standing on the brink of death, they were steadily obedient to their officers to the last. They allowed themselves to be swept away into the tomb without a murmur, in order that they might secure a safe escape for the women and children on board the vessel from the common danger which they remained to brave. The noble Earl then proceeded to observe, that in his opinion Her Majesty's Government had done well in adopting this plan for raising a regular militia; for in the present condition of the representatives of the people, he thought that it would be impossible to procure from them a permanent vote for the support of a large Standing Army. Referring to the scheme which had been propounded for arming volunteer corps throughout the country, he said that in his opinion a more dangerous force could not be established than voluntary corps of men spread over the country, under no control and under no discipline—nay, even incapable of discipline—in the possession of arms which could not be taken from them, as they would be their own property, and which might be diverted to illegal purposes. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government, to which he was a sincere well-wisher, would succeed in this measure, and, indeed, in every other measure they might undertake. He must, however, call their attention to the situation of many officers in the militia regiments at present who were not qualified for the command entrusted to them. He hoped that old age, surrounded by numerous troops of friends and relations, would not be considered the best qualification for such offices. He knew a regiment in which the colonel, the lieutenant-colonel, the major, and six captains, were all sixty years old, and where every one of those officers were totally unacquainted with military movements.
EARL GREYwas glad to hear that the soldiers on board the Birkenhead had been properly instructed in ball practice; and certainly he was very glad he had mentioned the subject, because a rumour to the contrary had been very current in town, and it was not right such a rumour should be current without being inquired into. He begged to remind their Lordships that he did not make the statement as of his own knowledge, but as a statement which he had received, and which he
1336
thought deserved inquiry. He entirely concurred with the noble Earl opposite in admiration at the discipline of the troops in the frightful calamity which befel that unfortunate ship. He concurred in believing that far more real courage and discipline were manifested by the mode in which they met their dreadful fate, than by the greatest gallantry which British soldiers had ever displayed on the field of battle. It was proof of their possessing all the higher qualities of a soldier. He admired the conduct of both men and officers, and he rejoiced very much to hear that the reports which the noble Earl had laid on the table were satisfactory.

PATENT LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order).
LORD COLCHESTERmoved that the Amendments be agreed to.
EARL GRANVILLEconsidered that the Bill would be much better if the Amendments of the Commons were excluded. He particularly objected to the Amendments introduced into the 4th and 18th Clauses.
LORD BROUGHAMshould by no means recommend their Lordships to disagree with the Commons' Amendments. The Bill as it stood was a great improvement upon the old patent law, and he should recommend their Lordships to do nothing that should endanger the Bill for the present Session.
LORD CAMPBELLwas understood to agree with his noble and learned Friend that the Bill was an improvement upon the present system.
EARL GREYthought, at the risk of not passing the Bill, their Lordships ought not to concur in passing the Amendments of the Commons. The effect of one clause would be to deprive the Colonial Legislatures of the power of granting patents. It was proposed to supersede their authority by that of the Crown. He had so strong an objection to the Amendments to the 18th Clause that he should move that their Lordships disagree to them.
The LORD CHANCELLORobserved that it was not proposed to supersede the right of the Colonial Legislatures; but the power of granting patents in the Colonies was at present vested in the Crown.
EARL GREY: If the Crown possessed the power, which is doubtful, practically it had waived it.
Some Amendments agreed to; some

1337
disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to certain of the said Amendments: The Committee to meet immediately: The Committee reported Reasons prepared by them: The same were read, and agreed to; and a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with the Amendments and Reasons.

SUITORS IN CHANCERY RELIEF BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of their Lordships to a matter personal to himself. Upon a former occasion when the Bill was under discussion in the Committee of their Lordships' House, some expressions had fallen from him which he regretted to hear had given pain to a learned Judge in the other House of Parliament, for whom he entertained the very highest respect—he referred to the Master of the Rolls. He had no personal acquaintance with that right hon. Gentleman, nor had he seen him, that he was aware, since the period when he (Lord Lyndhurst) was last in office; but from the opportunities which he had had, when he held the Great Seal, of constantly admiring his learning, great ability, and uniform courteous manner, he considered him in every way worthy his distinguished parent; and he had every reason to believe that his character since he had been raised to the Bench fully corresponded with that which he then so honourably maintained; and nothing could be further from his mind than, in any expressions which he made use of, to give the slightest pain to the feelings of so distinguished an individual. The matter arose out of a desultory discussion which took place in Committee on this Bill. The Committee sat at rather a late hour, and what was then stated was not very accurately reported. As an instance of this he was reported to have made some remarks as to the share which the Master of the Rolls had taken in the framing of the present Bill, and the care he had taken to except his own Court from its provisions; he having, in point of fact, said not a word upon that subject, that being entirely foreign to the matter under discussion. The facts of the case were shortly this. The Bill in question was founded upon the report made by the Select Committee of the House of Commons. The Master of the Rolls was
1338
a Member of that Committee, and that Committee recommended in the strongest terms the abolition of what were termed "orders of course." They recommended that "orders of course" should be abolished; but as it would be proper to except some, it recommended that they be transferred to the Registrar of the Court of Chancery. The evident object of this recommendation was to mitigate and abolish the office from which those orders issued. At that time Sir John Romilly held the office of Solicitor General; but since that time he had been raised—very properly raised'—to the Mastership of the Rolls. Now, in this Bill, founded on the report of the Select Committee, his attention had been directed to the fact that no notice whatever was taken of this recommendation. Nothing was said with respect to the offices which it was obviously the intention of that Committee should be abolished. Some gentlemen of great respectability in the profession—a society composed of eminent lawyers throughout the country, and many distinguished practitioners in London, and called "The Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association"—presented a petition to their Lordships, and requested him to introduce the subject to their notice. So far from there being any abolition of the office to which reference had been made, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners, at the very time when this Bill was under consideration, the appointment became vacant, and the Master of the Rolls at that time—November last—named a young man to fill it who was then an articled clerk to some attorney in London, and who had not completed his articles. This appointment was made matter of complaint, and he was requested to bring the subject before their Lordships. He thought it his duty to do so, and accordingly impressed it upon the consideration of the Committee, but received no explanation. He had previously called the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack to the circumstance, but received no explanation from any quarter. He asked their Lordships, therefore, if he had done wrong, under these circumstances, in impressing the case upon the consideration of the Committee, and whether the Master of the Bolls himself, if he had been in his situation, would not have thought it his duty to have taken precisely the same course? Now, if this matter had been referred to a Select Committee, as the noble and learned Lord on

1339
the woolsack had rightly said it could not he, in consequence of its coming up so late in the Session, the matter might have been easily explained; but they had no explanation whatever on the subject, and he thought it was but due to the House to have called attention to it. The Select Committee, of which the learned Judge was a Member, recommended a particular course to be pursued with respect to certain offices. That learned person was, after a short period, appointed to that Court to which the offices belonged. A Bill was brought in, founded professedly upon the report of that Committee, and no notice whatever was taken of that material and important recommendation. Now, so far as he could collect, what passed in the other House on the subject—and he had no doubt it was correct—was, that this learned person stated that he had had nothing to do with the preparation of the Bill, and knew nothing of its details. He assumed, however, that as a Member of the Committee he was present at the discussion upon that portion of the Bill at least, founded upon that report, which affected the court of equity of which he was the Judge, He (Lord Lyndhurst) trusted that in the next Session of Parliament, when he should move for the abolition of this office, he should have the support of that distinguished Judge in the other House of Parliament. It had been objected to him that he had said that while the offices of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack had been cut down with an unsparing hand; on the other hand, the offices of the Master of the Rolls had not been at all touched by it. Now, he appealed to any of their Lordships who had read through the Bill whether that was not strictly and accurately true. The utmost havoc—if he might use the expression—had been inflicted upon the offices of his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor; while not a single office mentioned in the Bill in connexion with the Master of the Rolls had been abolished. He did not impute any blame to any one: all he contended was, that what he had stated on a former occasion was strictly and literally true. He did not think that any observations could have been made upon his statements; but the learned person was reported to have stated, as this office was now paid by salary instead of by fees—a salary of 1,000 l. a year—that there was no ground of complaint. He did not think it possible that
1340
such a statement could have been made by that learned person, for this reason, that in order to alter one of these "orders of course" the attorney must be instructed, the petition would require to be drawn up and presented at the office, and other steps for which fees would of course have to be paid. As to the fees formerly paid to the officer, as they are now paid into court, the officer being paid by salary instead of by fees; he admitted that he was not paid directly by the individuals who made the application. But what was the consequence of this change? A salary was established, instead of fees, of 1,000 l. a year. From what fund did this salary come? From the Suitors' Fee Fund. Thus from the reduced fees of the Court of Chancery was derived a salary of 1,000 l. a year for an office which the Select Committee recommended should be abolished. Was he not, then, perfectly justified in calling the attention of their Lordships to the circumstances as he had done? There was one trifling circumstanee stated to have been alluded to by the learned Judge, at which he was somewhat surprised. It was with reference to the statement he had made, that, while the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack was to have but one clerk, at a salary of 200 l. a year, the Master of the Rolls was to have two clerks, at a salary of 300 l. a year. What were the facts of the case? The Bill provided one clerk for the Lord Chancellor at the rate of 200 l. a year, and 300 l. a year was given to one clerk in the office of the Master of the Rolls, if only one was appointed; that was, that if the same number of clerks which were allotted to the Lord Chancellor were given to the Master of the Rolls, the clerk of the Lord Chancellor would receive but 200 l. a year, while the clerk of the Master of the Rolls would receive 300?. Then there was a provision, that the Master of the Rolls, if he thought proper, might divide that 300 l. and have two clerks, giving only 150 l. to each of them. He regretted that in the "scrambling" discussion of the other night, he had not with sufficient clearness and precision pointed out this latter course to their Lordships. He thought he had now stated enough to satisfy their Lordships that he was justified in the statement which he had made on a previous occasion, and that it was his duty to impress upon the Committee the circumstances which had occurred; and he trusted that the explanations which he had made would be

1341
satisfactory to the learned Judge. He could assure their Lordships that he should feel the greatest regret if anything he had said on a former occasion, and still more upon this occasion, should have in the slightest degree hurt the feelings of that learned Judge. Before concluding, he trusted their Lordships would allow him to make one observation, for the purpose of putting the House upon its guard against the Bills which came up from the other House at a late period of the Session, and also against any alterations made by that House in the last stages of a Bill. He thought nothing was so mischievous as the course pursued in this respect. A Bill having passed through its various stages, and gone through Committee, it was generally considered that nothing further could be done to improve it. Some most important alterations, however, often crept in at the last stage of a Bill. Now, mark the effect of this. There was a clause in this Bill giving a certain amount of retirement to officers of the Court of Chancery, and a proviso was very properly added to that clause, providing that nothing therein contained should affect the retirement given by former Acts to any officer of that court. Nothing could be more fair than this. A man who accepted office upon the faith of an Act of Parliament granting provision for a retirement after twenty years' service, looked, and very properly so, to possessing a vested right in that retirement. The proviso, therefore, to this effect was agreed to in Committee, and went through the usual stages there; but afterwards, either upon bringing up the report, or upon the third reading, the proviso was cut out. What was the consequence of this? Those who were entitled after twenty years' service in one of the most valuable offices of the Court of Chancery to a retirement upon two-thirds of their salaries, would be, under the operation of this Bill, and in consequence of striking out this proviso, entitled only to a retirement of one-half of their salaries. His attention had been called to this circumstance, and he had consulted the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack upon the subject; but a difficulty arose in dealing with it, on the ground of its being a money clause, and the House of Commons claimed certain privileges over clauses of this description. He felt disposed, rather than do injustice to individuals in this way, to vote directly against the Bill, although many of its pro-
1342
visions were extremely advantageous to the country. They had, however, contrived, by a side-wind, to remedy the defect complained of, and he would now support the Motion for the third reading of the Bill. He apologised to their Lordships for having detained them so long in the early part of his observations upon a matter personal to himself, and hoped, so far as his latter observations were concerned, that they would receive the general sanction of the House.
LORD BROUGHAMdid not intend to enter on the subject of the explanations given in so clear and lucid a manner by his noble and learned Friend; but he entirely agreed in all he had said in commendation of his right hon. and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls. He greatly regretted the absence of a noble and learned Friend (Lord Truro) who was prevented by the great labour he had undergone that morning, since half-past 9 o'clock, from remaining to give an explanation on the part of the Master of the Rolls, but which no person unacquainted with the Bill and with its history was capable of giving. As a sample of the explanations which might be given, he might state, with reference to the 200 l. and 300 l. a-year salaries, that he understood the Master of the Rolls had the power of appointing one or more clerks at a salary not exceeding 300 l for all, whereas the Lord Chancellor had the power of appointing only one clerk at 200 l. a-year. But if, as he understood, the duties of clerk in the Lord Chancellor's office could he performed by one, whereas the duty of clerk in the Master of the Rolls Office required more—say two, if not three—the Master of the Rolls had not the power of appointing two at a salary of 300 l. each, but he had the power of appointing two at a salary of 150 l. each.
LORN LYNDHURSTstated, that shortly before he came to the House he informed the noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor that he intended to make the statement he had made; hut the noble and learned Lord was so unwell and so exhausted by his judicial duties during the day, as to be obliged to leave the House. With reference to the clerks in the Master of the Rolls' office, he (Lord Lyndhurst) begged to state, from information he had received, that if orders of course were abolished, one clerk would be amply sufficient.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

MASTER IN CHANCERY ABOLITION BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLORmoved, that the Commons' Amendments in these Bills he considered. The noble and learned Lord, having described the Amendments, said that, although he dissented from many of them, he did not propose that the House should reject them—with one exception, however. He understood that a learned person was represented to have stated that the proposal to dispose of the Masters' offices, in Southampton-buildings, and provide chambers elsewhere for the Equity Judges, was a romantic whim. On the contrary, it was founded upon a knowledge of human nature; and the only way to make the scheme answer, would be found to be by bringing the clerks into immediate and personal communication with the Judges, and that could only be done by providing accommodation for them in the same building. His (the Lord Chancellor's) object had been to come as near to that result as he could, and have the chambers as near the Judges as possible. He regretted to find that the House of Commons had struck out a clause which would have given power to a court of law to send a case for the opinion of a court of equity, and vice versâ. He had proposed that, where a Judge found the objection raised that the plaintiff's title was only equitable, then, instead of all the expense of the action being thrown away, the Judge should have power to ask the opinion of a court of equity whether the plaintiff had a right to the legal estate; and if that court held in the affirmative, the Judge might order a verdict to be entered for the plaintiff, notwithstanding that objection. The Commons had also inserted a clause, of which he highly disapproved, taking away from courts of equity the power of sending cases for the opinion of the courts of law—a power which would be peculiarly advantageous under the new system, because the Judge in his chamber with his clerk could at once settle the case. It was seldom that in equity you could get a pure decision upon a pure question of law unembarrassed by the facts; and the abolition of the power in question would add much to the expense to which parties would be put. But, though he disapproved of these Amendments, he was not disposed to risk the Bill by asking their Lordships to
1344
refuse to agree to them. It was represented that when the Master in Chancery Abolition Bill was read a second time in the House of Commons, the Attorney General of the late Government stated, "that the Bill had been mutilated and entirely spoilt by the Lord Chancellor, and that it was now a different measure from that introduced in conformity with the recommendations of the Chancery Commissioners." That was a strange statement, for it was under his (the Lord Chancellor's) direction that the measure was framed. He was deeply indebted to Sir J. Graham for vindicating him, and stating that the recommendations of the Commissioners had been fully and fairly carried out. After that he hardly expected to find the late Prime Minister speaking thus: Having, in his review of the measures which had been pushed forward during the present Session, stated that most of the measures of the present Government had their origin with the late Government, the noble Lord said—
"Of these, Chancery reform was one of the most important. That was no party question. I am far from asking credit for it as a party measure; but a Commission having been instituted by the late Government, made their report upon the subject, and it was announced in the Queen's Speech that on that subject a measure would be introduced; the [present] Government introduced a Bill, but even at the last moment there were clauses in it so objectionable, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, who belonged to the Commission, had to insist on the Report of the Commissioners being carried into effect, in order to make it a good and useful measure."—[3 Hansard, cxxii. 640.]
He (the Lord Chancellor) would not indulge in a single word of recrimination; but he would say that all this was a direct misstatement. He would state that the new measure had been most fully considered, not only under his own authority—for he devoted much time to the subject—but he had had the assistance and advice of the four Equity Judges, who had gone through every clause word by word, and had given their approbation to the whole of its provisions. In considering the second Bill, he had had the additional assistance of the two Lords Justices; and he must say that no Bill had over been more thoroughly and attentively considered than that measure. Though he differed from some of the alterations made by the House of Commons, that House was competent in every way to form an opinion, and he could not find fault either with its power or disposition to make the alterations which had

1345
been made. He had undertaken to carry out the Report, and he had done so, not servilely tying himself to every word of its recommendations, but honestly taking their sense and meaning. No one was more ready than himself to thank those Commissioners, and they deserved all the compliments paid them; but, though great respect was due to the report of such eminent men, their report was not law, and it was not to be expected that every single proposition of theirs was to be carried out exactly in the way they proposed. The noble and learned Lord concluded with moving that the Commons' Amendments be agreed to, subject to a slight alteration in the form of one of them.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that when the present Administration came into office, he despaired of the success of these measures, at least in the present Session of Parliament. But his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, notwithstanding that he had been suffering from illness, had earnestly applied himself to the task, and, by his extraordinary industry and entire mastery of the subject, bad finally accomplished that which he (Lord Lyndhurst) had thought almost impossible; and he must congratulate the country on these great and important measures being brought to a successful issue. He might mention also that there was a very heavy arrear of judicial business in that House when his noble and learned Friend took office, and that that arrear had now been, to a great extent, removed, owing to the industry, learning, and experience of his noble and learned Friend.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that having been consulted by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, he thought that there must be some misunderstanding with respect to that which was said to have occurred in "another place." The statement was that his noble and learned Friend had "mutilated" the Bill. Such a statement carried its own refutation on the face of it, for it was his noble and learned Friend's own Bill. He (Lord Cranworth) thought that there were one or two provisions recommended by the Commissioners which were very objectionable. There was one clause in particular which he had wished to have withdrawn. A most unfortunate alteration had been made by the other House in omitting the clause giving power to the Court of Chancery of sending cases to the Courts of Common Law. The
1346
result would be that instead of a cheap and speedy mode of getting a decision on a case stated, and argued by one counsel on each side, there must be an action brought, and the parties would be put to great loss of time and heavy expense. But as to the power to send cases the other way (from Law to Equity Courts), he did not think that would have been an improvement. Upon the whole, he believed these measures would be of most essential use, and, though objecting to one or two Amendments, he thought it would be well not to risk the fate of the Bill by pressing such objections.
LORD CAMPBELLwas anxious to see the power retained in the Court of Chancery of sending cases to a Court of Common Law. He spoke with some disinterestedness on that point, because some of the most laborious duties which the Judges in the Common Law Courts had to perform, arose in consideration of eases sent to them from the Court of Chancery, he had had some experience in Courts of Equity; and he doubted very much whether cases of that nature would be better dealt with in such Courts than in those of Common Law. For one thing, they would be argued by more counsel—perhaps by seven or eight on each side—whereas in the Courts of Common Law it was rare in such cases that more than one counsel appeared on a side. The Common Law Bench, therefore, came speedily to a decision,
LORD BROUGHAMconcurred with his noble and learned Friend in thinking that it was unfortunate that the Bill, as it now stood, took away from the Courts of Equity the power of sending to the Courts of Common Law questions of law arising in causes in which these points were mixed up with matters of fact and matters of equity. It might be said that the Lord Chancellor or the Vice-Chancellor might now have the assistance of a Common Law Judge; but it was much more satisfactory to have points of law deliberately argued in a Court of Common Law, where they could be taken altogether, freed from the mixture of facts and of equity. He thought the present practice of sending cases to a Court of Common Law was an excellent mode of getting a clear, neat, and distinct opinion upon the matter of law. In the Courts of Common Law, too, they had the authority of four Judges, and it was much less likely that

1347
the party against whom a decision was given would appeal against their judgment than against the decision of one Common Law Judge sitting with one Judge in Equity. He therefore thought, with his noble and learned Friend, that it might be advisable to disagree with the Amendment. He could not close those few remarks without joining all who had already expressed themselves in stating the strong opinion he entertained of the invaluable benefits which these measures would confer on the jurisprudence of this country. He did think, with all the improvement the law had received of late years, that there had not been any measures sanctioned by the Legislature which would bear comparison in point of importance with those measures of which he was now speaking. Praise had been bestowed on those connected with the preparation and carrying into effect of those important measures by much higher authorities than himself; but he could not help saying that all parties concerned were well deserving the endless gratitude of the country. It was impossible to name the Commissioners without feeling the respect and gratitude which the country owed to them for their enlightened and valuable labours. The late Government deserved the greatest praise for the pains which they had taken to give effect to the reports of those Commissioners whom they had appointed, and whose plan they entirely adopted. His noble and learned Friend the present Lord Chancellor no sooner came to the woolsack than he also adopted the Report. His noble had learned Friend had also applied himself again and again to the whole subject, and given to the preparation of the measures recommended by the Commissioners all the benefits of his long experience, his great learning, and his distinguished talents. He (Lord Brougham) believed there must be some mistake as to what had taken place elsewhere; for there would not surely be any attempt to deprive his noble and learned Friend of the praise which was justly due to him. He was now performing what he knew to be a superfluous and he believed also an unpopular task—that of general commendation; what he said was little likely to meet with acceptance either in Parliament or out of doors from those whose judgments were warped by party connnexions and party views; but it was the happiness of those who act unfettered by the trammels of party to enjoy at all times the privilege
1348
which the Roman historian described as only an occasional felicity—rara temporis felicitas—that of thinking as they please, and speaking as they think.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF EQUITY BILL.—Commons Amendments considered (according to Order); some agreed to; One disagreed to [that which took away the power of the Court of Equity to send cases to a Court of Common Law]; and a Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to One of the said Amendments: The Committee to meet immediately: The Committee reported Reason prepared by them: The same was read, and agreed to; and a Message was Ordered to be sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with the Amendment and Reason.
MASTER IN CHANCERY ABOLITION BILL.—Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to, with Amendments; and Bill, with the Amendments, returned to the Commons.

METROPOLITAN BURIALS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
The EARL of HARDWICKEmoved that the House go into Committee on this Bill. Their Lordships would remember that the second reading of the Bill had been agreed to on Saturday as a matter of form, but he thought it his duty, at this stage of the measure, to state its objects briefly to their Lordships. The crowded state of the metropolitan burial grounds, and the revolting scenes constantly occurring in them, were so well known that it was unnecessary for him to enter into the subject. The Legislature, in 1850, endeavoured to remedy these evils by a Bill which was then passed into law. That measure had however, proved wholly inoperative. That Act gave power to the Board of Health to carry the whole scheme into operation. It gave most extensive powers to that Board, and among others the power of closing the burial yards of the metropolis, and of compelling the whole of its dead to be interred beyond the walls of the City. But no sooner had the Act passed and the Board of Health came to consider the amount of money necessary to be laid out in the purchase of cemeteries, than it was found that the sum was so large that they were unable to borrow the amount, in consequence of the Act not giving sufficient security for the repayment of the principal and inter-

1349
est. The Board of Health had calculated that there would be 51,000 funerals annually in the cemeteries which they proposed to lay out, and that the revenue arising therefrom would he sufficient to pay the interest of the debt; but it was subsequently found that there was no clause in the Act which compelled the inhabitants of the metropolis to bury their dead in the cemeteries to be created under its provisions. The Act, therefore, was practically a dead letter, and it had become necessary to apply to Parliament for another Act. The present Bill repealed the Act of 1850, and instead of vesting the necessary powers in the Board of Health, it vested them in the hands of one responsible authority, namely, one of the Secretaries of State. It enabled the Queen in Council, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, to close such burial yards in the metropolis as might be thought necessary on the ground of public health or decency. Any parish so deprived of its burial ground was empowered to borrow money on the security of the poor-rates, for the purpose of providing a cemetery, or a portion of one, for the burial of its dead, precisely in the same way as money was now borrowed for the erection of union workhouses, under the obligation that the principal and interest were to be paid in twenty years. In the meanwhile, however, as burial places would be required for the parishes whose grounds had been closed, the Brompton Cemetery had been purchased by the Crown, for the purpose of relieving parishes so situate, and would be available for all those parishes which did not choose to make use of the cemeteries now in existence, or to borrow money for the purpose of providing a cemetery of their own. That would, in some degree, affect the question of compensation for loss of fees to incumbents. Of course, where a parish had secured its own burial ground, that parish would be at liberty to engage its own clergyman for the burial of the dead, and no doubt the clergyman whom they would employ would be their own incumbent. The case of the Dissenting population was met in this way. A portion of a new burial ground would not be consecrated; and therefore they would be at liberty to have their own ministers to officiate at the burial of their dead. The only valid objection raised to the Bill had been taken on the part of those who being the owners of private burial grounds, conceived that its provisions would operate injuriously and oppres-
1350
sively upon their interests. There were two descriptions of burial grounds within the metropolis. Some of the burial grounds had become charged with dead bodies to such an extent that it had become an object of horror within this city. He could not conceive that the owners of such burial grounds could found any just claim for compensation, seeing that they were already filled with dead to their utmost extent. But there were other parties who might be aggrieved by the Bill—namely, those who had property in burial grounds not fully charged with the dead, and who might, therefore, suffer material loss by this Bill. The Bill, as now drawn, gave no compensation to such parties; but the Government had determined, on the bringing up of the Report, and on the consideration of the question, to introduce such a clause as would meet such cases. The mode in which that would be done, would not be by giving any money compensation, but by excepting from the action of the Bill burial grounds belonging to private individuals, unless specially named by an Order in Council. In that case he apprehended the owner of such a burial ground would have a right to be heard before the order for closing the ground was conclusively made, with a view of showing to what extent he would be injured by such order. The Act only contemplated the shutting up of those burial grounds which were wholly charged with dead, or supposed to be injurious to the public health; and he apprehended the Crown would be enabled to do justice, from time to time, to individual eases.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that, at an earlier part of the evening he had presented a petition from a number of very respectable Protestant Dissenters, who had urged him to propose certain alterations in the Bill, which had been unsuccessfully urged in the other House of Parliament, He informed them that he could not take that course, but he had promised to call the attention of that House and of the Government to their representations. The petitioners stated, that under the present law every person, whether a member of the Church of England or a Dissenter, who had been baptised, had a right at common law to be buried in the churchyard of his own parish. The consequence was, that in many instances there were vaults in churchyards belonging to families, some members of which might be members of the Church of England, while others

1351
were Dissenters, and it was a satisfaction to surviving relatives to know that all the deceased members of a family were buried in the same place. The petitioners had, however, taken up the notion that the new burial grounds to be constituted under the present Bill were to be divided into two portions, the one consisting of consecrated and the other of unconsecrated ground—that in the one part Dissenters might be buried according to their own rites; the other would be reserved for the interment of members of the Church of England; and the petitioners apprehended that, by the adoption of this measure, they would be deprived of the right they now possessed, although Dissenters, of being buried in consecrated ground. It did not appear to him, from a glance at the Bill, that that was the construction to be put upon it; and he had stated that he was certain, if the Bill could bear such a construction, it could not have been intended. He must say, for his own part, that he thought Dissenters might be allowed to be buried according to the rites of their own sects, although in consecrated ground; but he was afraid this Bill did not contain any provision on that subject.
The EARL of HARDWICKEsaid, that by this Bill Dissenters would be enabled to bury their dead either in the consecrated or the unconsecrated portion of the parish cemetery or burial ground. With regard to the regret which had been expressed by the noble and learned Lord opposite, that the Dissenters should not be allowed to be buried by their own ministers in the consecrated ground, he had only to observe that that question had been decided over and over again, and it was discussed in the House of Commons, who did not agree to a provision for this purpose, because it was thought that it would totally change the character of a portion of the consecration if Dissenting ministers should be allowed to officiate in consecrated ground.
House in Committee.
Bill reported without Amendment; Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved—"That the Bill be now read 3a."
LORD MONTEAGLEobserved that the limitation of the operation of the Incumbered Estates Act to three years had caused a great amount of property to be pressed into the market within a limited period, with a consequent depreciation of its value; and there was now a vast quantity of property before the Commissioners which it was impossible they could deal with during the term fixed for the duration of the Commission. Now, the effect of this Bill, which extended the period for the presentation of petitions without any corresponding continuation of the powers of the Commissioners, would be, that land would still continue to be accumulated in the court, without any enlargement of the time for its sale; and he feared that this must result in a still further depreciation of the value of landed property in Ireland.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that the object of this Bill was to prevent a glut, from the forcing of a great number of estates into the market at the last moment. In order to attain this, it was necessary to extend the time for the presentation of petitions, which would otherwise expire in the present year; but as the powers of the Commissioners would, under the original Act, still continue for two years longer, there would be ample time for Parliament hereafter to consider whether it would be necessary to extend the operation of that Act, or whether it might not be practicable altogether to abolish this exceptional tribunal, by adapting its machinery to the ordinary tribunals, and giving them the requisite facilities for discharging the duties now discharged by the Incumbered Estates Commissioners. The present Lord Chancellor of Ireland was in favour of the latter course, and was exceedingly anxious that nothing should be done to give permanence to the Commission, until it had been carefully considered whether its duties might not be performed by the ordinary courts. If that was not found practicable, there would be ample time in the next Session of Parliament to extend the further existence of the Commission.
After a few words from the Earl of STRADBROKE, which were not audible,
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.
House adjourned till To-morrow.