Sitting of 3 March 1853

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Worcester County (Western Division), Viscount Elmley.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Payment of Wages; Fisheries (Ireland); Places of Religious Worship Registration; Judges Exclusion; Cathedral Appointments.
Reported.—Commons Inclosure (No. 2)

CONVOCATION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I rise, Sir, to put the question, perhaps I should
978
rather say the three questions, to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, of which I have given him notice, and I am sure that in putting a question upon a subject so delicate and so important as this, I may be allowed to disclaim the slightest intention to show any disrespect, or anything that can approach to disrespect, towards the distinguished prelates to whom I refer. I wish, also, to disclaim the least intention to prejudge in any way the important question whether it is desirable or not for the interests of the Church that the powers of Convocation should be enlarged, or its constitution remodelled. I wish, firstly, to ask the noble Lord whether the attention of the Government has been called to the proceedings of the Upper House of Convocation which took place on the 16th ultimo, and which were of a somewhat unusual character, and the legality of which was very strongly disputed by some of the prelates there present? I wish to ask the noble Lord, secondly, whether the Government are of opinion that in appointing a Committee to transact business during the prorogation, and to report to Convocation at their next meeting in August next, the Upper House acted legally, and whether that Committee can legally execute the functions so assigned to it? And I wish to ask the noble Lord, in the third place, if it is the intention of the Government to take any steps in this matter?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in answer to the question of the right hon. Baronet—although he has already once postponed it—at present I can only say that the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the subject to which he refers; that the Law Officers of the Crown have been asked their opinion as to the legal power of Convocation respecting the Committee which is to sit from the 16th of February to some day in August next; but at present, although the question occupies their attention, the Government have not yet received their formal opinion on the subject. I therefore wish the right hon. Baronet to defer asking his question till to-morrow.

TURKEY AND MONTENEGRO.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he rose in pursuance of notice to call the attention of the House to the affairs of Turkey, as affected by the contest now proceeding in Montenegro. He regretted that this subject had not been taken up by some much more able and influential Member of

979
the House than himself, because it must be obvious to every mind that this question was one involving the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire—objects which it had always been the policy of all Governments in this country for many years past to regard as being of paramount importance. Those objects, however, were now greatly endangered. They had heard that large armies of Austrians were marching towards her frontiers in one direction, and that Prince Menzikoff was at the head of three corps d'armée of Russians in another direction, and that an ultimatum, in terms the most peremptory, had been addressed to the Ottoman Court, to be answered in the space of a few days. The most prominent cause of these proceedings was the present state of the small province, or part of a province, called Montenegro—so small in extent, in importance, and in population, that under other circumstances it might be described at Vienna as a geographical atom. Now Montenegro was within the Turkish territories; it was about sixty miles long by thirty broad, with a population of 100,000 persons, half barbarous and uncivilised. It had formed part of the province of Scutari, and was won from the Venetians in 1478. Several treaties, from that of Carlovicz in 1699, and of Passarovicz in 1718, down to that of Sisrow in 1791, had recognised the dominion of Turkey over this province; and in the last-named treaty signed between Austria and Turkey, under the mediation of England, Holland, and Prussia, there was the following clause:—
"Art. 1. There will be henceforth a perpetual and universal peace on land, sea, and rivers between the two Empires, their subjects and vassals—a true and sincere friendship—a close and perfect union—a suppression and a full and general amnesty of all hostilities, violence, and injuries committed during that war by the two Powers, or by the subjects and vassals of the one which have sided with the other, and especially the inhabitants, of any condition, of Montenegro, Bosnia, Servia, Wallachia, and Moldavia, who, in virtue of this amnesty, can repossess any ancient dwellings, possessions, and rights, and enjoy them peacefully without ever being disturbed, molested, or punished for having declared themselves against their own Sovereign, or for having taken an oath of allegiance to the Imperial and Royal Court."
To this treaty was appended the following declaration of the negotiating Ministers:—
"We, Plenipotentiaries of His Majesty the King of Great Britain, of His Majesty the King of Prussia, and of the High Powers the General States of the United Provinces, having served as
980
negotiators of this work of pacification, do declare that the above treaty between the Imperial and Royal Court and the Sublime Ottoman Porte, with all the clauses, conditions, and stipulations which are therein contained, has been concluded by the mediation of their Majesties the Kings of Great Britain and of Prussia, and of the High Powers the General States of the Provinces. In testimony whereof we have signed these presents with our hands, and caused the seal of our arms to be set to it.
"Done at Sistow this 4th of August, 1791.
"ROBERT MURRAY KEITH.
"JEROME MARQUESS DE LUCCHESSINI.
"R. DE HAEFTEN."
Since that time there had been no treaty signed between Austria and Turkey which could in any way affect the subject. True, the Montenegrins had at various times endeavoured to gain their independence, and had to a certain degree enjoyed it, but they had always been entirely under the suzerainty of the Porte. The treaty of Vienna in 1815, which defined the limits of Austria, left Montenegro as it was before—a portion of the Turkish Empire. Of late the Montenegrins had endeavoured to pursue a course which evinced a disregard of the authority of Turkey, and had done so under very peculiar circumstances. Montenegro was governed by a bishop, whose authority was hereditary. Now, the Greek bishops were not allowed to marry, and, of course, could have no issue, so the right of rule over the country descended, not from father to son, but from uncle to nephew. The late bishop, or Vladika, as he was called, having died last year, his authority had devolved upon his nephew, Prince Daniel, who was a young man about thirty years of age. It. appeared that this young prince had no desire to be a bishop; the nolo episcopari with him was much more sincere than with some Protestant bishops, however conscientious they might be; and Prince Daniel had conceived the desire of becoming the head or prince of the country without assuming episcopal functions. With that view he had repaired to St. Petersburgh, probably to consult the Czar upon the subject, and to obtain his sanction to this new arrangement—a mode of action which might appear very natural to those who, like the noble Earl lately Secretary for Foreign Affairs, were so ignorant as to suppose that the Emperor of Russia was the head of the Greek Church. He said so ignorant, though in using that phrase he would not be thought to speak in any manner offensive to the noble Earl; but it was undoubted that in another place the Earl of

981
Malmesbury described the Emperor of Russia as head of the Greek Church. That was a complete error, and he believed that the noble Earl was now convinced of the blunder he had made. The fact was, that all the Emperor of Russia could claim was to be the head of those persons professing the Greek faith who were subjects of his own own; but legally he had nothing whatever to do with any members of that religion who were the subjects of any other country, these persons looking up to the patriarch of Constantinople as the head of their religion. It was said by persons well informed, that when Prince Daniel was at St. Petersburgh he received advice from the highest quarters to adopt a rebellious course with regard to the Sultan, and to act as if he were independent. However that might be, it was certain that soon after his return from St. Petersburgh those disturbances arose which had led to the present uneasy state of the East, and had called for the active interference of Turkey with a large force. It was also said that the Czar, having given this counsel to the Vladika, gave precisely the contrary advice by his ambassador to the Sultan, and urged him to put down by force the Montenegrins, who endeavoured to throw off his authority. Thus we saw the Emperor of Russia giving one kind of advice at St. Petersburgh and another at Constantinople; and so pursuing that course which history told us had always been the course of Russia with regard to those countries not ruled by herself, with a view of creating animosity and discord, in order either that she might be called in as a mediator, or that those States not subject to her might be weakened by internal disorder. We had seen this same line of policy pursued in Poland; we had seen it in Turkey previous to the present emergency, and we had seen it in Hungary lately, when it was well known that, having interfered most unjustly with her army to put an end to the struggle of the Hungarians for their constitutional rights, she did everything she could to represent the Austrians to the inhabitants of Hungary in the worst possible light, and herself as their saviour and defender. The Montenegrins having received the advice he had alluded to, acted upon it. They began to make incursions into the neighbouring territory of Turkey, they began to commit acts of robbery, pillage, and murder, and went so far as to surprise the Turkish fort of Zabljak, and to put to death the small garrison which it
982
contained. The Sultan thereupon sent a considerable force to re-establish order, under the command of Omar Pasha, who was one of the ablest generals Turkey possessed, and who as early as 1839 had commanded a brigade in Syria, and in 1846 had led an expedition into Kurdistan for the deliverance of the Christians persecuted by Bader Khan Bey. This expedition into Montenegro it was which had occasioned the interference of Austria. That country had made complaints upon the subject, and had addressed demands wholly incompatible with the respect due to Turkey, if it was to be considered an independent State. It appeared that Austria complained that a large army should be assembled in that part of Turkey without previous notice to her, demanded the removal of certain Hungarian refugees, who were serving against the Montenegrins, and called for the concession of certain points on the coast; or, if those points were not conceded to her, she demanded an engagement from the Turks not to use those places in any way. It was reported that these demands were urged so peremptorily that the ambassador of Austria required an answer in five days, or he was to withdraw from Constantinople. Now, undoubtedly, it was usual to ask for explanations, if a neighbouring country assembled upon its frontiers a large body of men; but if the country asking for these explanations meant to be on terms of amity with its neighbour, and to treat it as an independent Government, these explanations must be demanded in a proper manner, and with the courtesies usual between nation and nation; and no ultimatum must be given, or threats held out, as had been the case in this instance. No doubt, if such explnnations had been asked for at Constantinople in a proper manner, they would have been given, and Turkey would have given every assurance that this army was not intended to threaten Austria, but only to put down the disturbances which had arisen in Montenegro, and to re-establish a peaceable state of things among those whom she considered her own subjects. That the idea of Turkey having any design upon the Austrian Empire, or any design of disturbing its peace, or making an incursion into its territory, was absolutely preposterous, must be admitted by anybody who knew the relative forces of the two Kingdoms. As to the force under Omer Pasha being large, that might be satisfactorily explained, for

983
the Montenegrins were admitted to be a very martial and brave people, and Turkey had previously experienced the difficulty of subduing these warlike mountaineers. Could it be supposed that Austria had any right to tell the Sultan he was not to put an end to the lawless state of things which existed in Montenegro? Did Austria pretend that Montenegro was an independent State? Why, all the maps and the geographical works of any credit, placed that country in the Turkish dominions as part of Turkey; and he had seen the official map published at Vienna, which laid down Montenegro in no other position. But it was certainly a strange thing to see Austria contending for the independence of a State like Montenegro. Why, this was Austria, which a short time ago spoke of another independent State as a "geographical atom," and which, notwithstanding the obligation of treaties formed with every State in Europe, and notwithstanding her own obligations to protect that State, did without scruple violate the independence of what she called a "geographical atom,"—the Republic of Cracow—and violently annexed it to her own dominions; a proceeding which called forth a protest from the Government of this country and of Prance, which was now a matter of history. And whom had Austria sent to interfere on behalf of the independence of Montenegro? Why, as if to turn all the obligations of treaties into ridicule, the ambassador sent to defend the independence of Montenegro was no other than Count Leiningen, the military governor of Cracow. As to the demand for the removal of certain Hungarian refugees from the army of Turkey, those refugees had probably embraced the Mussulman faith; and it was a well-known law of Turkey that, by so doing, they acquired all the rights and privileges of Turks, and the Turkish Government, therefore, was perfectly justified in considering those people in the same light as native Turks. Certainly she might remove them, and place them elsewhere, in order to conciliate the feelings of Austria; and no doubt, if such a demand had been properly urged, it would have met with attention. There was another demand which it was said had been made—namely, that Austria should be considered the protector of all Roman Catholics in the Turkish dominions. The Turks might well say, in reply to this, that any such protector was altogether unnecessary. Could Austria show that those persons had been
984
ill-treated? Had they been interfered with in any one way in the exercise of their religion? He believed that, on the contrary, there was no Government so tolerant of all religions as the Turkish Government. The Roman Catholics in that country were allowed to worship without let or hindrance; and in Constantinople religious processions might be seen passing through the streets without being interfered with or molested by any of the inhabitants. That toleration was given to every sect, was further proved by the fact that at Jerusalem there was a bishop of the Anglican Church; and Protestants, Roman Catholics, and members of the Greek Church, all enjoyed the freest exercise of their own religion. They were never interfered with in any way, and he only wished that the same thing could be said of every Christian Government. The Turks had always shown this toleration; let it not be said that it was only lately that it had been evinced, because they were weak, and wanted to conciliate other Governments. History told us the contrary. When they took Constantinople they did not expel the conquered race, as the conquered race had been expelled from Spain, although in the one case there was a treaty, and none existed in the other. When, again, the Turks took Jerusalem, they established liberty for all religions; and he was afraid the consequence of this had been such contests between the Christians themselves, as were not only disgraceful to the religion they professed, but had led to discussions and disputes which turned out very injurious to the Turkish Government. He alluded to the quarrels in regard to the Holy Sepulchre which prevailed between France and Russia; and Turkey was threatened first by one and then by the other of those two Governments, in a manner which seemed to involve the loss of her independence, and which, he feared, was the result of her own tolerance. But by whom were the present pretences in regard to Turkey put forward? By the most intolerant Power which existed, or which ever did exist. Austria had been doing nothing ever since the Reformation but persecuting the Protestants, and thousands had lost their lives by her persecutions. Let the House remember the Protestant persecutions under Charles V. in Flanders, the religious persecutions in Bohemia, and those under Ferdinand II. in Hungary. To whom was it owing that the Protestants in Hungary were not exterminated by the Austrians? It was owing to the Turks, who gave them

985
assistance and support for the one hundred and fifty years during which their dominion in Hungary lasted, and who had always allowed the Protestants the free exercise of their religion. Now what was the reason of this hostility to Turkey on the part of Russia and Austria? Had she done anything to give offence to those Powers, which they took this opportunity to resent? Who was there that supposed that the pretexts put forward had any sincerity in them? Who was there who did not feel that there must he some secret motive urging Austria to take this tyrannical course? Had not Austria demanded that certain Hungarian refugees should he delivered up to her in order that she might slake her vengeance upon them; and had not Turkey nobly resisted that demand? Formerly she made similar demands about Ragotzi, to which Turkey replied with the same dignity. At the bottom of all the talk about religious freedom and national independence was a vindictive spirit on account of Hungary and Kossuth. Hid Turkey address any demand to Austria at the time she had insurgents to deal with similar to those which Austria was now addressing to Turkey? Did she find fault with Austria because that Power had large armies in Hungary, and even marched them on to Turkish territory, when flying before the irresistible banner of the brave Bern? They could not but regard the proceedings of Austria against Turkey as those of might against right, unsanctioned in any way by justice or public law. He wanted to know how the Government regarded these matters. Hid England hold the same conviction of the necessity of maintaining Turkish independence as hitherto? He believed we were bound by the faith of treaties to adhere to that ancient policy, and these our obligations had been often insisted upon in speeches from the Throne, and in Ministerial declarations from Governments of every description—Liberal, Tory, and Peelite. We were indeed no less bound by good faith than by good feeling to give that support to Turkey which we had been accustomed to afford her. If we did not, the great Powers would divide Turkey between them, and the equilibrium of Europe would be entirely destroyed. Some hon. Members spoke of that equilibrium with great contempt; but that was not his opinion of the balance of power. If Russia and Austria took possession of European Turkey between them, they would acquire so much
986
power that it would become exceedingly difficult to resist them, and the liberties of Europe would be placed in serious jeopardy. Again, in a commercial point of view, it was of the utmost consequence that we should maintain the rule of the Sultan at Constantinople. Our commerce with Turkey was increasing at a most prodigious rate. He had moved last year for a Return of our exports to Turkey, Russia, and Austria. It appeared from these Returns that within the last twenty years our trade with Turkey had been quadrupled, with Russia only doubled, whilst with Austria it had actually diminished. No one could suppose that, if Turkey fell into the hands of Austria or Russia, our trade with her would not suffer most materially. Did any one suppose, if such an event were to take place, that there would be any religious freedom in Turkey? Many hon. Gentlemen were most desirous to see that Protestants in every quarter of the globe enjoyed perfect toleration. He asked those Gentlemen how long they thought an English bishop would he permitted to remain in Jerusalem if Austria took possession of Turkey? A good deal had been said some years ago of Turkey being our ancient ally; could that friendship subsist if we allowed her independence to be attacked—if we allowed her to be treated in a manner contrary to the law and usage of nations? It had been also said that Austria was our ancient ally. He did not wish to see England on bad terms with Austria or any other country—far from it; but he believed it was perfectly possible frankly to extend the hand of friendship and assist Turkey, without quarrelling with any other Power. As to Austria being our ancient ally, he humbly thought this was not a correct description, for Austria herself was the most modern of existing Empires—more modern than the revived Empire of France. In the days of Marlborough our alliance was not with the Empire of Austria, but with the Empire of Germany, and Austria had no longer the same hold of Germany as in those days. Indeed, a very small portion of her dominion was German—not above a quarter. The greater part of her territories was composed of other nations, a great part of whose population detested her rule—never more would they hear the cry in Hungary, Pro rege moriamur. In. Italy, too, there was the greatest discontent; the tyrannic rule of Austria there was such that, like the crushed worm, the

987
hapless people rose up against their tyrants even without any hope of success. Austria seemed to be animated by a most inimical and unfriendly feeling towards the people of this country. In the Austrian dominions, as well as in those countries in which Austria had influence, England had just reason to complain of the treatment of her subjects. Thus, in Saxony, Mr. Paget had been treated with great indignity; in Tuscany, an Englishman had been cut down by an Austrian officer at the head of his troops, and that officer had not been so much as reprimanded; and in numberless other instances had English subjects experienced insult and outrage at the hands of Austria. It had been very much the habit to attribute bad feeling on the part of Austria towards England to his noble Friend the present Home Secretary; but it was a very remarkable thing that all those proceedings which he had mentioned had taken place subsequently to his noble Friend's retirement from the Foreign Office; and whilst there was another Government in power, which was most eager in its declarations of amity towards Austria, they had seen an affront put upon England by Austria which never could have been expected, and which the people of this country deeply felt; for Austria, be it remembered, was the only State in Europe which refused to honour the memory of the illustrious hero whom we had lost by declining to send her representative to attend the Duke of Wellington's funeral—Austria, too, which, it was no great exaggeration to say, owed her safety mainly to the victories of that great man. History showed that there were two men, who, more than any others, had saved the empire of Austria—one was the Duke of Wellington, and the other was John Sobieski—and to both these men she displayed her ingratitude. He did not bring this question forward as a party question, because the maintenance of the independence of Turkey ought to interest them all. He would say to hon. Gentlemen—are you Protestants? If so, he would show them that Protestants were better treated by the Turkish Government than by any other; to Roman Catholics he would say that there was no country in the world not Catholic itself where Catholics enjoyed such perfect toleration; Utilitarians he would remind that there were great and substantial advantages to be derived by England from Turkey remaining independent; if they were of the Peace party, he would say to them, maintain the independence of
988
Turkey, for otherwise there is every probability of Europe being involved in a general war. Those who sat on the Opposition benches he would remind of the ancient policy of their party, and of the speech of their leader during the last Session, which did him infinite honour, and in which he (Mr. Disraeli) showed the necessity of maintaining Turkish independence; those who belonged to the, present Government he would remind of their former sentiments, and he would ask all to remember the noble conduct of the Turks, and how, having first saved those poor refugees from death, they afterwards, by the advice of England, set them at liberty, when they might have won the favour and conciliated the support of powerful neighbours, by detaining them in captivity. The Government of this country—representing the feelings and wishes of the people of this country—backed Turkey in her gallant refusal to deliver up those men We had advised her throughout—we were now bound in honour to see that she did not suffer for that chivalrous conduct in which we counselled her, and promised her our support. He was sorry to see that a certain portion of the press of the metropolis viewed the question in a different light. He considered we were bound to uphold the independence of Turkey upon the faith of treaties; but he now found that in the London newspapers the partition of Turkey was calmly discussed, as if such a thing were admissible, even if it wore our interest—which it clearly was not. The only advantage we could hope from it would be a passage to Egypt, which we now had. He trusted England would never give its consent to any proceeding so flagitious, and that the good understanding which he had heard with so much pleasure existed between England and France, would he exerted in behalf of Turkish independence; for it was no less the interest of France than of England that her independence should be maintained, and the faith of treaties observed. And here he would take leave to observe that the French nation and the French Government, ever since the peace, had adhered to treaties most creditably—to treaties which, according to French views, it was disagreeable to observe; and this honourable fidelity to international compacts had not been evinced by either Russia, Prussia, or Austria, which had all repeatedly and openly violated the treaty of Vienna, and thereby endangered the peace

989
of Europe. He hoped France and England would unite together to protect Turkey, and to induce that Power to do everything which could be done to ameliorate the condition of the Christian population in the Turkish territories. He believed the Turkish Government was well disposed to listen to such advice; it had shown a disposition to do so, and he had not the least doubt that if such advice were tendered in a proper and amicable mode—not a demand in a peremptory way by an ultimatum—not made by the general of a largo army, with insolent threats, but friendly advice—if so, he bad no doubt that the Turkish Government would at once attend to that advice, and by ameliorating the condition of its Christian subjects, and attaching them to its rule, consolidate the internal strength of the empire, and give a fresh proof to the other Powers of Europe of its desire to conciliate their good opinion.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that while he admitted that be could not fully adopt some of his noble Friend's observations, nevertheless, with much cordiality, he would second the Motion. He thought that the question relating to Montenegro had considerable importance attached to it. Here was a small mountain district, about sixty miles long, and between thirty and thirty-five broad, placed almost upon the frontier of the great Turkish dominions, and nominally conquered at as early a date as the year 1398, though it was rather surrounded by conquered territories than itself subdued. The district had derived much consideration, as well from its peculiar situation as from the character of its people. A portion of its territory abutted upon the Adriatic, thus affording to the Power possessing it excellent harbours. The circumstance, however, which invested this small district with most interest was the peculiar and indomitable character of the inhabitants, who had always succeeded in maintaining themselves in a state of quasi independence. The plain truth was, that the Turkish dominion bad always existed in Montenegro de jure, but hardly ever de facto. The inhabitants were a wild and courageous people, and had preserved then independence, more or less, down to the present day. Another singular circumstance in the history of Montenegro was, that Powers had affected to cede it by treaty who bad never had it in their possession. Thus it was ceded to Turkey
990
by Venice in 1718, and by the Emperor Leopold in 1791, without either party having themselves over been in possession of it. He did not believe, however, that the Turks would ever have interfered with the Montenegrins if they had kept themselves quiet; but like other brave mountainous races, they wore little civilised, being governed rather by customs and traditions than by laws. This being so, they were continually descending into the plains to destroy Turkish harvests, and committing other outrages in the Turkish territory. By this conduct, therefore, they made themselves extremely obnoxious to their neighbours. For a long period of history, however, dating from the time of the Czar Peter, the authority of the Russian monarch had been more or less acknowledged by the Montenegrins—and hence, in 1812, having applied to Russia for assistance, they received it—and in the Austrian and Russian war, towards the end of the last century, the population of Montenegro gave effective aid to Russia It was on account, then, of this influence of Russia, that he considered it essential that English diplomacy should be made to interfere. For, on the one hand, if the large Turkish army which had been sent to the frontier should possess itself of Montenegro, the greatest excitement would naturally prevail among the Christian population of that part of the Turkish dominions. And, on the other hand, there was the precedent of the year 1716, when a large Turkish army of 30,000 men was destroyed by a small band of mountaineers—a fact which ought to induce those who wore friendly to the existence of that Empire to take the question into their most serious consideration, and this, he owned, appeared to him the more probable result of the two. Thus he thought it would have been very well if the united diplomatic action of France and England at Constantinople had been brought to bear to prevent that army from departing for Montenegro. And he could not help thinking that if England had been as active during the last year at Constantinople as she had been during former years, that Turkey would have been saved the great outlay on account of this expedition. He hoped that the efforts of the British Government would be directed to maintain the Montenegrins in that state of modified independence in which they had so long sustained themselves. The European Christian subjects of Turkey

991
in general had no taste or desire for the bureaucratic system of either Austria or Russia; they preferred the temporary inconvenience and temporary degradation of submitting to a heathen monarch, to being incorporated with either of those despotic Governments, when their present individuality, and their hopes of future independence, would be alike annihilated. He believed it might be very possible that Her Majesty's Government would be unable to lay the papers asked for on the table of the House, for the reason that negotiations had not as yet come to a conclusion. Nevertheless, he trusted that they would assert that it was the duty of this country to protect the Turkish territory from the invasion of either Austria or Russia. He trusted that British influence would be supported at Constantinople as it had heretofore been by the distinguished representative of the Crown who had been for some time residing in this country. He was also glad to see that the interests of France were about to be represented at Vienna by M. De Bourqueney, a gentleman who had been long known and esteemed in this country. He rejoiced to see that gentleman restored to the diplomatic service of France, because he knew him to be at the same time a friend of England. As to the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire, which had lately been alluded to, the ways of Providence were not as our ways; such a catastrophe could not occur without convulsing Europe to its very centre, and the interests of England required that every means should be employed to avert that event.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies or Extracts of any Communications addressed by the Austrian or Turkish Governments to the British Government on the subject of the question of Montenegro, and of any replies thereto."
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I trust that my noble Friend who has brought forward this Motion will not feel it necessary to press for the papers asked for, as the negotiations on the subject have not yet come to a termination. I will, however, follow my noble Friend in his remarks upon the subject to which he professes in his notice to call the attention of the House—namely, the affairs of Turkey as affected by the contest now proceeding in Montenegro. I
992
agree in the general principles laid down by my noble Friend, that this country ought to be cautious to maintain the independence and integrity of Turkey. Turkey has long formed an important part of the European system. Its independence and integrity have been repeatedly affirmed by treaties, and sanctioned by a convention of the general Powers of Europe, no longer ago than in 1840. I trust that that independence may long be maintained, and I own I could not conceive any greater calamity falling on Europe at the present time than that the necessity should arise of considering what should be done in such a case as of a proposal for the dismemberment of Turkey. I have seen, therefore, with much pain, the speculations that have been recently put forth upon this subject. In my opinion we could not attempt the dismemberment of Turkey by force and aggression without committing a great crime and breach of faith towards Turkey, and a violation of all the ties which bind nations together. I trust there is no Englishman who wishes to be a party to such transactions as those which accompanied the partition of Poland. But if unfortunately Turkey should fall to pieces from her own weakness, a question of very-great importance might arise; and for my own part I own that it appears to me a question of such great gravity that I can hardly expect it to be solved without exciting a war in Europe. I am afraid, looking at the position of the different Powers, that it would be hardly possible to provide for such a case without producing in Europe such a preponderance of one Power as would naturally raise the envy and opposition of all the other European States, and without producing such a state of anarchy in Asia as it is fearful to contemplate. For my own part I think, therefore, that on grounds of right, of international law, of faith towards our ally, and also on grounds of general policy and expediency, the maintenance of the integrity and independence of Turkey should be a great and ruling point in the foreign policy of England. Sir, with respect to the transactions which have lately occurred, I will state to the House, without going into the particulars of these negotiations, the general outline of what has occurred with respect to Montenegro. I will not enter into questions relating to the other Powers; but with regard to the relations between Austria and Turkey I think I can give at least some explanations to the

993
House. The little territory of Montenegro has been, as my noble Friend described it, inhabited by a very hardy race of mountaineers belonging to a Christian Church, but certainly departing from the Christian precepts, for it has been their custom to commit robberies upon and to pillage their neighbours, and to enrich themselves by the most lawless proceedings. However, although acknowledged by the treaty of Carlovicz and several others—the latest being that of Sistow—to be under the sovereignty of Turkey, they have for a long period maintained a de facto independence. For about a century this independence appears to have been acknowledged by Russia. There is this difference between the relations of Austria and those of Russia towards Montenegro—that while Austria has at all times, and up to the present day, acknowledged that Montenegro was subject to Turkey, the Russian Government does not appear to have acknowledged any such claim on the part of the Sultan of Turkey, but, on the contrary, has treated Montenegro as an independent State. For a long time the bishops of Montenegro, who have combined both the civil and the ecclesiastical power, have been accustomed to resort to St. Petersburg, to the Russian patriarch, to obtain investiture, instead of going to the Patriarch of Constantinople, or any other patriarch of the Greek Church equal in authority—indeed, perhaps, as to the Patriarch of Constantinople, superior in authority—to the Russian Patriarch. On the occasion of the last vacancy in the see, by the death of the late bishop, who is generally described as having been a very remarkable man, his nephew went to St. Petersburg, there declared that he did not wish to enter into the ecclesiastical state, and that his friends and follow countrymen in Montenegro were willing to acknowledge him as chief without his holding the episcopal dignity, and proposed that he should therefore rule the people as an independent chief, and that another person should become the Bishop of Montenegro. To this arrangement the Emperor of Russia appears to have lent a willing ear; and, according to the statement of the Russian Government, the Emperor dismissed the young man with many words of civility, advising him at the same time not to attack his neighbours, or to commit any acts of aggression upon them, but to live in peace with Turkey and all the other countries near him. This
994
young prince does not appear to have profited by that advice, for we very soon hear of attacks that were made by the people of Montenegro upon the neighbouring villages and towns in Turkey—of property being destroyed and houses burned to the ground; and evidence was given of the inhabitants having been injured, and in some instances killed, by those who called themselves the subjects of this chief of Montenegro. The Turkish Government, as I think most justifiably, determined to meet this aggression, and to punish those who had been guilty of those attacks upon the subjects of the Sultan; but in doing so it adopted the plan of attempting the complete conquest of Montenegro. It raised a very large force of 50,000 men; it placed a very able chief at the head of it, Omer Pacha, who is supposed to have promised the Sultan that he would utterly subdue what the Sultan considered the rebellious part of his dominions. It appears to the British Government, and likewise to the French Government, that this was an imprudent proceeding on the part of the Porte. In the first place, on a consideration of the state of the financial resources of Turkey, and of its military forces, it was thought that it would be an effort that must be accompanied by a great drain on those resources, and, therefore, was in itself an act not justified by prudence; in the next place, it appears very probable, as my hon. Friend who seconded the Motion (Mr. Monckton Milnes) said, that the destruction and the utter subjugation, and probably the driving away of a great part of the 100,000 inhabitants of Montenegro, would excite great alarm on the part of the Christian population of the neighbouring districts, and that a religious war might thus be excited. A representation and friendly advice to the Sultan, not to attempt this expedition on so large a scale, was made and given under the Government of the Earl of Derby, and was repeated by me when I held the seals of the Foreign Office. I believe that the French Government, which has generally taken the same view as the British Government has taken, gave at the same time similar advice. However, the expedition went on. I will not now enter into the military events that followed, but the next matter of great importance to which the attention of Her Majesty's Government was called was the mission of Prince Leiningen to the Porte. Whatever may be the object of that mission, it was evident from the first commu-

995
nication that was made by the Austrian Government that Prince Leiningen was instructed to place the demands of Austria before the Porte in a very peremptory manner, and while on the one hand it was promised that, if those demands were complied with, the friendly relations which have hitherto existed between the two countries, but which had for some time past been impaired, would be resumed on their former footing, on the other hand it was stated that the most grave consequences might follow from the refusal of those demands. Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary, on the intimation of such demands, to have at once a frank explanation with the Government of the Emperor of Austria. We communicated to the Government of the Emperor of Austria the view we had always taken of the policy of maintaining the independence and integrity of Turkey. We pointed out, without entering into the particular merits of the demands that were made, the danger of anything like a menace to Turkey, and of a collision between the forces of the two Empires. I must say that the explanations we received from Austria showed that, whatever might be the necessity for making those demands at the present time, Austria was animated, according to assurances to which we gave full credit, by the same desire as ourselves of maintaining the independence of Turkey, and expressed the strongest wish to be enabled to restore those amicable relations so very long maintained between them, and of adhering to the policy of preserving the independence of Turkey, which is known to be the policy of that great Empire. The demands made by Austria were of various kinds, to some of which I need hardly refer; but with respect to Montenegro her demand did not depart from the provisions of the previous treaties to which I have referred, nor did it depart, as might have been expected from a Power that has always maintained the greatest respect for the international law of Europe, in principle from the claims that might be justified by that law. It was said that though Montenegro de jure belonged to Turkey, yet for a long period of time the independence of the mountaineers had not been disturbed—that the invasion of a great army could not but raise disturbances on the frontier of Austria—that a great number of persons would take refuge across the frontier, so as to make the maintenance of tranquillity on that frontier extremely difficult, and make it necessary
996
for Austria to keep up a great force in order to maintain the tranquillity of her dominions. She stated likewise the danger of a religious war to which I have alluded, and which it was conceived would cause more danger than anything else. She therefore wished, that while Turkey did not depart from the maintenance of her title—while she should punish those who committed acts of pillage in the Turkish territories—she should look, as the end of the controversy, to the restoration of the quasi independence of Montenegro, and the maintenance of the independent power which Montenegro had hitherto held. With regard to two portions of territory, Kleck and Satorina, an allegation was made on the part of Austria of a complicated nature, and which depends upon complicated evidence. Those portions of territory are intermingled with the territory of Austria, and they are so intermingled because they formerly belonged to the republic of Ragusa, while other portions of territory given to Austria by the treaty of Vienna were formerly portions of the republic of Venice. The Austrian Government has always stated that the position of those intermingled territories by the Turkish Government was very inconvenient to her; and so long ago as in 1832 and 1833 she endeavoured to obtain, by purchase from Turkey, the sovereignty of this small portion of territory. Having failed in the negotiation at that time, and never having been able to accomplish her object since, she claims rights which she says were exercised by the Venetian republic, and enforced by the maintenance of ships of war upon the coast; that while the land is allowed to be the property of Turkey, no encroachments should be made on the coast for the purpose of trade or commerce by Turkey. With regard to this subject, as with regard to other subjects I mention, I am not stating that Austria is well founded in all her allegations; I am only endeavouring to give the House some insight into the nature of her claims, and the reasons which governed the mission of Prince Leiningen to Constantinople. Another complaint which was made by Austria was, that some Hungarian refugees, who had remained in Turkey from the time the war in Hungary ceased, were not only countenanced by Turkey, but allowed to serve in the army of Omar Pacha, and held distinguished posts in that army, and, being close to the frontier of Austria, were necessarily a cause of much annoyance to Aus-

997
tria. With respect to the Hungarian refugees who were permitted to leave Turkey, but had remained there, the Turkish Government had promised to make some explanation why Turkey had acted in a manner that was contrary to an engagement—not a written engagement, but. a verbal engagement—into which she had entered with reference to them. Added to these demands, there are other questions with respect to Austrian subjects who are alleged to have suffered wrongs, and who have not received redress from the Turkish Government, and for whom the Austrian Government now demands reparation or compensation. Such was the general nature of the demands which Prince Leiningin was ordered to lay before the Porte I cannot say—not being called upon to make any allegation either as to the justice or injustice of those demands, in a particular manner—I cannot say that there was any one of them that could be said to affect the independence of the Sultan, and which were not founded at least upon some allegation on which the Austrian Government might fairly rely as a Government not unfriendly to that independence. Sir, I am unable to inform the House as to the exact arrangements that have been entered into. I know that these questions were placed before the Turkish Government, and that for some days there was a great deal of consultation on them; and we have been informed by our Ambassador at the Court of Vienna that the Austrian Government is satisfied; that the mission of Prince Leiningen has been successful, and I trust those differences are now at an end. I trust that, such being the case, the relations between those countries will again be placed on their former intimate and friendly footing. With respect to other questions to which my noble Friend has incidentally alluded, I do not think that any public purpose could be served by my entering at present into them, as there are unfortunately, questions still pending which are of vital importance to the territory of Turkey. Our course throughout those proceedings has been, and our course throughout any future proceedings will be, to give Turkey the advice that is best calculated to maintain her honour and her independence, and at the same time not to expose her to the rude shock of war, for which she might not be at present prepared. No man more than Lord Stratford do Redcliffe—who is already proceeding on his voyage there—will enforce this opinion, that by the good
998
government of the Christian subjects of the Porte, by the enforcement of regular Jaws, by the maintenance of a system similar to that which prevails in civilised European communities, and by adopting and enforcing just principles, she ought to give her Christian subjects no reason to complain that they are not living unde a sovereign of the same faith as themselves. I believe, as stated by my hon. Friend who seconded this Motion, that this much is perfectly practicable; I believe it is quite possible for Turkey—discarding some of those notions that belong to times of conquest, when the Turks first got possession of those very territories—to give to its Christian subjects quite as good a government as they would be likely to obtain from those sovereigns that are the neighbours of the Porte. If she conducts herself in that way, and takes the friendly advice of the Ambassador that is now proceeding to the Porte, I need hardly say that Turkey will always find a faithful ally in Great Britain. We have no object to serve other than a most friendly one—we covet none of her provinces—we wish to share in none of her territories or provinces. It is our interest, as we conceive, in common with all the Powers of Europe, that Turkey should be maintained in its integrity, and that likewise it should be governed in such a manner as not to be visited by those insurrections, by those perpetually recurring weaknesses, and by those dissensions which have often offered the best temptation to the foreign foe to be her aggressor. I trust that the other Powers of Europe will take a similar view to ourselves. Many of the dangers which threatened her very lately, I trust are now passed, and I have the greatest confidence that the dangers which still remain in suspense may, by fair negotiation, and by a reasonable consideration of all the consequences, be brought to a pacific solution, and that the maintenance of the present territorial distribution of Europe be preserved. We have had frequent communications with the French Government during those negotiations, and I am happy to find that, with the exception of one question, which I think it is not necessary to raise at present—a question in winch we do not take an immediate interest, and which has reference to the holy places—we have acted in perfect concurrence with the French Government, and I trust that all our expectations will be accomplished.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he must be allowed to express his satisfaction

999
at the explanation which had been given by the noble Lord; but he should reserve to himself the right of again referring to the subject, should circumstances render such a course necessary.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

JUDGES EXCLUSION BILL.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, that the object which he had in view was so plain and so simple as to require neither argument nor illustration to make it intelligible. The subject was one upon which he had always had a strong opinion, and he only regretted having been prevented, by particular circumstances, from bringing it under the consideration of the House in a previous Session. It might be in the recollection of those who were in Parliament in 1840 that it was decided, in the Session of that year, that the Judge of the Admiralty Court should no longer be capable of sitting or voting in the House of Commons. It was not without reluctance that he (Lord Hotham) made that Motion, the learned Judge himself being at the time one of the Members for the Tower Hamlets. He (Lord Hotham) felt, however, that he had no alternative; for a Bill to regulate the Admiralty Court being under discussion, it seemed to be his bounden duty then, if ever, to take the sense of the House on a matter so materially affecting the position of the Head of the Court to which the Bill in question referred. In like manner, he (Lord Hotham) had been unwilling to take the next obvious step in the same direction while the Master of the Rolls was sitting among them. But as he had no longer a seat in that House, he (Lord Hotham) felt relieved from those feelings of delicacy by which he had hitherto been restrained, and he hoped that he might now, without any appearance of personality, suggest to the House the propriety of acquiescing in such an extension of the existing exclusion of Judicial Officers as should embrace all those who could properly he considered Judges of Superior Courts. He begged, once for all, to repudiate the slightest wish to cast imputation or reflection on any of those learned Judges to whose offices his proposed Bill was intended to refer; and if, in consequence of his having mentioned the Master of the Rolls, anything that might fall from him (Lord Hotham) should be taken as evidence of a contrary feeling, he trusted that hon. Members would do him the justice to bear in mind that he made this voluntary admission, namely,
1000
that although by inheritance as well as by conviction a strong party man, yet as far as his (Lord Hotham's) observation had gone, the Master of the Rolls, during the time he had been a Member of the House, and whether, as a private individual, a law officer of the Crown, or a Judge, had always set an example of moderation and good temper. But the questions which he (Lord Hotham) had to put to the House were, whether every individual, on being appointed to a high judicial station, ought not to be prepared to devote himself entirely to the duties of his office, and to renounce every other pursuit having a tendency either to create an undue pressure on his time, or to disturb that calmness and serenity which ought to be the characteristic of a judicial mind; and, further, whether it was fitting that a high functionary of this description should also he a member, and perhaps an active member, of a political assembly, subject to popular election and its various incidents, and a constant spectator of, if not a participator in, those scenes of angry and acrimonious contention which were, he feared, of increasing rather than diminishing frequency within those walls. He (Lord Hotham) might perhaps be reminded of the brilliant career of a former Master of the Rolls, Sir William Grant, in that House. He (Lord Hotham) had had the advantage of being personally known to that learned and eminent Judge, and although this was not until after his public career had closed, he (Lord Hotham) was perfectly well aware that the character of Sir William Grant in that House was second only to the character he had established for himself in the two Courts over which he so long, and so ably, and to the satisfaction of the whole country, presided. But we now lived in different times. Formerly, the close or nomination boroughs afforded a ready access to that House to those who from age, or infirmity, or from other circumstances, were unable or unwilling to encounter the turmoil of a contested election; now, those avenues were closed, and all were liable to, and many certain of, a contest on every occasion. A general election having so recently occurred, it must be unnecessary to recall to the recollection of hon. Members the humours of the canvass—the nomination—the polling day—the chairing, and the jollification in celebration of the return; but he might, without fear of contradiction, assert that there was much to be done at every contested election which

1001
it was not becoming for a Judge of tin-land to engage in. But, the election over, how was the learned Judge to perform his new duties? Was the business of the House to give way to the business of the Court, or the business of the Court to that of the House? The learned Judge would scarcely have taken his seat before he would be warned by the General Committee of Elections to hold himself in readiness to serve on an Election Committee; and this notice would be immediately followed by a request that he would inform the Committee of Selection when it would suit him to serve on a Committee on a group of private Bills, which might have to sit a week, a fortnight, or a month, as the case might be. How was this to he arranged? Was the court to be closed, or the learned Judge to be permitted to come to the table (like the Ministers of State) and make oath that so long as he holds his present office (an office for life), he could not serve on a Committee?
Again, should the new Member in question be Master of the Bolls, he (Lord Hotham) begged to call the attention of the House to another case which seemed fully to justify the course which he now-ventured to recommend. The contest had been unexpectedly severe, and instead of winning by a large majority, as the promises had led the Master of the Rolls to expect, he had narrowly escaped defeat. So soon as the borough had begun to resume its former tranquillity, the learned Judge's Committee determine to ascertain how it was that the canvass and the poll had presented such opposite results. The borough was a large one, and had within it a rich charity, the proceeds of which were dispensed among the poorer freemen, and needy inhabitants. It soon appeared that the trustees of this charity were very few in number—were active partisans of the opposing candidate, and that their influence had occasioned that whosesale defection among the recipients of the charity funds which had well nigh led to such a serious result. The Committee are immediately informed by the principal law agent, that the only remedy is to he found in an application to the Court of Chancery, and that the local knowlege of the Master of the Rolls would be highly valuable in restoring the balance of power within the borough. And from this results an application to the Master of the Rolls to appoint additional trustees. A highminded honourable man, as it was to be hoped
1002
English Judges always would he, would shrink with horror from the thought of being influenced in the discharge of his duty by private considerations; but with this feeling uppermost in his mind, he would probably decide wrong from the fear of not doing right; or if he decides ever so rightly in favour of his own friends, he is sure to be accused of partiality by his opponents; and if, fearful of falling into cither of those two extremes, he sends the case to another court, there is at once a denial of a right which every suitor possesses—the right to choose his own court. From the possible occurrence of such evils as these, he (Lord Hotham) felt himself entitled, in a constitutional point of view, to call upon the House to guard the public. He was happy to find that a very large majority of the Judges of the land were already excluded from the House of Commons. In England, the Lords' Justices, the three Vice-Chancellors, and the fifteen Judges of Common Law, were excluded. In Scotland, the whole of the Judges were excluded; and in Ireland, the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and all the Common Law Judges, were likewise excluded. He (Lord Hotham) proposed to add to this list the Master of the Rolls; next the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court: then (finding that the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court was only Judge for the province of Canterbury) it became necessary to add the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court of York; then, on the same grounds, the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court of Ireland, and the Judge of the Admiralty Court in England being already excluded, the Judge of the Admiralty Court in Ireland should be placed on a similar footing; and this was the extent to which the proposed Bill was intended to go. He (Lord Hotham) knew not what reception this proposal would meet with at the hands of Her Majesty's Government; but this was no political or party question, and the best proof of this was, that he knew as little what course would have been taken by their predecessors, who were in office when his notice was originally given. There were circumstances, however, which led him to think that if it were to be his misfortune to encounter opposition, it could not be from the Treasury Bench that such opposition would proceed. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) then, as now, representing the Government in that House, had tacitly assented in 1840 to the exclusion of the

1003
Judge of the Admiralty Court; and he (Lord Hotham) had also had the advantage of the active support of the present First Lord of the Admiralty and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Could it be said that a rule that had been held good for the Judge of the Admiralty Court, was not equally good for the Master of the Rolls and the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court? Against the exclusion of the latter certainly nothing could be said by Her Majesty's Ministers, for he was in a condition to show that with the exception of the Chief Commissioner of Works (Sir W. Molesworth) they were all of them committed to the propriety of that exclusion. From 1830 to 1834, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and his friends were in office; and in 1835 and 1836 Ecclesiastical Court Bills were introduced by the Government. Between 1841 and 1846, when his (Lord Hotham's) lamented friend Sir Robert Peel was in office, two similar Bills were brought in by his Government; and in 1845 a similar Bill was brought in by Lord Cottenham, to whom the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) afterwards gave the Great Seal; and every one of these five Bills contained the same clause of exclusion. In alluding, however, to the tacit consent given by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to the exclusion of the Judge of the Admiralty Court, it would be uncandid not to admit that his consent was an unwilling one, and that he said that he yielded more to the evident feeling of the House than to the conviction of his own mind. The noble Lord had said that he thought it an advantage to the constitution of the House that there should be as many men of learning in it as the people chose to send. This sounded exceedingly well as a general proposition; but the noble Lord well knew that if an individual could be found so full of learning as to be chosen by every constituency in the Kingdom to represent them, yet that if he wanted a few months of twenty-one years of age or had taken the first step in holy orders, all his talents would avail him nothing. It was therefore a question of degree—the free choice of the electoral body was and must be to a certain extent limited, and the only point to decide was on which side of the necessary limit the Judges of the land should be placed. The noble Lord had also on another occasion expressed regret at the absence of the Judge of the Admiralty Court, who might have thrown valuable light on a certain question then under dis-
1004
cussion. Now he (Lord Hotham) was ready to admit that perhaps there was no one person now excluded who might not on some particular occasion be able to give valuable information; but let it be remembered that any opinion thus given would be not a judicial but a political opinion, and that until the time came when any Member could be compelled to speak, it would be found that a Judge would never give any opinion at all unless he could conscientiously give it in support of that party with which he was politically connected. But even if any advantage which the presence of learned Judges could confer, were tenfold greater than had ever been contended for, the value of such advantage would be as dust in the balance, compared with the importance of the principle for which he (Lord Hotham) was earnestly, however feebly, contending. That principle was, that nothing was so hateful as a political Judge—that the functions of a politician and a Judge were inconsistent with each other—that when an individual accepted the office of Judge (which was a voluntary act on his part) he should thenceforward be known as a Judge and a Judge only—and that the only way of ensuring this, was to put it out of his power, let him be ever so minded, either to continue or to become a political partisan. Before he concluded, he wished to notice the opinions of two distinguished personages in reference to this subject. It was the recorded opinion of the late Sir Samuel Romilly, that a Member of Parliament was sure to be all the worse Member for being a Judge, and a Judge all the worse Judge for being a Member of Parliament: the other was the opinion of the late Master of the Rolls, who, when Mr. Bickersteth, was offered, by Lord Melbourne, the situation of Master of the Rolls, coupled with an intimation that he would be expected to give the Government his aid in one or other House of Parliament. Mr. Bickersteth said—
"I think it quite clear that the Master of the Rolls ought not to be a Member of the House of Commons. If active, he would act inconsistent with his judicial character; if inactive, he must neglect the interests of his constituents and of those who promoted him; but whether active or inactive, he might have to adjudicate upon affairs between his constituents and others. There is loss objection, upon public grounds, to the House of Lords. There is less to do, and less squabble and heat; but still, a Judge's office is enough to occupy the whole of any man's time."
It was with these feelings, and on these grounds, that he asked the consent of the

1005
House to the Motion he was about to make. It was, as he had before observed, a Motion having nothing whatever to do with party or with politics—a Motion which he made on public grounds, and on public grounds alone—a Motion which he made on his own responsibility, but in the firm persuasion that the public interest would be benefited, and under the enduring conviction that the dignity and usefulness of those learned personages who now adorn the judicial bench, would be best consulted by its adoption. He moved, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to disqualify certain persons holding judicial offices, sitting or voting in the House of Commons.
MR. HUMEseconded the Motion.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he should not oppose the noble Lord's Motion for bringing in the Bill, but would take the opportunity of expressing his opinion on the second reading.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Hotham and Mr. Hume.
Bill read 1°.

IMPORT DUTIES.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had given notice of a series of Resolutions on the subject of the Custom-house duties on various foreign manufactured articles, and also of foreign agricultural produce. Those who had attended to the progress of the free-trade principle must recollect what took place in 1840, when, in Committee of the House, he had an opportunity of bringing forward a mass of evidence, showing the manifest advantages to be derived from the removal of those monopolies which were then existing in the manufacture of many articles, by the abolition of the restrictions on the importation of similar articles from foreign countries. The result of his Motion on that occasion was the appointment of a Committee, and he considered it to have been as fair a Committee as could have been selected. The principle which had guided him on all occasions, when treating of the import duties, was to put an end to monopoly. He was as much opposed to commercial monopoly as he was to political monopoly. They were both founded on injustice, and were both equally mischievous to the general interest. It had been clearly proved, that when the duty on imports exceeded a certain amount, so far from the revenue deriving any advantage, the effect was to diminish importation, and thereby
1006
lessen the advantages previously enjoyed by the consumer, without conferring any benefit on the importer. The truth of this had been demonstrated by the fact that whenever there had been a deficiency in the revenue, the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being had been obliged to resort to an increase of the assessed taxes, and to the imposition of an additional 5 per cent on the income tax. The result of all this was, that the vast majority of the nation had come to a conclusion in favour of what some called free-trade, but which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli) had termed unrestricted competition. The Motion of which he had given notice consisted of three paragraphs. The first two were a sort of preamble, setting forth facts which would enable the House to judge on what grounds the concluding paragraph, which embodied the substance of the Resolution he had to submit to the House, was founded. By the first paragraph it appeared that there were 233 entries in the Custom-house tariff list of foreign manufactured articles charged in the year 1851 with duties of import varying in amount from 1 to 50 per cent on the value of such articles, and which articles might be classed under the following five heads:—

No.

Import duty.

1.

Each article producing under 100 l. of duty

129

articles producing the aggregate sum of

£2,349

2.

Under £500 of duty

37

articles producing the aggregate sum of

9,366

3.

Under 1,000 of duty

17

articles producing the aggregate sum of

11,351

4.

Under 5,000 of duty

30

articles producing the aggregate sum of

67,629

5.

Under 100,000 of duty

20

articles producing the aggregate sum of

343,459

No. 233

and duty

£434,154

Thus it appeared that the whole 233 articles only yielded a revenue of 434,154 l. Many leading men had asked him why he confined his views to the repeal of these small duties; why he did not at once propose taking off the whole of the duty on sugar, for instance? Now, he should be very glad to take off the import duties altogether; and the time would come, no doubt, when it would be the duty of many in that House to support such a proposition. But, at the present moment, all he asked was to carry out the principle of free trade in those manufactured articles by removing the remaining protective duties. They had done away with protection to the produce of land without injury to any class, but with great advantage to the country at largo. He had a return—not to speak of corn—of the number of cattle, sheep, and

1007
swine which had been imported, and which it was said it would be utterly impossible to admit free of duty without ruin to the country. But what were the prices of all those articles at the present time? They were much higher than they were before the introduction of free trade. Having stated the number of foreign manufactured articles still retained in the Custom-house tariff list, and shown the paltry amount of revenue which they yielded, he would now point out to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of articles under the head of foreign agricultural produce. They amounted to 62, and produced in the aggregate, as import duty, 916,435 l., as the following list would show:—

No.

Import duty.

1.

Each article producing under 100 1. of duty

25

articles producing the aggregate sum of

£382

2.

Under £500 of duty

8

articles producing the aggregate sum of

1,729

3.

Under 1,000 of duty

4

articles producing the aggregate sum of

2,911

4.

Under 5,000 of duty

11

articles producing the aggregate sum of

30,140

5.

Under 100,000 of duty

12

articles producing the aggregate sum of

533,733

6.

Under 500,000 of duty

2

articles producing the aggregate sum of

347,540

No. 62

and duty

£916,435

It was most unjust to the country at large, and to the agricultural interest especially, after having repealed the duty on the main articles of foreign agricultural produce, that Parliament should not carry out the principle of free trade in respect to all foreign manufactured articles. They were promised it at the time the principle of free trade was adopted, and it ought to be granted. By a Return to Parliament he found that the quantity of foreign cotton manufactures imported for home consumption in the year ending January, 1851, amounted in value to 20,798 l., producing a revenue of 2,079 l. It had been thrown in the teeth of the Manchester men as a reproach that they retained this duty on foreign cotton manufactures. The reproach was by no means deserved; but at the same time it was most unfair to retain this duty, when it appeared that our home cotton manufactured goods exported in 1850 amounted to not less than 769,250,000 yards, at a declared value of 9,817,197 l.; they also exported 590,500,000 yards of cotton yarn, at a declared value of 10,703,238 l. The total amount of our cotton exports for the year 1850 was 28,257,401 l. The only other article he would refer to now was glass. The Excise duty on glass had been repealed; window
1008
glass paid a duty of 3s. 6d. per cwt, which was in some instances as high as 50 per cent on its value. Now, what was the price of glass in Belgium, for example? The House would scarcely believe him when he stated that 100 square feet would cost on the average, abroad, 13 s.; the duty of 1 cwt.—the net of 100 feet—was 3s. 6d.; the duty, therefore, was about 27 per cent. But where foreign glass exceeded 1-9th of an inch in thickness—an article most valuable for horticulturists and building purposes—it was excluded from home consumption by the duties, as shown thus—100 square feet cost abroad 16 s. 6d.; the duty, at 3d. a foot, was equal to 25 s., or about 150 per cent ad valorem. The House would see from this instance how important it was that they should have unrestricted free trade in glass, as in every other article. Next came the leather duty, which only amounted to 9l. 14 s., and which by increasing the price affected very materially the comforts of the people. It was levied on boots and shoes, boot fronts, goloshes, and such articles, as well as on leather, and could not operate in any way except in preventing the introduction of articles of necessity, and keeping up prices by preventing competition. Then there were the duties on linen, which produced 4,670 l. a year. How perfectly absurd such a duty was, when it was considered that this country exported 122,000,000 yards of linen every year! In the case of silk, we exported upwards of 1,250,000 yards, but still retained the duty upon imported silk goods. The silk trade suffered most injuriously from the prohibitions under which it laboured, and the progress of this branch of our manufacture was greatly checked by the operation of this system. Upon articles of woollen manufacture a revenue was derived of 13,520 l., while the value of our exports of the latter was about 13,000,000 l. sterling. There were on the whole 233 articles, paying annual duty to the extent of 434,154 l. Sweep away all these duties and they would soon see that the revenue would not lose, while the comforts of the people would be greatly increased. As to the articles of agricultural produce, which formed the next part of the Resolutions, he could not understand on what principle or on what grounds they were maintained after the results which had followed the admission of foreign sheep and oxen. It was found that prices had not fallen, notwithstanding the fears expressed before the change was made. The

1009
duty at present derived from butter was 158,000 l., and from cheese 85,500 l. The number of eggs imported was not less than 105,780,000, and the duty received did not amount to more than 38,000 l. Seeds of various kinds were admitted at duties ranging from 2s. 6d. to 5s. per bushel, and he could not but think that in many instances the abolition of this duty would be a great relief to the agricultural interest, and especially so in the case of laying down land in grass. The duty derived from tallow was 78,270 l., and there could be no doubt that the abolition of the duty upon that article, tending as it would to reduce the price of soap and candles, would add greatly to the comforts of the community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, judging from what had occurred in past years, when similar reductions were made on other articles, need not be afraid of striking off these duties, for the increase of revenue would exceed the amount of diminution. From 1821 to 1850, the duty on sugar was decreased from 27 s. to 11 s. per cwt.; the quantity consumed increased from 3,530,362 cwt. in the first to 6,229,094 cwt. in the last-named year; while the difference to the revenue was only the difference between 4,077,706 l. and 3,900,663 l.—or 177,043 l. The duty on coffee was reduced from 1s. 6d. per pound in 1801 to 4d. per pound in 1849; the quantity consumed increased from 750,861 lb. to no less than 34,399,374 lb., while the duty increased from 56,315 l. to 566,822 l. The duty on brandy in 1821 was 22 s. 7½d. per gallon; in 1849 it was reduced to 15s.; the quantity consumed rose from 1,013,400 gallons, to 2,187,801 gallons; and the duty from 1,031,217 l. to 1,640,488 l. The paper duty in 1821 was 3d. per pound; in 1849 it was only 1½d., and the quantity used rose from 48,204,927 lb in the first to 132,133,657 lb. in the latter year, He came now to the Excise duty on soap. In 1821 this was 3d. per lb., and the quantity consumed was, in round numbers, 93,000,000 lb., producing a revenue of 1,023,530 l. After great efforts, they had succeeded in obtaining a reduction of one-half the duty, and the 93,000,000 lb. consumed in 1821 became 197,632,280 lb. in 1849. It was true the revenue only gained to the amount of 3,000 l., the increase being from 1,023,530 l. to 1,026.080 l.; but what had been the comfort to the consumer in this reduction of duty upon that which was one of the necessaries of life? The Resolu-
1010
tions of which he had given notice were declaratory ones. The first was:—
"That whilst the agricultural produce of wheat, barley, oats, and other grain, and oxen, sheep, goats, and other animals are admitted, duty free, to compete with similar productions of the United Kingdom, it is both impolitic and unjust to the country, and to the agricultural interests especially, to continue duties of import on articles of foreign manufacture of the same kind and class with those manufactured in the United Kingdom, as by these protective duties on imports the fair competition of foreign manufactured articles with the articles of British manufacture is prevented."
The second Resolution was, however, the only one which he would submit to the House. It was to the effect—That this Mouse will, at an early period, take into its consideration the duties that are strictly protective in the existing tariff on articles of import. If we were to have free trade, let it be carried out in its entirety. He had been a humble instrument in forcing free trade upon the attention of the House, and he thought the agricultural interest had been badly treated by the non-removal of the duties upon every manufactured article. The removal of the protective duties upon manufactured articles ought to have taken place simultaneously with the repeal of the duties upon corn. It was not his fault that they had not been repealed; he had urged it strongly upon the Government; and he believed that if Sir Robert Peel had been allowed to remain in office, and had been supported as he ought to have been, the repeal of these duties would have been effected long since. By the proposal which he now submitted to the House, protective taxation to the amount of 1,340,000 l. would be abolished. The effect of this would be like sowing seed for the purpose of obtaining a rich and abundant harvest, and an increased quantity of manufactures, which would add greatly to the wealth and prosperity of the country, and at the same time benefit largely the agricultural interest. He had never yet been able to convince the agricultural interest that its members were really manufacturers. Farmers were manufacturers of corn. The machinery by which they produced the article was different in form, it was true, from that employed by other producers; but they were not the less manufacturers on that account. It was, therefore, the interest of that as of other manufacturers to have food and labour as cheap as possible, in order to enable them to compete successfully with the other countries of Europe. England was the largest market

1011
in the world, and upon examination it would be found that in regard to cheapness, and in every other point of view, it was superior to that of any in Europe. With respect to the time for agreeing to his propositions, he might be told that the Government was about to bring forward a new Budget, and that it would be wrong for the House to come to any Resolution on the subject. He maintained, on the contrary, that whatever system of finance might be brought in, justice should be done to the agricultural interest, and free trade should be carried out fully and completely. What he wanted to obtain was an assurance that the House and the Government would not allow the agricultural interest to be unfairly or unequally taxed, and by removing those protective duties to which he had referred, they would, while fairly carrying out the principle of unrestricted competition, place the agricultural interest upon an equal footing with other classes of the country.
MR. MITCHELL, in seconding the Motion, said, the duties mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, were no other than protective duties, and so was another tax which had not been alluded to by his hon. Friend—the duty on wood. Such a tax as that now levied on corn, which only amounted to 1s. per quarter, did not require immediate attention; but there were other articles, the duties upon which pressed more severely, and one of the chief of these was the import duty upon tallow, upon which 8 or 9 per cent was levied upon the raw material, and which was then taxed on its manufacture into soap, thus paying a double duty to the revenue. Butter, cheese, and eggs, were articles which entered largely into the consumption of the lower classes, and the repeal of the duties upon those articles would conduce highly to the comforts and well-being of the people. With regard to one particular class of duties embodied in the Resolution of his hon. Friend, he concurred with him in thinking that the very first which this House ought to repeal were those upon manufactured articles imported into this country. It was a gross act of injustice to the agriculturalists to continue to impose duties, amounting to 434,000 l., upon the import of foreign manufactured articles; but there was one particular class to which he would call especial attention—namely, the ad valorem duties, which amounted in 1850 to 188,000 l., and which fell almost exclusively under the head of the
1012
434,000 l. levied upon manufactured articles. He had presided last year over a Committee which had recommended in the strongest terms the abolition of these duties. That Committee included among its Members the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and several other high ex-officials, and it was their unanimous opinion that the ad valorem duties ought to be at once and entirely abolished. From an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to a question put to him by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Horsfall), on the subject of Customs reforms, he had inferred that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no intention to carry out the reforms recommended by that Committee, and he should be very happy to have his mind disabused as respected that impression. Reverting to these ad valorem duties, he would repeat that they were open to every species of objection. The Committee had before them Sir Alexander Spearman, Sir Thomas Fremantle, and others, all of whom stated that the trouble and annoyance given by their existence was such, that they doubted whether the expense of the Custom-house staff thus rendered necessary was not equivalent to the cost of the duties themselves. These duties placed a very great temptation in the way of the inferior officers of the Customs; for, if they did not conceive the valuation made by the importers was sufficient, they might take the articles at the valuation put upon them, and the Customhouse officers got half the amount which those articles produced above their valuation; while, if they fetched less, the Custom House bore the loss. The system, therefore, afforded a direct premium to the officers to seize the goods, for in no case could they lose, and in many instances they obtained a very handsome profit. Another result of the system was, that the uncertainty entailed by it had taken the trade out of the hands of the respectable merchants and had put it into those of the lowest class of traders, who were the only persons capable of dealing with these Custom-house officers, and of wrangling and disputing with them. He did not wish to bind the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer down to any particular time of introducing the changes to which he had alluded, but he certainly thought they should be made in the course of the present Session.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That this House will, at an early period, take

1013
into its consideration the Duties that are strictly protective in the existing Tariff on articles of Import into this Country, both of manufactures and agricultural produce, with the view of speedily repealing the same, as affecting unfairly every interest in the Country."
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, old birds were not to be caught with chaff. He had listened to the hon. Member for Montrose, but he was too old a soldier to trust an enemy in his camp—one too much given to setting spring guns and steel traps for the unfortunate fanners. The hon. Member for Montrose had said He was a freetrader. Now, he (Colonel Sibthorp) told that hon. Gentleman distinctly that he (Colonel Sibthorp) was no free-trader, He was against free trade. The hon. Member for Montrose now, for the first time since be (Colonel Sibthorp) had the honour of sitting in that House, talked about the injury which the Legislature had done to the farmers. Now, really that was too barefaced. When you had almost killed a man—when you had cut him up—it was too late to call in such a physician as the hon. Member for Montrose—who had come down to the House with a black draught which he (Colonel Sibthorp) was too wise to attempt to swallow. That draught was nothing more nor less than poison—and a most deadly poison too. Those import duties against which the hon. Member for Montrose had spoken, he (Colonel Sibthorp) firmly believed had been beneficial even to that class whose interest he had at heart. at least as much as had the hon. Member himself—he meant the labouring poor. He had always stood up in that House against the foreigner, and in favour of our own people, with respect to import duties. As long as duties were levied on the importation of foreign goods, this great country would be as it ought to be—not the slave of the foreigner. The hon. Member had no doubt, when at school, read of the fable of the sheep and the wolf. His (Mr. Hume's) proposition reminded him (Colonel Sibthorp) of that story. The hon. Member seemed to be desirous of acting the part of the wolf; but he would take good care not to be the lamb. We had a new Government, although he (Colonel Sibthorp) was not very partial to it, and we had also a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, of rather a free-trade cast; yet he believed the right hon. Gentleman's know ledge, judgment, and experience would prevent him from lulling into this snare. At all counts he (Colonel Sibthorp) would
1014
not be the unwary fish to swallow the bait that was held out. The right hon. Gentleman must pardon him, for although he might trust him with his purse, he could not trust him with his vote.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I feel greatly indebted to the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, for, if not the favourable, yet the not very unfavourable anticipations which he has formed respecting me. And I feel the more indebted to him because I remember that many years back he exercised his humour upon me with reference to the subject of free trade in a manner that was highly amusing. It was the year 1843, in which it was my lot as President of the Board of Trade to introduce a Bill to legalise the export of machinery, and with the most perfect good feeling I quote the reception which he gave to that Motion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that—
"The President of the Board of Trade—and I call him the President of the Board of Free Trade—has brought in a Bill to legalise the exportation of machinery. I object to any Bill to legalise the exportation of machinery, but I do not at all object to any Bill for the exportation of the President of the Board of Trade and his Colleagues."
I mention this for no other purpose than that of illustrating the consistency with which the hon. and gallant Member has adhered to his own views; to which I most frankly append an expression that I am myself still of the same opinion as I was then, and that upon the subject of free trade, I cannot recant the sentiments which then made me the subject of his wit. Before noticing the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), I will notice the observation of the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell). That hon. Gentleman has referred to the answer that I made to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Horsfall), and which appears to have been misunderstood; and that misapprehension I wish at once to remove. It appears to have been supposed that I gave it to be understood that, with reference to reform in the management of the Customs Board generally, no Bill would be introduced to Parliament by the Government during the present Session. Now, I did not understand the question of the hon. Member for Derby to have any such extended scope. I believe that question referred, not to the subject of Customs reform in general, but to the subject of the constitution of the Board of Customs; and perhaps the hon. Member

1015
for Bridport may recollect that I went on, after answering that question, to detail what had been done by the Government with respect to the constitution of the Board of Customs. With respect to the constitution of the Board of Customs, I stated that I was not in a condition to say whether the decision of the Government with regard to it would entail the bringing in of a Bill by the Government or not; but with regard to the general question of reform in the Board of Customs, that when a decision was come to upon it, a Treasury Minute would be prepared and laid upon the table on the subject; but whether this further question would or would not entail another Bill, no inquiry was made of me, and consequently I returned no answer. Now, with regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, the hon. Gentleman certainly wishes to offer me something like fair terms, for he says that if I will accept his principles he does not desire to press the adoption of his Motion on the House. With respect to the adoption of this Motion, I must confess I decidedly object to it, and I trust the House will not adopt it either. The Motion itself I should object to upon the' ground which it is often the duty, and the irksme duty, of those who occupy my position to state, namely, that this House ought not to part with the standing revenue of the country until it knows and has determined what the expenditure is to be. That is not only a matter of technical arrangement, but a sound constitutional duty. The first duty of this House is to vote the funds necessary for the public service, and having done that, it is to proceed to consider in what manner the funds for these purposes shall be applied. But the hon. Gentleman says he anticipates the objection to his Motion on the ground that we cannot afford the loss here entailed—a loss amounting to no less than 1,350,589 l. He says that it will not all be lost, but will react upon the other branches of the revenue and improve it—that it will entail only the loss of a part, and that that part we can very well afford to lose. Now, I ask the hon. Gentleman how he knows that we can very well afford it? He cannot possibly have put together yet the amount of the public Estimates for the year; and I am afraid that when he puts them together he will find that the Exchequer cannot very well afford this loss. I mean to put it to the House that the subject-matter of this Motion must be left to be considered in connexion with the
1016
general financial arrangements of the year. It will be for the House to consider, when it has the financial arrangements of the year before it, the whole of the sums that will be required to meet the demands of the public expenditure; and then, if there he a surplus applicable for the remission of taxation, it will be for the House to determine the manner in which to apply it; and on the other hand, if there be no surplus, it will be for the House to consider whether or not it will reduce certain taxes and supply their place by others. But surely the hon. Gentleman will see that it would he most objectionable, apart from any question of the balance between the expenditure and revenue of the country, if we were to amuse ourselves by condemning large portions of the public income. In fact, I have a greater objection to this Resolution as it stands than I should have if it required us to deal with these duties at once. I hope that the House is not about to adopt the practice of living upon trust and credit with the people. Let not the people be left to judge of us in the matter of our legislation by what we promise, but by what we do. The hon. Gentleman asks us to pledge ourselves—
"That this House will, at an early period, take into its consideration the duties that are strictly protective in the existing tariff on articles of import into this country, both of manufactures and agricultural produce, with the view of speedily repealing the same, as affecting unfairly every interest in the country."
Now, I am not finding fault, in the slightest degree, with the hon. Gentleman's asking, if he thinks it necessary, for an explanation of the opinion of the Government upon this subject. All I hope is, with his great experience of public business, that he is not going to propose—and whether he is about to propose or not, I hope that the House is not going to adopt—the practice of making promises of what it will do, and of what by-and-bye it will proceed to do, instead of resting its character before the country upon its acts and performances, and instead of availing itself of every opportunity which the state of the public finances afford to earn the confidence and approbation of the public by its acts and deeds. But, having dealt with the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, which, I believe—indeed he says—is not his sole object, I have no further ground of quarrel with his proposition. So far as regards his speech, and so far as regards the facts that he has adduced, and the

1017
arguments that he has urged to the House, I have really the greatest difficulty in finding anything in which I have the slightest difference with the hon. Gentleman. He has been arguing for the removal of protective duties, and contending that the reduction of them has exercised, as has been proved by happy experience, a most powerful influence in promoting self-reproduction and in restoring the revenue by the energy which it imparts to trade, and by the increased comforts of the people. I certainly am not here to dispute that, and I should almost have ventured to express a hope that now we have reached the time of day when these propositions are not necessary any longer to be sustained by detailed argument in this House, but when they might be presumed almost to take their place among the elementary truths upon which our whole financial and commercial system should be based. But there is another matter upon which, perhaps, the mind of the House is not equally made up, and that is, the question as to what is to be done with regard to minor duties. The hon. Gentleman has called the attention of the House, by the very proper and simple method of classification that he has adopted, to the fact that there is still a very large number of small and unproductive duties in existence. That is a very different question from the duties which produce a considerable amount of revenue. From his statement, there are no less than 213 articles, under the denomination of foreign manufactured articles, charged with import duties, the whole sum produced by which is not quite 91,000 l; and in addition to this there are 48 more articles belonging to the class of agricultural productions which yield no more than 35,000 l., so that in fact you have here duties upon 261 articles, yielding you but 125,000 l. or less than the sum of 500 l. upon each article. Now it is certainly a material question for the House to consider whether it be worth while to maintain the system of import duties upon articles so unproductive as these. There are, I know, many different opinions on this subject. Many persons think it is desirable to have light and small duties upon such articles, hut I confess that I am not among them, I think it is of very great advantage to get rid of nominal duties of all kinds, except in cases where they are levied on bulky articles that are largely consumed, and which bring in a considerable sum to the revenue, such as the case of the small duty
1018
now retained on corn, which cannot be dealt with in the same category as other minor duties. Where you speak of small and unproductive duties, I have a strong opinion that it is greatly for the benefit of trade, and a most economical measure of public administration, to get rid of and wipe away altogether such duties. And I say, both for myself and for those with whom I have the honour of acting, that this is no new opinion on our part; for in the year 1845, if my hon. Friend will refer to the 8 & 9 Vict., chap. 12, he will find that a list of articles was given with regard to which a great change was effected, and by that Act a great many articles in the tariff were exempted from duty. Well, whether it be as to minor duties, or as to protective duties, it is quite unnecessary for me to occupy the time of the House in canvassing or criticising in any manner, either the language of the Resolutions of my hon. Friend, or the arguments of his speech, because I entirely concur, I believe without an exception, in the spirit which breathed through them. With respect to some descriptions of articles, I am very glad that he has called the attention of the House to them, because it is not positive fraud or falsehood on the part of the manufacturers that we have to guard against, but there are exaggerated alarms and apprehensions which have the effect of inducing them to imagine themselves, and then to seek to persuade the Government, that when the duties which they regard as a protection are about to be reduced or withdrawn, they are going to be exposed to a crushing competition, which turns out, almost without exception, to have been visionary. Having shown, I hope, that it would be highly inconvenient for the House to adopt a Resolution of this character as being in the nature of a promise to carry a Motion into effect at some future period, with regard to the end which my hon. Friend has in view in raising this debate, I think that the shorter and simpler my adoption of his arguments is, the better. I have no exception to it—no qualification—I regard the removal of protective duties on manufactures the hon. Gentleman does, as an act of justice to agriculture. I regard the removal of duties on the articles of food, which are still liable to such duties (such as butter, cheese, and eggs,) as a matter of considerable importance to the comforts of the people. They must he considered whenever an opportunity may arise, with on the

1019
one side every anxiety to give complete effect to free trade, only balanced on the other side by a due regard to the imperative necessity of making an adequate provision for the public service, and by an earnest anxiety to choose, among the many competing claims for the remission of taxes, those, the operation of which is most burdensome to trade and labour, and the remission of which will be attended with the greatest benefits and advantages. Sir, these are the principles upon which the Government at the proper time will approach the consideration of any commercial legislation, or of any financial question, or any matter affecting either our Customs or Excise duties. I concur with the hon. Member for Bridport in thinking that the system of ad valorem import duties as such is highly objectionable. Undoubtedly there may be cases where public policy will not allow of it, and therefore I do not mean to lay down any universal or sweeping provision; but I accede to the doctrine that the system of ad valorem import duties on manufactured articles is highly inconvenient, that it greatly tends to the demoralisation of the operations of trade, and happily the amount realised from those duties is so little significant that any Government which may hereafter be in a position to approach the subject of their repeal, either as a whole or in part, will find the path to such a repeal far from difficult.
Mr. E. BALLsaid, that, having always taken an active part in the subject of protection, he was now anxious to address a few words to the House. He had been one of the most active opponents of the system of free trade, and was so still, believing that it had produced much injury; and if he had the power to reverse, amend, or change that system, he would do so. But as it was not in his power to do so, and the position of the question was not such that the advocates of protection could come and ask for a revocation of free trade; it was better to try what could best be done with what he considered to be a very bad measure. After 268 Gentlemen had gone into the lobby of that House affirming the prosperity which free trade had brought to the country, and he (Mr. Ball) had gone out with only 53, he thought the time had not arrived successfully to attempt to reverse the system. Such being the case, it had occurred to him that the next best thing to do on behalf of that important class of the community which had sent him to Par-
1020
liament was to consider earnestly how beet the evil might be checked, and as much good extracted out of free trade as possible; and the only method which had occurred to him was to direct against the Free-traders that artillery they had levelled at the Protectionists, and to call upon them to adopt those principles which they had forced upon others, and so endeavour if they could to prevent further serious injury falling upon them, and alleviate the pressure under which they now laboured. In this view of the case, then, he could not oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. Nay, he felt bound to give what little support he could to the Resolution. He would even say more—namely, that if the hon. Gentleman was consistent and honest—and he had no reason to think but that he was—he (Mr. Ball) trusted that he would not shrink from the course he was now adopting, but fairly and manfully carry his proposition to a division; and if he (Mr. Ball) followed the hon. Member into the lobby alone, he was prepared to declare that the only mode of doing justice to the agriculturists was by carrying out the principle of free trade in its fulness to every other interest in the country. He regretted to differ from the hon and gallant Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp), with whom, until this evening, he thought there had been a harmony of views. He had thought that if we were to have free trade, they all wished it should be universal, and he regretted that the hon. and gallant Colonel was not of that opinion. The hon. and gallant Colonel had observed that the hon. Member for Montrose, by this Motion, was getting "spring-guns." Now, the spring-guns had long been set, and had cruelly wounded the farmer; and those who were the farmers' friends would see how those wounds could best be healed—how their sufferings could be mitigated. Free trade, he repeated, had had a very cruel influence on the farmers, and had wounded the tenantry of this country in a multitude of instances, producing calamities which could never be repaired, and inflicting injuries which ought never to have been dealt out. For free trade ought not to have been commenced upon those least able to bear it, which he contended was the case of the farmers, but upon the manufacturers. He was told that in taking the course he had marked out for himself, with regard to this Motion, he should be opposed by some of his old friends, because a great many of the items referred to by the hon. Member

1021
for Montrose were articles of agricultural produce, and because the amount of taxation gathered as import duty on agricultural production exceeded the amount calculated to he received upon manufacturing commodities. "Why," said those friends, "go and strike off such taxation?" Now, what he contended was, that the amount of protection on manufacturing commodities was so large, that it prevented the farmer from getting those goods cheaply—whereas, the duty on the productions of agriculture were so insignificant, were so completely inoperative as protection, that those productions came into this country in spite of the duty. For instance, there was wheat, barley, oats, beans, and maize at 1½d. a bushel, and it was perfectly ridiculous to suppose that such a duty would check importation. It could be practically proved to be absurd. He was prepared to support the hon. Member for Montrose, therefore, on the ground that as the farmers of England had been compelled to compete with the farmers of other countries, the former should be allowed to procure their commodities at as cheap a rate as the latter. So to cheapen commodities and diminish prices would only be following out the doctrine which the hon. Member and his neighbours around him were in the habit of preaching. The hon. Member for Montrose had spoken, for instance, of the importance of reducing the duty on leather as a means of cheapening shoes. Might not the advantage of cheap leather be felt by the agriculturists when they paid their bills fur harness, and for the other implements of their occupation in which leather was used? In urging these considerations, he (Mr. Ball) took the only course which he believed to be open to him. He was driven to make the best of the position in which he found himself placed by the carrying of free-trade measures in that House. On behalf of protection he had used his talent (of which he might have but little), he had used his time (which had been at the service of the cause), and he had used something of his property. He had used all these for the purpose of preventing and staying the evil of free trade, believing that it had brought great calamity upon our villages and our farmers. But as he knew it was not practicable to recede—as he could not alter the decision of the House of Commons, it was for him to consider how, under all circumstances, he could best act for the welfare of that portion of the community which had done him the honour to send him to Parliament. There
1022
were two ways, as it appeared to him, of attaining this end. One was, by cheapening everything. And there was no way by which they could so well cheapen things as by taking duties off things which came to this country from abroad. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated a boon and a benefit to the agriculturists, for the right hon. Gentleman knew that they had sustained great injury, and he believed that he could not do them greater service than by taking off a portion of the malt duty. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to take off half of the malt duty; and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would prove a better one if he did that wholly and entirely which his predecessor had only proposed to do in part. If the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would come forward and say that hitherto parties had compelled him to oppose the remission, but that now he was free to act, and that he was prepared to repeal the whole duty, he would be a better Chancellor of the Exchequer than the last. These were the only two ways by which the agriculturists could be relieved. They must carry out the system of free trade to its full extent. When the manufacturers had free trade, he honestly believed they would be sick of it. He could imagine their saying, when they had got free trade, "Let us forget the past. Let us have an ad valorem duty on every thing." He could imagine their crying out, "Abolish direct taxation; let us have indirect taxation." Approving of the first portion of the Resolution rather than the second, he would conclude by saying, that when the manufacturers found the system of free trade applied to themselves, they would not like it much better than the suffering interests connected with agriculture did.
MR. W. BROWNsaid he wished to inquire of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was intended to bring forward any Bill in reference to the Customs regulations, so that the trade might not be dependent, as they were now, on Treasury Orders? He would suggest to the Government the great importance and utility of consolidating the Customs Acts, and embodying the regulations of our commercial code in a distinct and well-condensed form. A comprehensive Act, defining and stating its provisions, would confer the utmost benefit on those engaged in carrying on the trade of the country. With regard to the observations the right hon. Gentleman had offered on the question now before the

1023
House, he begged to say that he generally approved of them.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he regretted that he could not agree in the course proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball), with whom he had long been associated in the defence of native industry; he retained the opinions he had held throughout the struggle on behalf of protection. He felt this to be the more incumbent on him, as he represented a constituency among whom were a large body of manufacturers, who were still protected. Knowing well the sentiments of his constituents, he could not reconcile it to his conscience to betray his duty to them. For years he had denounced the system of free imports—a denunciation in which he had been fortified by the example of the Americans. He had described the application of what was called the system of free-trade to the commerce of this country as an exaggeration, and he believed the country would soon so understand it. It would ill become him, therefore, to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal, for instance, the duties on the importation of silks. He did not think the House was in a position to understand the real meaning of this proposed reduction of duty. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had brought forward, under six heads of the return upon which this Motion was founded, certain articles of foreign manufacture and certain articles of agricultural produce, imported into this country. The amount of duty levied on articles of foreign manufacture appeared to be 434,000 l. The hon. Member for Montrose had enumerated several trifling articles on which a very small amount of duty was collected. He had said very little about the duty on silk manufactures; but it was at the duties on the importation of silk manufactures that this Motion was aimed. There was a sum of 200,000 l. duty on silk manufactures, out of the sum of 434,000 l., very nearly half the amount. Now he (Mr. Newdegate) knew that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce memorialised the late Chancellor of the Exchequer for the repeal of that duty, in which course they were not supported by the rest of the silk trade in this country. When Sir Robert Peel introduced his financial reforms to the notice of the House of Commons, he went fully into this question of the silk duty. Debating the question with all the information at his command, which he had procured from the Custom House, and the
1024
inquiry into the Custom-house frauds, after having originally proposed duties at 10 per cent, Sir Robert Peel raised the scale of duties on silk, and left a protection on silk of 15 per cent. He therefore cited the authority of Sir Robert Peel that these duties should be retained. The French placed from 4s. 6d. to 12 l. a cwt. export duty on dyed silk; and if we deprived our manufacturers of their protection, we should expose them to the competition of France as respected the raw material, upon which France placed a further duty of 12 s. 6d. a cwt. He put himself in communication with the trade of Macclesfield and Spital-fields when the memorial was presented to his right hon. Friend, and they all declined to yield the point so long as they were exposed to unfair competition with France. He could explain how it was that the Manchester manufacturers sought to repeal the duties, while the rest of the trade wished to retain them. It should be known, then, that there was a low class of silk manufactured in Manchester, of dark colours; Manchester, somewhat like America, a little remarkable for sharp practice, asked for a repeal of the duty on silk—a requisition, which Macclesfield, Spitalfields, and Coventry, could not understand, as they believed that such a repeal would prove injurious. So he inquired a little into the subject, and found a singular fact in connexion with these Manchester manufactures. He had, perhaps, better read to the House a statement he had received upon the subject. It was as follows:—
"You will perceive that silk is brought up when dyed some time 40 oz. to the pound weight. Now, this is generally three-thread tram or weft, and when put into a hot liquid the threads open; and by thickening the liquor by shumac and other adulterations of a gelatine substance it gets between the fibres, and is there retained, of course making a piece of silk weigh heavier and feel thicker. It is, perhaps, needless to tell you that this deception does not add to the wearing of the cloth; it is done to deceive the eye and fingers, and not for utility. These are the low silks for which Manchester is famed, and with which they are able to compete with France; but in Spitalfields, Macclesfield, and Coventry, where they use and make light colours and better goods, such as pinks, sky blues, lilac, or more fanciful colours, the silk seldom comes up to more than 14 oz. to the pound, and in darker shades (not black) 16 to 18 oz., and wear the better for it; and upon this system the French goods are made. Now, the hon. free-traders of Manchester care nothing for their fellow-tradesmen in other towns, knowing that they may be able to put more rubbish in, if requisite for cheapness; but other towns making lighter colours could not do it without injury to the colour."

1025
That would explain to the House the reason of the memorial to which reference had been made. Foreigners had found out that there was a good deal more than silk in these manufactures; and when the Manchester manufacturers complained that their export trade fell off, which was not the case with the products of the silk manufacture generally, he would say to these Manchester men, "Put less shumac into your goods." It was proper that these circumstances should be understood, and that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the public should he deceived as to the causes that created a difference between the goods and opinions of Manchester and those of other places. Now, to touch for a moment upon the general subject. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had long been contemplating this Motion. [Mr. HUME: For three years.] The hon. Gentleman had moved for the returns, upon which to base this Motion, in one shape; then he moved for them in another shape; on the third occasion he moved for them in a form very similar to that which he has adopted in this; and last year he moved for them in the shape in which they appeared on the present occasion. He could not for some time make out the meaning of all those preparations; but now, however, it was explained. The hon. Gentleman had divided the scale of duties which the late Sir Robert Peel established in 1846, for levying the duties on imported silk manufactures, into five of the different classes of the returns. It was obvious, however, to the House that the variations in Sir Robert Peel's scale in the amount of duty, referred only to different varieties of the same article, and differing only in their relative qualities—such as was the case with silk—that the duty levied must have reference to the value as well as to the denomination of the article. But the hon. Member for Montrose, dividing Sir Robert Peel's scale, has classed the article under five heads, without reference to the fact that the difference was only in quality. [Mr. HUME here made a remark which was inaudible.] He (Mr. Newdegate) fully admitted that the hon. Gentleman did divide the duties, but he divided the scale in such a manner as to render it utterly useless to the Custom House. He certainly hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would negative the proposition of the hon. Gentleman; but to come back to the general question, namely, was it the interest of the agricul-
1026
tural body to support the hon. Member for Montrose? What did that hon. Gentleman propose? He asked the House to reduce the duties upon the importation of foreign manufactures to the extent of 430,000 l.; but he proposed to reduce the duties upon agricultural produce to the extent of 916,000 l. Therefore, while he pretended to give the agriculturists a relief of 1l., by diminishing the price of certain articles, many of which they did not generally consume, he deprived them of an absolute protection of 2l. upon articles which they certainly do produce. Now, in the face of such facts, having been attached, and still remaining, as he hoped, attached to the agricultural interest, and always ready to vindicate them from injustice, he could not feel justified in giving his vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. But the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball) expressed a hope that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would repeal the malt tax, if it were proved that the agriculturists were prepared to adopt and enforce the doctrine of unrestricted competition. Why, was it not that right hon. Gentleman who headed the combination which ousted his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire from office because he proposed to repeal half of the malt tax? And if that repeal could not be obtained in favour of the agricultural interest, why was it that he (Mr. Newdegate) should be called upon to vote for the repeal of the duties upon butter, cheese, and such other articles of agricultural produce as Sir Robert Peel had still left protected? Was he to go to his friends in the country, and say to them that this was the way he had served them? Having a moral certainty that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would not repeal the malt tax, he had consented to the withdrawal of the protective duties upon cheese and butter and other articles of agricultural produce, for no other purpose than to bring things to the dead level of free trade, and with the mere hope that the country would sicken of that system? He certainly held that the country would tire of the present commercial policy. The action of foreign tariffs on our trade would alone effect this; but he did not believe that that result would be accelerated by a policy of retaliation between the interests of this country. Protection was no longer a party question, and, in his opinion, it never ought to have been one; it was not Gentlemen on that side of the House that

1027
had made it so; it was made so by hon. Gentlemen opposite, It was made so seven years before the Protectionists moved at all upon the subject, when the Anti-Corn Law League first started into life. He believed that the beneficial effects attributed to that free-trade system had been grossly exaggerated. That exaggeration, however, he would leave to be discovered by the good sense of his countrymen.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he had no intention to prolong the present discussion, but he was anxious to reply to the inquiries of the hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. W. Brown) with regard to the Custom House Acts, the more especially as the answer of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon a former occasion, had been erroneously interpreted. He had to inform the House that there were already several Bills in preparation, and that those Bills were already in a very forward state, and only awaited the consideration and sanction of the Treasury, which must be given by a Treasury Minute, which Minute must precede any act upon the part of the Custom-house authorities.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, for his part he should be highly obliged to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would take off the existing duties upon the articles mentioned by the hon. Member for Montrose; for considering the value which British agricultural produce had latterly began to assume in foreign markets, he thought that the agricultural interest had nothing to fear. However, if the right hon. Gentleman derived a large revenue from the duties imposed upon such articles, he would rather that he retained it, in order the better to enable him by-and-by to remove some of those restrictions which were really injurious to the agriculturists of the country.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, that as one of the class of manufacturers who had been benefited by the principles carried out by the late Sir Robert Peel, he wished to state to the House that the demand for flint, crown, and plate glass had increased beyond the anticipations of even the most sanguine free-traders. By means of patent machines the manufacture of crown glass had taken quite a new direction, and it had caused an enormous increase, which, as well as rough plate glass, had been used in new positions, and for novel purposes, never before contemplated, while the price had undergone a corresponding reduction. Justified, there-
1028
fore, by his experience in this article, he could have no fear of any reconstruction of the tariff which might admit the further competition of foreigners. The English people, relying upon their capital, their industry, and the talents of their workmen, no longer wished to embarrass the progress of other nations by a system of retaliating tariffs. With regard to the question of butter and cheese, there had been recently passed in Holland a law which enabled Belgium, the Zollverein, and France, to send products into that country at somewhere about 2 per cent duty, while English productions were charged 6 per cent. This was done on account of our duty on butter and cheese imported from Holland; if, therefore, these duties did the agriculturists no good, while they excluded some of our manufactures from the Dutch market, they ought surely to be removed. Having been for many years subject to the trammels of the excise, and knowing how much it cramped the springs of manufacturing industry, he was strongly in favour of the removal of the excise upon soap. Its collection was more expensive than that of any other duty. In many of the manufactures in the north of England and Scotland, soap was made under the inspection of the exciseman on one side of the building; while upon the other, where it was used, officers had also to be in attendance to pay the drawback. What benefit could the country derive from having to employ one staff to put the duty on, and another to take it off? Mr. Porter, in his Progress of the Nation, stated that there were annually taken out forty or fifty licences to manufacture soap, where the quantity made was so small as not to amount to one ton per annum under each licence. This was, no doubt, done to evade the duty; and the honest manufacturer was thus exposed to competition with the dishonest. At the present moment the English manufacturers imported soap, to meet foreign orders, from Ireland, because it was made cheaper in that country, where there is no duty. He therefore hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the propriety of repealing the soap duty, which did not amount to more than 1,000,000 l. annually.
MR. HUDSONsaid, he must deny that the manufacturers of glass sympathised with the expressions which had just fallen from the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt). They were glad to he relieved from the presence of the exciseman in their

1029
manufactories; but they hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not repeal those duties, which at the same time benefited and protected them, and added considerably to the revenue of the country.
MR. EWARTsaid, that we ought not to take our stand upon what Sir Robert Peel had done, but should consider what he would have done had he been alive now. We should not fix the tariff where he left it, but improve it upon the principles he had bequeathed to us. He had listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because so far as he wont his principles were sound; but still he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was rather hard upon those who brought forward such Motions as these, when he said that they were adventurers in commercial legislation, and that they should not let off their pilot balloons until the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad brought forward his Budget; for it was well known if they waited until then, they would be told that it was too late, for the financial arrangements for the year had been made; and thus they would have no opportunity for testing the opinion of the House. As a free-trader, he flung away the distinction between agriculturists and manufacturers; he was equally desirous that all duties that were onerous, either to manufacturers or to commerce, should be taken off. With regard to butter and cheese, the attention of the House should be called to the fact, that while the importation of these articles had lately greatly decreased, their exportation had considerably increased. He had a statement from Liverpool, from which it appeared that we were now actually exporting butter and cheese to the United States of America. Last year about 13,000 casks of butter were received at Liverpool from Canada; but this year the United States buyers had swept that market both of butter and cheese. As his correspondent observed, there was a great change taking place in the markets of the world, and a great tendency to equalisation in the price of food all over the world. This was a consummation much to be desired; and under these circumstances he thought it was most desirable that we should reconsider our tariff There were now a great number of articles in our tariff which yielded very small sums to the revenue, and the duties on which, he thought, should therefore be entirely abolished. For
1030
instance, the duties received on apples only amounted to 4,000 l.; that on boots to 8,000 l.; on cherries, 253 l. With respect to eggs, Mr. Huskisson stated, twenty years ago, that the number imported from abroad was 90,000,000; but notwithstanding the great increase which had since taken place in our population, we did not now import more than 115,000,000. The duty on eggs was only 1d. a dozen, and did not realise more than 13,000 l. a year, and he, therefore, thought that this was a duty which might very well be abolished. These were details, by attention to which great benefit might be conferred upon the country. He was glad to see that one agriculturist at least had on this occasion joined the free-traders. He hoped that his example would be followed by others, and that the agriculturists would take their proper position as reformers of our fiscal system. He believed the time was fast coming when agriculture would be acknowledged to be a trade and a manufacture; and when the ideal separation between agriculturists and manufacturers was removed, they would together pursue the common good of our common country.
MR. PARKERsaid, he could not understand how, as an honest man, he could be called upon to abandon the principles which he had adopted. He should be surprised if those Members who had lately voted in favour of the Resolution declaring that free-trade principles should in future govern the policy of the country, should so soon recede from it; and if the hon. Member for Montrose divided the House upon this Resolution, he should vote with him. He was surprised, indeed, that the hon. Member should have brought forward such a Resolution, unless he doubted the sincerity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in supporting the free-trade policy. As, however, he (Mr. Parker) did not understand political chicanery, he should vote honestly, according to the principles he had adopted, and which had lately been declared by a majority of that House to be those which should in future govern the country.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to say a few words in explanation, after the extraordinary statement of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). Perhaps some persons would think that was hardly necessary, since the hon. Gentleman was so much in the habit of making unfair and unfounded attacks on

1031
manufacturers who lived in the town which he (Mr. Bright) represented. The hon. Gentleman appeared to wish to emulate the course taken by a gentleman, formerly a Member of that House, and who sat for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand), and who obtained an unenviable notoriety by his attacks on the manufacturers of this country. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire wished to make it appear that the silk trade of Manchester had a particular interest in the abolition of the duty on that article, which was not participated in by the silk manufacturers of Macclesfield and Spitalfields. The hon. Gentleman was not aware, perhaps, that a memorial on the subject, which was lately presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was signed by a very large number of the silk manufacturers of Manchester, and that not one of them was opposed to the objects of the petition. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that there was no silk manufactured in Manchester, except a coarse article, three-fourths of which was not silk. But the fact was, that the silk manufacture in Manchester, of late years, bad extended more and been more prosperous than in any other district; that it consisted of articles of every quality in the trade; and if it was true that the article manufactured was of inferior quality, and customers did not readily come to purchase it, he (Mr. Bright) thought that it would be just the one that would require protection against the foreigner. The hon. Gentleman ought, at all events, to give the manufacturers of Manchester credit for consistency in the maintenance of the principle of unrestricted competition. In the memorial to which he had alluded, it was stated that the silk trade had suffered, because there was an opinion entertained that the English silk manufacturer could not compete with the foreigner, and that their articles were not so good; and they wished that opinion to be destroyed by the repeal of that duty. These manufacturers, who had supported the Anti-Corn Law League, and had besieged that House with petitions for the repeal of the corn laws, were at least consistent when they came and asked that the principle of the tariff of Sir Robert Peel should be carried out, and stated that they were willing to accept the application of that principle to their industry. That principle the silk manufacturers of Manchester had carried out, trusting to their own energy, activity, and perseverance; and they had found
1032
those qualities produced the same results, whether they were applied to the manufacture of cotton or to silk. He was sorry, to find that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire still maintained what the; right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had called obsolete opinions; but he was glad to find that the fifty-three who could not be converted had now dropped to fifty-two by the defection of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball). He (Mr. Bright) should not have said a word, but that there were persons who might feel themselves aggrieved by the unjust observations upon them which were uttered in that House, unless some one made a fair reply to such unnecessary remarks as those of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Before sitting down he (Mr. Bright) wished to ask a question of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was, perhaps, a proper time to put it. It had been stated in the papers that negotiations were going on between the Governments of France and England for the reduction on articles which this country could supply to a large extent, such as coal, iron, and earthenware, and that the French were willing to make reductions in the duties on these articles, if England would be willing to reduce the duties on wines and brandy. He should be glad, as they were now on the question of free trade and extended commerce, if the right hon. Gentleman could give him, an answer on that point; and, if there were any papers on the subject, allow the House to see what was doing, for it would be better to strike down the barriers which restrict trade, than to be occupied with in creasing our armaments and military expenditure.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry that, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, he had but little to say. There had been, some consider able time ago, communications between the two Governments, but no definite result had been attained. All he could say was, that the subject had not escaped, the attention of the present Government.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, before the House comes to a vote upon this question, I wish to make some few observations. It is my opinion that the cultivators of the soil in this country are subjected to an undue weight of taxation. The late Government, impressed with that conviction, considered a system of taxation with a view to afford a remedy to injustice, or at least to what

1033
they conceived to be an injustice. It was their opinion that that remedy was best to be found, not by taking a partial and limited view, by looking to the immediate interests of any class, but rather by considering the principles upon which our general system of taxation was founded, They arrived at the conclusion that they would best benefit the producer by consulting the interests of the consumer. They adopted that opinion, and, considering the whole system of our taxation, they thought it their duty to propose certain measures to the House. I was the organ of the Government on that occasion, when we proposed measures which the House did not think proper to sanction. It is not true that these measures were recommended to the adoption of the House as a new financial system. They were distinctly described to the House of Commons as only the first step. Other steps, and as important ones, were expressed or intimated. We knew that, to enable the House and the country to adopt the policy which we wished them to adopt, it was necessary to make apparently some sacrifices. Nothing in this country or in the world that is great can be achieved without sacrifices. But we were convinced that in time there would be such a general sentiment throughout this great community that the principles upon which the financial policy of the late Government were recommended to the adoption of the House of Commons were sound and beneficial, that we looked with confidence for our justification to the consequences of that policy if it had been adopted. The House of Commons, however, did not think proper to adopt that policy, and we proved the sincerity of our conduct, I hope, by what took place after that vote. We relinquished power—I will not say without a pang—but we relinquished power because we were of opinion that power was valueless, unless it was exercised with the fair and generous confidence of the House of Commons. I, at least, so far as I am concerned, consider that the vote of the House of Commons upon the financial policy recommended by the late Government, of which I was the organ, was conclusive. I have still an undiminished confidence in the principles I then recommended, and the policy I then hoped the House would have adopted. But, so far as I am individually concerned, I have no wish to intrude those opinions on an assembly that has in so formal a manner resolved not to adopt the policy that we re-
1034
commended to them under those circumstances. I am equally undesirous to invent occasions to harass those who have succeeded us in office, by discussions on financial questions. That I think I, as well as those with whom it is my honour and happiness to act, showed the other night, when an hon. Member opposite brought forward a Motion which we might very consistently have supported, and which, if carried, might have very much embarrassed the Government, but which, although I had that night been accused of a factious proceeding, I was not willing in any way to sanction. The present occasion is one upon which I am called to give an opinion on a subject of the greatest interest as concerning the general principles of our fiscal system, and especially as they affect those whom we believe to have been unjustly treated, and whose interests we are bound to advocate. The right hon Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found one great fault with the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). He says, "What this practical public require, and what this practical assembly should accomplish, is performance, not promise." But what, Sir, is the Resolution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly described as a promise? It is—
"That this House will, at an early period, take into its consideration the duties that are strictly protective in the existing Tariffs on articles of Import into this country, both of manufactures and agricultural produce, with the view of speedily repealing the same, as affecting unfairly every interest in the country."
Well, now, before I proceed to make a single comment upon that Resolution, let me see how the charge of making a promise, brought against the hon. Member for Montrose by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is supported. The Resolution of the hon. Member for Montrose does no doubt hold out a policy to the country, and we have to consider, first, is the policy a sound one; and, if a sound one, is it politic at this moment to hold out to the country the promise of it? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had risen and said, "This is a Motion which, if carried into practical effect, will materially influence the revenue of the country; I am the guardian of the Exchequer of the country; I will not enter into any argument on the subject, but will appeal to the confidence of the House to guard me from these attacks upon the Exchequer; I will not give an opinion; I do not think it my duty to give

1035
an opinion on the policy recommended; but I will say at once that I will enter upon no discussion, and I call upon this House to enter upon no discussion on this policy, or this promise of a policy." If he had done this, I could have understood the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that it might have been the duty of every man in this House to support him. But what is the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Declaring that the course of the hon. Member for Montrose is merely a promise, and that a promise without performance is a most dangerous course of Parliamentary conduct, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rises in his place and makes a speech which is one long promise from beginning to end. From beginning to end he has been promising what the Government will do on this particular question, when circumstances and the occasion permit them to deal with it. The whole question of policy is thus opened by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have therefore not to consider the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose with respect to its convenience or inconvenience to the Treasury—which is the position in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have placed it—but we are to consider this Motion as a Motion of policy, and of policy alone. Well, I approve of the policy of the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. If the principles of policy which the late Government recommended this House to adopt, but which this House rejected—a policy which, some day or other, will be recognised as one beneficial to the community, and advantageous to property, because it considered the interests of industry in their proper sense; if that policy, I say, is not pursued, I must look to the other means that exist to remove that injustice from the cultivators of the soil in this country, to which they are subjected, and under which I believe they are at present suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who is not, I think, liable to those depreciating observations that have been made with respect to him by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), but who, on this as on all occasions, has shown an admirable consistency, great talents, and unwearying powers of research, has said, "This is a bad bargain for the agiculturists; remove these protective or quasi protective duties, and you only take off an amount of 434,000 l. from the importation of manufactures, while
1036
you take off double that amount which is at present imposed upon agricultural produce." Now I say, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, that the question of industry in this country has got far beyond the question of 400,000 or 900,000 l. After the immense revolution that has been carried into effect, we cannot cling to the rags and tatters of a protective system. Here is the agricultural class compelled to pay a considerable duty on articles which they wish to use. We cannot be told in answer to that, "You derive a small revenue from certain articles of foreign agricultural prodution." I deny that practically—if we could condescend to enter into these particulars—any of these duties that are levied on foreign agricultural articles are really, in the language of the Motion, of a protective character. They are not strictly protective, they are not protective at all. But I will not enter into the question now, whether the duties that are levied on foreign manufactured articles are protective—and strictly protective I believe they are—but I protest, after the Vote which the House has come to, and after the verdict of the last general election, against the cultivators of the soil being subjected to any duties that are either protective or strictly protective. We have been forced into the consideration of the policy of this Motion by the Minister. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had risen in his place, and, placing the question on fiscal considerations, had objected to all discussion, this debate might long ago have ceased; but it was because he has objected to the Motion as a Motion of promise, and then has entered into a long speech, which was only a speech of promise, that he has forced us to give an opinion on the policy which he does seem at a distant day to sanction, but which now he meets in a manner that I cannot describe, or even at this moment exactly understand. But this I understand, that, forced to give an opinion—believing that the course recommended is the course which is founded upon those principles which the people and the Parliament of England have sanctioned and adopted—believing that it is a policy which does justice to the agriculturists, I shall vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, with an admirable dexterity which those who have admired the ability of the right hon. Gen-

1037
tleman might not be unprepared to expect, at a late hour, and to a crowded House, the right hon. Gentleman has given a description of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered at an early period of the evening. It would not be right in me to assume that there was any degree of ingenuity cast into the version which the right hon. Gentlemen gave of it beyond what is strictly conformable to Parliamentary practice; but this I say, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may wonder when he hears the version given by his right hon. predecessor of the speech which at an early period of the evening he is supposed to have delivered. The right hon. Gentleman says that if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rested his defence upon the simple position that he was the guardian of the public Treasury, and that at the present period of the financial year it was not right to deprive that Treasury of a sum exceeding 1,500,000 l., then the debate might have come to an immediate conclusion, and that at least the right hon. Gentleman himself would not have been found the champion of this Motion. I appeal to those who, at an early period of the evening, were present at this debate, what was the argument of my right hon. Friend. It is true he did not venture to say that the House of Commons shall not only not come to a fiscal Resolution, but it shall not presume to debate—that its Members shall not presume to express opinions as individuals upon a fiscal subject. Have we not been asked by Gentlemen who have spoken—What is the time and what is the opportunity for recommending to the House of Commons the remission of taxes? If we come forward, it is said, at an early period of the Session, you tell us we are premature, for the financial year is not closed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not ready to receive your suggestions; if we came forward at a later period the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us, "Oh, but the time is passed—the financial year is closed, our arrangements are made—the surplus of the revenue is expended, and the opportunity is gone." That is the complaint now; but what reproaches would be urged against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who went a long step further than that—who, when a Gentleman of experience and weight in this House, like my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, brings forward a long list of fiscal cases,
1038
which he thinks worthy of redress, and places them upon the notice paper of the House, and invites the attention of Parliament and the country to them, at the proper time and before the financial statement is made, that the attention of the Government may be called to them, and that by the Government and the Parliament they may be considered; saying, at the same time, only admit my principles—only lay down that this is sound legislation; grant me that commercially, and then as a question of finance, I will respect the Treasury, and not call upon the House of Commons to commit itself to a vote; and that, Sir, was the course taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose—what, I say, would have been the charge against my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had got up in his place, and had said, "You have no business to bring this question before the House of Commons. You have no business to explain your opinions, or ask others to express theirs. I will give you only one answer—I cannot spare the money, and, whether your principles are right or wrong, I will enter into no debate, but will charge you with impertinence for bringing them forward." [Cries of "Oh oh!"] The right hon. Gentlemen opposite may well be astonished at that doctrin when it is placed before them in that categorical manner. I am glad to hear their cheers, and I accept it as an argument in my favour. That we should ventilate this subject in debate is not the true objection; but the true objection is, do not commit yourself by any formal Resolution to condemn any portion of your revenue until the time is arrived when you are prepared to give effect to your condemnation and relieve the people from these burdens. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is determined to give a vote in favour of this Motion, and I call upon the House to consider the tendency of the support which the right hon. Gentleman is about to give it. The right hon. Gentleman says it is too late to cling to the rags and tatters of protection; but an hon. Gentleman behind him has expressed a different opinion, if my ears did not deceive me. He has expressed his intention of giving the same vote as the right hon. Gentleman; but he made this candid declaration on the subject:—He said, I do cling to protection, but I want to see the artillery of free trade turned against those Gentlemen opposite, that it may inconvenience them, and that they may be dis-

1039
gusted with it and that so we may get rid of it the sooner. That is not a course which it is convenient to take, nor is it desirable that we should commit ourselves by a formal vote at a time of the year when we are not prepared to give effect to it; and that was the argument which at an early period of the evening my right hon. Friend addressed to the House. When we recollect the inestimable services which my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose has rendered by presiding over the celebrated Committee which reported upon Import Duties, and the fruits which have been reaped from that inquiry, it is not surprising that with his great Parliamentary experience and sagacity he should give his own principles a fair chance, not by pushing the question to a division at a time that is convenient for his party opponents, but by resting satisfied with the assurance that has been given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; sure, from his former experience, that the seed is sown in seed time, and will be ripened and brought home in harvest.
MR. MILESsaid, he would suggest that the hon. Member for Montrose should leave out the words "with the view of speedily repealing the same," and thereby leave the House full power to consider the subject. It should be recollected that certain articles of agriculture, as, for example, cheese and butter, were deemed to be manufactured articles, and if they were to repeal the duty upon manufactured articles, he saw no reason whatever why the duty upon those articles should not also be repealed. He must vote, if these words were maintained, against the Motion.
MR. HUMEsaid, as the House was now full, which it had, unfortunately, not been when he introduced his Motion, it appeared right that he should state the position in winch that Motion now stood. He could not express too much satisfaction at the manner in which the principles he was aiming to support had been received. It seemed they were all unanimous. The only question seemed to be how they were best to carry those principles out. When he introduced the Motion, he said that, being aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to bring forward his financial scheme, he was only anxious to have the assurance that free trade would be carried out still further, and that we should not have those manacles on our free-trade system, perpetuated, and therefore, as it
1040
appeared now they were all agreed, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing. ["Oh, oh!" and "Divide!"] He asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), who had entirely agreed with what he had stated, to let them have a unanimous vote. With regard to the wording of the Resolution, he thought it best as it was, because it insured the removal of inequalities. He was willing to withdraw his Motion—[Cries of "Divide, divide!"]—but if hon. Gentlemen were desirous of a division, he should be happy to oblige them.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 159: Majority 58.

List of the AYES.

Annesley, Earl of

Lennox, Lord A. F.

Arkwright, G.

Liddell, H. G.

Bailey, C.

Lucas, F.

Ball, E.

M'Cann, J.

Bass, M. T.

MacGregor, J.

Bell, J.

M'Mahon, P.

Bellew, Capt.

Mandeville, Visct.

Berkeley, hon. C. F.

Michell, W.

Bowyer, G.

Miller, T. J.

Bremridge, R.

Moffatt, G.

Bright, J.

Mullings, J. R.

Christopher, rt. hon. R. A.

Muntz, G. F.

Clay, J.

Murrough, J. P.

Cobbett, J. M.

Naas, Lord

Cobbold, J. C.

Napier, rt. hon. J.

Cobden, R.

Newport, Visct.

Crook, J.

Oakes, J. H. P.

Devereux, J. T.

O'Brien, P.

Disraeli, right hon. B.

O'Flaherty, A.

Du Cane, C.

Ossulston, Lord

Duncan, G.

Parker, R. T.

Evans, Sir De L.

Peacocke, G. M. W.

Ewart, W.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Ferguson, J.

Pellatt, A.

Forbes, W.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Forester, rt. hon. Col.

Pollard-Urquhart, W.

Forster, Sir G.

Repton, G. W. J.

French, F.

Ricardo, J. L.

Gardner, R.

Robertson, P. F.

Gaskell, J. M.

Scott, hon. F.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Seymour, H. D.

Greenall, G.

Shelley, Sir J. V.

Greene, J.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Greville, Col. F.

Stafford, A.

Hadfield, G.

Stanhope, J. B.

Hall, Sir B.

Stanley, Lord

Hamilton, Lord C.

Stephenson, R.

Hamilton, G. A.

Stuart, Lord D.

Hastie, A.

Sullivan, M.

Hume, W. F.

Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

Kendall, N.

Vane, Lord A.

Kennedy, T.

Waddington, H. S.

Kerrison, E. C.

Walcot, Adm.

Kershaw, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

King, J. K.

West, F. R.

Knox, Col.

Whiteside, H.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Whitmore, H.

Laffan, R. M.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Laslett, W.

Willoughby, Sir H.

1041

Wyndham, Gen.

Wynne, W. W. E.

Wynn, H. W. W.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hastie, A.

A'Court, C. H. W.

Heathcoat, J.

Adair, H. E.

Heneage, G. F.

Anderson, Sir J.

Herbert, H. A.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Ball, J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Hey wood, J.

Barrow, W. H.

Horsfall, T. B.

Berkeley, Adm.

Hudson, G.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Hutt, W.

Biddulph, R. M.

Jackson, W.

Blackett, J. F. B.

Keating, R.

Bland, L. H.

Ker, D. S.

Boldero, Col.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Kirk, W.

Booker, T. W.

Knatchbull, W. F.

Brocklehurst, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Brotherton, J.

Langton, W. G.

Brown, W.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Browne, V. A.

Loveden, P.

Bruce, Lord E.

Lowe, R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Luce, T.

Byng, hon. G. H. C.

M'Gregor, J.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Malins, R.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Mangles, R. D.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Miles, W.

Chaplin, W. J.

Milligan, R.

Charteris, hon. F.

Mills, T.

Cheetham, J.

Milner, W. M. E.

Christy, S.

Milnes, R. M.

Clinton, Lord R.

Mitchell, T. A.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W.

Cogan, W. H. F.

Monck, Visct.

Cowan, C.

Moncreiff, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Monsell, W.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Morris, D.

Crowder, R. B.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Dalrymple, Visct.

Mundy, W.

Deedes, W.

Mure, Col.

Denison, J. E.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Norreys, Lord

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

O'Connell, M.

Duff, G. S.

Oliveira, B.

Duff, J.

Osborne, R.

Dundas, G.

Otway, A. J.

Dunne, M.

Paget, Lord A.

Ellice, E.

Paget, Lord G.

Emlyn, Visct.

Palmerston, Visct.

Esmonde, J.

Patten, J. W.

Evans, W.

Phillipps, J. H.

Fitzgerald, J. D.

Phillimore, J. G.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Phinn, T.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Pilkington, J.

Forster, M.

Pinney, W.

Fortescue, C.

Portman, hon. W. H. B.

Geach, C.

Price, W. P.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Ricardo, O.

Gladstone, Capt.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Glyn, G. C.

Russell, Lord J.

Goodman, Sir G.

Sadleir, J.

Gower, hon. F. L.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Scully, F.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Seymour, Lord

Grogan, E.

Shafto, R. D.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Shelburne, Earl of

Hanmer, Sir J.

Sheridan, R. B.

Hardinge, hon. C. S.

Sibthorp, Col.

1042

Spooner, R.

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Warner, E.

Stapleton, J.

Wickham, H. W.

Stirling, W.

Willcox, B. M.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Wilson, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Wise, J. A.

Thompson, G.

Wyndham, W.

Thornely, T.

Wyvili, M.

Tollemache, J.

Young, rt. hon. Sir J.

Tufnell, rt. hon. H.

Turner, C.

TELLERS.

Vansittart, G. H.

Hayter, W. G.

Verner, Sir W.

Mulgrave, Earl of

CROWN SOLICITORS (IRELAND).
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid he begged to move for copies of the Treasury Minute of 1842, relating to the appointment of Crown Solicitors in Ireland. Late in the month of December last, the late Government appointed to the office of Crown Solicitor (an office unknown in England) for the Leinster Circuit, a gentleman of the name of Kemmis, whose father and grandfather had held it before him. The resignation of the late Government occurred just at that time, and it was not till a fortnight after their resignation that it was known they had thus appointed Mr. Kemmis. That gentleman held an office which entailed upon him a great deal of responsibility—he was public prosecutor, and his office was one, in other respects of importance. The complaint was not merely that Mr. Kemmis had been thus appointed, but also that he, a barrister, should fill an office which according to the Treasury Minute ought to be filled by a solicitor, and that the outgoing Government, on the timely resignation of the late Crown Solicitor of this circuit, appointed his son, and increased the salary to be received by the latter to 1,900 l. a year. This excited considerable surprise on all sides in Ireland; and a very respectable body, known as the Incorporated Society of Solicitors and Attorneys, presented a memorial upon the subject to the Irish Government. It was in fact suspected of being what was called "a job." He consequently wished to elicit the circumstances under which Mr. Kemmis, the elder, was induced to resign at the critical period he did. The question now was whether this office had been properly and legally filled up; and it was with the view of testing the propriety and legality of the transaction that he was induced to ask the Government to lay upon the table the papers to which he had referred. In his opinion the matter savoured of nepotism,

1043
for it was certainly open to objection that an office of this kind was to be entailed, as it were, upon a single family, and that when a Government wont out, the office was to be filled up by the nomination of a member of the same family.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to have two objects in view in making this Motion. One was to ascertain whether this appointment had been legally made, and the other the precise day on which it was made. On the first point he bad to inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that the memorial to which he had referred was now under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant and the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland. With regard to the second point, he was quite ready to produce all the papers which bore upon it; but be would prefer not giving the correspondence referred to, inasmuch as it was not exactly of the character of public documents.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he had no wish to oppose the production of any of these papers; on the contrary, his desire would be that every one of the documents in question should be laid on the table of the House. With regard to the correspondence between himself and the Treasury, he held no correspondence but what passed before the Government resigned, and while he held the office of Attorney General for Ireland. What were the facts of the case in regard to the office in question? They were these. The office of Crown Solicitor for Dublin and for the Leinster circuit had been held by the same party from the year 1801. Before that time a gentleman named Morrison, a barrister, and Mr. Thomas Kemmis, were Solicitors of all Ireland, and the appointment was made to them and the survivor of them. After that a change was made in 1801. It was then thought, advisable to have the whole of Ireland placed under one solicitor; and then there was a solicitor appointed for each circuit; but the Leinster circuit was connected with the Dublin district, and given to Mr. Thomas Kemmis and Mr. William Kemmis, and the survivor of them. They were appointed in 1801. Mr. William Kemmis in the middle of November, 1852, tendered his resignation of that branch which included the superintendence of the Leinster circuit. He had been fifty years on the Leinster circuit, and was now an old man. When the Earl of Eglintoun became Lord Lieutenant he laid it down as an inflexible rule never to receive any kind of communica-
1044
tion with regard to a public office in Ireland until it became vacant. The Earl of Eglintoun received the resignation of Mr. Kemmis, and as the appointment rested with the Lord Lieutenant, of course it was his duty to nominate a successor. Having consulted him (Mr. Napier) on the subject, he recommended to the Lord Lieutenant in the strongest manner Mr. Thomas Kemmis. That gentleman left the bar in 1843, and went into his father's office, giving his exclusive attention to the business which was transacted there until November last. He had practically conducted the business of the office for the last ten years, and the fact that he was a barrister was much in his favour. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Fitzgerald) should remember that the right of the Crown to appoint its own solicitor was not taken away by the Act of Parliament. If any one could show that there was in Ireland a man more competent to fill the office than Mr. Thomas Kemmis, then he would own, but not till then, that the appointment ought not to have been made. As to the law of the case, his own opinion was that the appointment was perfectly legal, and that the Crown had a perfect right to appoint whom it pleased; and the result really was, in this instance, that 300 l. a year was saved. The appointment, moreover, had the sanction of the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who had filled so many important offices in that country.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, as a personal friend of Mr. Thomas Kemmis, he wished to say that no one could question the efficiency, integrity, or honour of that gentleman, and he believed that by no one could the duties of the office in question be performed more efficiently.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALD, in reply, said, perhaps he had used too strong a term when he spoke of this being a job; but what he meant to convey was that this appointment bad not been made public for nearly a fortnight after the late Ministers had resigned office. Although he had listen-ed attentively to the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier), he (Mr. Fitzgerald) did not hear him state when this appointment was made. When the documents were produced, he believed he should be able to show that the appointment was made in the interval while the late Ministers were holding their seals of office previous to their successors being appointed.
Copies ordered—
"Of the Treasury Minute of 1842, relating to

1045
the appointment of Crown Solicitors in Ireland, the Treasury Minute or Minutes relating to the newly-appointed Crown Solicitor for the Leinster Circuit, his Salary and Allowances; and of the Warrant, Order, and other documents making such new appointment:
"And, of the several Minutes or Warrants for the appointment of Crown Solicitors on the Home and Connaught Circuits, in respect of vacancies occurring in or since 1842."

BLACKBURN ELECTION.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he would now move that the Minutes of the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Blackburn Election Petition be laid before this House. He made this Motion at that late hour upon the understanding that the debate would be adjourned until Monday, when this Motion and the others of a similar character that stood in his name could he made an Order of the Day.
MR. DEEDESsaid, the question involved in the Motion was a very important one. It could not be disposed of at that late hour, and he should therefore move the adjournment of the debate until Monday.
MR. SOTHERONsaid, on the adjournment he should persist in moving the following Amendment:—
"That in all cases when the seat of any Member has been declared void by an Election Committee on the grounds of bribery or treating, no Motion for the issuing of a New Writ shall be made without previous notice being given in the Votes."
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, perhaps the decision in one ease would be taken as a decision in the whole, but it was too late to go fully into the matter then. If, therefore, the debate was adjourned until Monday, he would use his influence to have it placed amongst the first Orders of the Day.
Debate adjourned till Monday next.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
MR. BAILLIE: Sir, I wish to ask the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) the question of which I have given notice. The noble Lord is probably aware that the Committee now sitting on Indian Affairs will not be able to make a final report until a late period of the Session, The question that I wish to ask, therefore, is, whether it is the intention of the Government to legislate for India, permanently, during the present Session; and, if so, whether the noble Lord is able to state when the Bill for that purpose will be laid on the table of the House?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill in the course of the present Session for the government of India—I do not say the permanent government, but for a period to be named in the Bill. I cannot at present state exactly the time when the Bill will be introduced; but due notice will be given, and due time will be afforded to the House to discuss a Bill of so important a nature before the end of the Session.
MR. HUME: Will the noble Lord allow me to ask a question on this subject? The Committee, I understand, have laid down eight heads for inquiry; but up to the close of last Session they had only finished one of these heads. I therefore wish to know whether, the Committee having laid down a plan for their investigations, it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill and pass it before the inquiry has been concluded?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: In answer to the question of my hon. Friend, I can only repeat what I have already said, that it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the government of India in the course of the present Session.
House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Inland Revenue Office.
2a Registration of Assurances.

REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BILL.
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the Second Reading of the Registration of Assurances Bill, said, he was very sensible that he had a difficult task imposed upon him when he was obliged to ask their Lordships to favour him with their indulgence for a short time—and, as far as he could control the discussion, it should be only for a short time—while he called their attention to a measure which was one very much of detail, and of a nature which was not at all attractive. If, however, such an apology were misplaced in any deliberative body, he thought it would be misplaced hero; for, unless he was greatly deceiving himself, important as the question was to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, there was no class so deeply interested in the success of this measure as those who were mainly interested in the land of the country; because he thought the effect of it necessarily would be, as was stated by very great authorities not less than two centuries ago, to add materially to the transferable value of land, and so to the amount of rent, and to the security of purchasers. Such was the opinion of Sir Matthew Hale, who, having completed the purchase of an estate and got a title which was the best that the conveyancers of the day could secure to
930
him, said he would give one year's purchase more if the seller could only secure him absolutely.
The object with which he (the Lord Chancellor) submitted the present Bill to their Lordships, was to put an end, as far as practicable, and he believed it would almost completely put an end, to insecurity of title. He proposed by this Bill to effect nothing more. He knew it was said that it did not go far enough, and that there ought to be many more improvements with respect to the transfer of landed property. On that point he expressed no opinion. He thought indeed that greater facilities might be given for the transfer of landed property; but he had introduced this measure, not because it effected all that one might wish to have effected with respect to property, but because he believed it would afford the most secure, solid, and safe foundation on which all future improvements could be made to rest. Still less was it in his contemplation to propose that this measure should effect, or to pretend that it would effect, the least change in the mode in which property was enjoyed. Property would after, as before, the passing of this Bill be leased, be mortgaged, he subject to provisions for the younger branches of families; every one would be entitled to deal with it, in short, after as before the passing of this Bill. The sole object, as he stated, was to render it possible to have a perfectly secure title.
Before he proceeded to explain the details of the measure, he begged leave to explain what were the present difficulties of the subject. Land, he need hardly say, was a subject-matter with which they could not deal as they could deal with common chattels. If he wanted to sell his watch or his horse, nobody would ask him what was his title to the possession of them. Possession was held generally to imply title; it was itself such strong if not conclusive evidence that it was taken for granted that the watch or horse which he had in possession was his. But that was not, and could not be, the state of things in regard to land. The possession of land proved very little indeed as to whom it belonged. A party might be in possession of land only because he had hired it for six months, or because he had taken a lease of it, or because he had a mortgage of it, or because he was tenant for life under settlement, or because the estate was what was popularly called an entailed estate. If, therefore, a party desired to sell his land, he must be able to show that

931
he had power to sell it; he must prove to an intending purchaser that he had the power of transferring that land, and of making a good title to the purchaser. What he (the Lord Chancellor) was stating was of course a sort of truism, hut he was stating it to make the object of the Bill clearly understood. The party who sold an estate must show that he had the land, and that he had a title to the land. He must produce deeds conveying the land from somebody else to him, and deeds conveying the land from somebody else to the person from whom he had purchased the land, and so on, till he had carried that proof over a considerable number of years. Until a recent alteration in the law, a person might set up a claim to an estate against a person who had been in possession for 60 years. An adverse title could now be asserted only within 20 years, unless where a further extension is allowed by reason of infancy or other disability. But the question was, what was the title of the person selling? Was he, although in possession of the land, absolute owner, was he owner in fee simple, as it was called, or was he a person who had only a limited interest? In order to show his title the party showed perhaps a conveyance to himself of the land in question. But then it remained to be shown how it came into possession of those from whom he derived his title. This question, however, would, in viewing the case on the surface, be asked, "Well, you have shown me that you purchased this land 20 years ago. Since that time you have married. Did you make a settlement on your marriage?" "No; I made no settlement." "How am I to be assured of that?" "Well, I did not make a settlement." A correspondence took place, perhaps, with the solicitor of the person who desired to sell, and the question was put to him, "Do you know whether a marriage settlement was made?" And the answer might be, "Yes, I know that a marriage settlement was made; but not of this particular property." Then perhaps the purchaser would desire to see the settlement, in order to ascertain that it was not of this particular property; and then, perhaps, a similar question would arise as to bygone transactions with reference to the person who had sold to the vendor. That was hut a case in illustration, and there were 50 others of a similar kind which might be stated. He would not weary their Lordships by going into them; hut the difficulties to which he
932
referred lay on the surface. There were, many cases in which a valid mortgage existed, but in which questions might be raised respecting titles. The purchaser might say, "Well, you are in possession of the land—have you mortgaged it?" "Why here are the title deeds" might be the reply. But lawyers knew that that was not necessarily a proof of ownership, because there were many cases in which, when a mortgage was effected, the title deeds were not given up. The difficulty might be thus stated:—By the present law the necessity of proving a negative was placed on the vendor of the estate. He was asked to prove that he had not done anything to affect that title which was apparent on the face of his instrument. It was not meant to suggest that cases of actual fraud, that cases where the parties actually did lose their estate, were of very frequent occurrence. He should not overstate the case in that House—he did not believe they were of very frequent occurrence. And why? Because, in the progress of a sale, inquiries almost endless were made—not only those which were manifest with respect to the title of the seller, hut with respect to all possible transactions which might he behind and concealed, the disclosure of which afterwards might defeat the title of the purchaser. That, he believed, was the real evil which this Bill was well calculated to meet. He believed that without a measure of this sort perfect security was impossible. Prom the nature of things it could not be otherwise, for it was impossible that one could be sure that he had proved a negative, if there were anything affecting the title, other than the deeds produced, which had not been disclosed. The object of the present measure was to get rid of this difficulty, and convert the negative issue which now lay upon the vendor, to prove that there was no document affecting the title other than what he disclosed, into a positive issue to be cast upon the purchaser, to show that there were documents affecting the title not disclosed by the deeds produced. The outline of the Bill was this:—Suppose a person purchased an estate; "Bellenden-park" had been the name assigned in some of these discussions to the supposed purchase. He would deposit with the registrar the deed whereby the estate was conveyed to him, or a copy of that deed. Suppose that some years afterwards the owner should he under the necessity of borrowing money—say 5,000 l., and mortgaged the

933
estate, or part of it; the mortgagee would take care to enter upon the register the mortgage deed, or a copy of if. Suppose the owner afterwards to marry, and settle the estate in the ordinary way, upon himself for life, then on his wife for life (or giving her a jointure), and afterwards on his sons in succession. Then suppose the owner died, and the eldest son and the mother determined to sell the estate. The settlement would for security he upon the register, under the Bill now proposed; and the son and the mother would be able to say, "Assuming that there was a good title in the vendor when the estate came into our family, there can be no question as to anything affecting the estate since then, because by this law nothing whatever can affect the purchaser which is not disclosed upon the face of the register." True, he (the Lord Chancellor) did not pretend to say you would have got rid of the question whether the original vendor had a good title; but that was a difficulty that could not be grappled with; you could not make a good title retrospectively; but time would ripen the title, and he would remark that if a Bill similar to this had passed when the first Report recommended it, above 20 years would now have elapsed, and, though it would not have been perfect, the benefits by this time would have been very great. Suppose the mother and son were contracting to sell under the present law. They would show the mortgage; and the first question of the intending purchaser would be, how much was due upon it, and whether there had been a further advance; and perhaps the mortgagee might not answer the inquiry. But the settlement also would be produced. Perhaps it would be found—it was very ordinarily done—to settle the estate upon such sons as the parent should appoint, and in default of appointment to them in succession; and the eldest son was selling. "Did your father execute any appointment?" "I never heard of such a thing." The family solicitor would be referred to: "Do you know of any appointment to any of the younger children?" "No; there is none that I know of; to be sure, he resided for some time at York; I don't know whether he may have employed anybody there." Nothing more, perhaps, could be learnt upon the subject; you are obliged to say, "The parties are honest; I must take their word." This measure would make it certain, because it. would be immaterial it there was an appointment, unless the deed
934
was put upon the register. Suppose there was no settlement produced, or only one giving a jointure to the mother; then there came the question, whether there was any other settlement, whether this son was the heir-at-law, or whether there was a will; and a prodigious number of other questions arising necessarily upon the transfer. It would be seen, therefore, what a great boon such a measure as this would be. The measure, too, while adapted to the existing mode of dealing with property, would not only not be inconsistent with any improvements that might he made, but would facilitate them in an enormous degree, because there would at least be one of the great difficulties in the way of improving land removed. The evils of the present system had been felt from remote times, and attempts at a remedy by registration had been made from the time of Henry VIII., when there was an Act for the enrolment of bargains and sales. Attempts were made in the time of the Commonwealth, and renewed in the time of Charles II., but dropped again, except in the instance of the Bedford Level; and in the reign of Queen Anne and George I. Acts were passed for local registers in Yorkshire and Middlesex, and the advantage was much prized, though the mode of operation was defective. Still they had been felt to be an improvement. Attempts were again made in the latter part of the eighteenth century; but nothing effectual was done till near the close of the reign of George IV., when the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) made his memorable speech on law reform, and that was followed by the noble and learned Lord who then held the Great Seal issuing a Commission, consisting of the most eminent lawyers, to inquire into the best way of amending the law of real property, but not specifying a register of deeds. He knew it was often said, you could not trust lawyers with reforms of this sort; but he hoped the zeal they had of late manifested for amending the law, root and branch, proved that such suspicions were undeserved. The Commission comprised an eminent Common Law barrister, now the Lord Chief Justice, two eminent Chancery barristers, and five of the most celebrated conveyancers of the day; one of the Chancery barristers, Mr. Tinney, still lived, and one of the conveyancers, Mr. Brodie; the others were all gone—Mr. Duval, Mr. Hodgson, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Tyrrell, and Mr. Duckworth. They made

935
a searching investigation, and presented several reports; the second recommended a register. The report was quite unanimous, and most elaborately got up. They went through the whole question, and they stated—what no man could fail to concur in—that the establishment of a registry was necessarily the foundation of all real practical reform. They pointed out how easily persons might now be defrauded by some interest starting up after the purchase-money had been paid; and they made this remark, which seemed to him extremely good sense:—
"But a very inadequate estimate will be formed of the evils of the present system from merely considering the cases in which a loss actually does arise to purchasers or mortgagees from titles proving defective in consequence of the suppression of deeds. It is a consideration of the greatest importance, and one which presents the existing evil in the strongest light, that in all transactions respecting sales and mortgages of real property, suppression of title is treated as a risk to be apprehended, and against which it is the duty of the professional agent to guard by every means in his power. In the process of investigation which is instituted as to the title, not only every document the existence of which in any manner appears, and which by any possibility may affect the title, is called for; but various collateral sources of information, existing generally or in particular cases, are resorted to. Inquiries are made from the occupiers of the lands, and from persons who have long dwelt in the neighbourhood; county and local histories are examined; searches are instituted for land-tax assessments, awards under enclosure bills, grants from the Crown, grants of annuities, records of fines and recoveries, enrolments of deeds, judgments entered up in the several courts of record, securities given to the Crown, probates of wills and grants of administration, and various other species of documents. In every case, except where the property is too small to make risk important, as compared with present expense, investigations of this nature, adapted to the circumstances, are prosecuted to a great extent, and they occasion a considerable portion of the delay and expense which are felt to be the great evils now attending the transfer of real property."
As the consequence of that Report, a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, and there was a Committee of the House of Commons upon the subject, and they were unanimous in favour of such a measure. Upon a discussion, however, in the House itself, the Bill before the House was thrown out, there being a great opposition to it, mainly by solicitors; not that he would insinuate that they were actuated by dishonest motives in their opposition; there were bad men among them, no doubt, as well as good—but he (the Lord Chancellor) believed that most of them conscientiously thought that such a measure would aggra-
936
vate the evil, and cause additional risk; and he did not wonder at any one so thinking, who had not fully investigated the subject. Among other objections it was said such a measure would lead to the exposure of family transactions; for if a copy of a deed was placed upon the register, persons having no interest in the matter might apply for an inspection, and thus ascertain whether the land was mortgaged or not. He thought there were two answers to this objection. But, in the first place, it was right that mortgages, for instance, should be known to persons who were dealing with the estate; and next, he never could believe that people would go from mere curiosity and pry into the deeds; people did not go to Doctors' Commons, except they had an interest in the matter. Then it was urged that there would be a risk of loss of documents; but that would be avoided by allowing the owner to register a copy of the deed, and not the original. Several Bills for carrying into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners and establishing a register were from time to time introduced into the House of Commons, but none of them ever passed that House. He now came to a matter to which he thought it necessary to call their Lordships' attention, because, although it was introduced with a different object, the result materially affected the question now under consideration. Their Lordships would probably recollect what passed in 1845 and 1846 with respect to the abolition of the corn laws. It was thought that concurrently with a great alteration on the subject of the corn laws, whereby it was supposed that certain benefits hitherto enjoyed by the landowners would be removed, that some inquiries should be made as to whether means could not be taken to relieve them from a portion at least of their difficulties; and in 1846 a Committee of their Lordships' House was appointed to inquire into the burdens on real property, and the impediments to agricultural transactions caused by the system of excise duties, the poor-laws, and the local taxation; and also to inquire and report on the exemptions and peculiar advantages provided by law in respect to taxation as affecting real property. And who were the individuals to whom was entrusted the task of inquiring what can be fairly done for the landed interest? Were they speculators and theorists? No; the Earl of Ellenborough, Lord Beaumont, Lord Redesdale, Lord Dalhousie, Lord Colchester, the Duke of Richmond,

937
The Duke of Buckingham, the Marquess of Lsnsdowne, the Marquess of Salisbury, Lord Brougham, Lord Stanley (now Earl of Derby), Lord Ashburton, Lord Cottenham, Lord Monteagle, the Earl of Hard-wicke, the Earl of Radnor, the Duke of Buccleuch, the Earl of Haddington, the Earl of Clarendon, the Earl of Malmesbury, Earl Grey, and the Earl of Stradbroke. They examined into the matter; and to what conclusion did these, not theoretical or practical law reformers, but great landed proprietors, arrive? These great landed proprietors reported—
"That the marketable value of real property was seriously diminished by the tedious and expensive process of the transfer of land, and that a registry of title to all real property was essential to the success of any attempt to simplify the system of conveyancing."
A new Commission was then issued, comprising Mr. Bellenden Ker, Mr. Coulson, and Mr. Humphrey, three eminent barristers, well acquainted with the law of real property; and in order that it might not be supposed that other interests were not consulted, Mr. G. Frere and Mr. Broderip, eminent solicitors, were added. They investigated the matter afresh. Did they come to a different conclusion from the Others? Not in the least. They felt that it was demonstrative that there ought to be a register on which you should have every title deed that was to affect the purchaser. Their report was made late in the summer of 1850. In 1851 the noble and learned Chief Justice, with the sanction of the Government [Lord CAMPBELL—as the organ of the Government] introduced a Bill on the subject. That Bill was read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, which was attended by almost all the law Lords, by a number of other noble Lords, assisted by Mr. Coulson. That Committee sifted the matter to the bottom; and the Bill, with some amendments, was reported to the House, and read a third time and passed, with, he believed, their Lordships' unanimous coucurrence, certainly without any division. It was then sent to the other House, but unfortunately at so late a period of the Session that it could not be discussed there; and the measure was dropped. Then came 1852, when there was a change of Government, and it was no matter of blame that the new Government did not take up the subject; indeed, their Lord Chancellor (Lord St. Leonards) was known to be hostile to the measure. As soon as he (the Lord
938
Chancellor) received the Great Seal, he considered it one of his first duties to look to this subject, and, unless he saw some very strong reason against it, to take up the measure which their Lordships had sanctioned. The Bill which was referred by them, as he had said, to a Select Committee, was, when so referred, a Bill carrying into execution the recommendation of the Commissioners in its integrity—namely, that the registry should be framed upon the basis of an universal map to be made of the whole country upon a scale of six inches to a mile. There was a difference of opinion among the Commissioners on that subject, although they all concurred in the importance of establishing a register. Two of the Commissioners thought that the system of maps was not the best that could be adopted. He (the Lord Chancellor) thought, however, that that was the best plan, if it was practicable. The Commissioners went into a great deal of evidence on the subject, and they found that if they were to postpone the measure until they got the maps, the country would think, with reason, that they were making a pretence of introducing a measure which was really to be postponed ad Grœcas calendas; and besides, it was believed that the expense of the maps would amount to two or three millions. Although they could not but feel that the facilities of carrying out the measure would not be so great without a map as with one, yet the Commissioners agreed to alter the Bill, and so to modify it as to get rid of the map. There was, of course, nothing to prevent them engrafting maps upon the measure at any future time, or from admitting maps which might be provided by private individuals as descriptions of their own property. Having thus stated the nature of the Bill, he would now proceed to consider what was the nature of the objections urged against it. He knew that, great and overwhelming as was the weight of authority in favour of the measure, there was one very distinguished authority (Lord St. Leonards) in that House, who was strongly opposed to it; but he thought, although their Lordships would give ready attention to any suggestions from such an authority, that no authority, however high, would induce them to abandon a course which, as he had shown, they had deliberately resolved upon, and which came sanctioned as this measure came, and carrying with it so much to recommend itself.
Now, what were the objections against

939
the Bill? These objections might be classed under different heads. In the first place, it was said by his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) that it was in truth impracticable, or nearly so, and that the measure was so immense that they would never be able to control or manage it. It was said, "What an enormous building you must have for these deeds; what an enormous staff of officers you will require; and to what enormous risks you must expose these title deeds, or copies of title deeds." These objections, however, like most others, when fairly grappled with, diminished most sensibly. The ex-tent of the building and the number of officers required would, of course, depend upon the quantity of deeds registered. Now what would be the probable quantity? On this point he thought his noble and learned Friend had made estimates upon data which could not altogether be relied upon. He (the Lord Chancellor) thought—though he did not bind himself to it—that if the number was as great as the noble and learned Lord suggested, there would still he no difficulty. What could be the difficulty of providing a sufficient building in these days, when they had seen the Crystal Palace rise in the course of six or eight months? He believed, however, that his noble and learned Friend had greatly overestimated the quantity of deeds that would have to be registered. The practical difficulties on this point were fully investigated by the different Commissions, especially by those of 1829 and 1830, who endeavoured to ascertain what number of deeds relating to land throughout England would require to be registered. Fortunately, they hit upon an expedient which was, he thought, little liable to deceive. There was a register, an imperfect one indeed, in Yorkshire; and the Commissioners inquired what the area of Yorkshire was as compared with the area of England. The area of Yorkshire was, in round numbers, about 3,800,000 acres; the area of England and Wales was about 37,100,000 acres. The number of deeds registered in Yorkshire in the year 1829 was 6,900. Now, if they made this a rule-of-three sum, and said, "As is the area of Yorkshire to the area of England," so are the 3,800,000 acres of Yorkshire to the 37,000,000 of England," they would arrive at a pretty accurate result, and they would find that the number of deeds likely to be registered in a year in England and Wales was upwards of 67,000—he would say, 70,000. There was, un-
940
doubtedly, a good deal of uncultivated land in the remoter parts of Yorkshire; but the quantity of waste land in Wales was much greater than in Yorkshire. The Commissioner also took the population of Yorkshire as compared with the population of England and Wales. The population of Yorkshire in 1821—the last return the Commissioners had—was 1,200,000, and the population of England and Wales was 12,200,000: by proceeding in the same manner as before, the same result was arrived at, namely, that the number of deeds to be registered would be about 70,000. The last Commissioners came to the conclusion that the number of deeds registered would be about 80,000 a year; but taking into account the additional number of registrations in Middlesex and other exceptional places, he would suppose the registration to reach 100,000. Now, was that a number of instruments capable of being dealt with? Mr. Frere made a very elaborate calculation on this subject, in which he (the Lord Chancellor) could find no defect; and he said that, taking the ordinary sized deeds, which were usually doubled so as to make nine folds, he could put a certain number with case into a box of a certain size; and he calculated that a room about 25 feet by 24 feet would contain about four rows of stands, on which they could place 980 boxes, containing 38,000 deeds. It was calculated that in a house of five stories high, the dimensions of which were mentioned, they would be able to provide for the reception of deeds for five years, reckoning upon the register of 80,000 a year; and that the frontage of three best class three-windowed houses, of the ordinary depth, would afford accommodation for all the deeds likely to be registered for more than 60 years. Now, if this was at all an accurate calculation, he believed that double the number of copies of deeds might be deposited in the same space, because the copies would not occupy half the space of deeds. He thought, therefore, it was clear that no very enormous building would be necessary for the commencement of a system of registration. He did not think the calculations which had been made were at all likely to deceive, and some evidence was given before the Commissioners which tended strongly to prove their accuracy. He alluded to the testimony which was given by Mr. Trevor, the controller of legacy duty. It appeared from that gentleman's evidence that there was in Somerset House a registry of all

941
wills and administrations in the United Kingdom, which was considered essential to the due collection of the duty, the authorities at Somerset House having entered into a treaty with the officers of the Ecclesiastical Courts, under which they were furnished with copies of all wills. For England and Wales about 25,000 wills and administrations were annually registered, and for Scotland and Ireland more than 4,000, making in round numbers about 30,000. Now, this number of wills was received, registered, and elaborately indexed every year at Somerset House, where, according to Mr. Trevor's evidence, they were so arranged that they could be referred to in a moment. What was done at Somerset House was not merely to receive and register the wills, which was all that would have to be done with respect to deeds; but at least 20,000 of them annually were most elaborately abstracted—a work which required great thought and attention. This was done by an establishment, which was certainly large, consisting of about 70 clerks, who had also to write to persons all over the kingdom requiring them to pay legacy duty, and whose labours were much greater than those of the parties who would have to conduct the registration of deeds under this Bill. He must say, then, that with regard to the extent of the building and the registration of the deeds, he could not see any difficulty. He must not be supposed, however, to have passed over what was regarded as a material difficulty—namely, how to make indexes so that persons might search with the greatest facility. The want of such indexes in Ireland had been the bane of their Registration Act. He thought the country might be divided into districts, and that every deed, when received, might be indexed and deposited in boxes, to which reference would be easy, the entries being on the same principle as those in a banker's book. The Bill would give the largest authority to the registrar, under the control of the Lord Chancellor, to adopt any mode which might be more practically easy and useful.
Another objection made to the system of registration was the exposure of titles. Now, he did not consider this to be any objection at all: but in order to meet the views of those who thought this was an objection, a mode was provided in the Bill which enabled persons to keep secret from everybody any settlement they might make, just as they could now keep secret a settlement of stock in the funds. If a
942
man made a settlement of stock in the funds, he transferred it into the name or one, two, or more trustees, who executed a deed binding themselves to the performance of certain trusts or duties with reference to that stock. Of course there was a possibility that the trustees might cheat—that they might sell the property:—but if it was known they were likely to do so, a distringas might be obtained—a writ which prevented the transference of the stock without notice to the parties. What he proposed was this. Under this Bill, if persons wished to give trustees the same power over land which they could give with regard to stock, they were enabled to do so; but it would be stated that the property was transferred to the trustees upon the trusts of a certain deed which the parties did not choose to place upon the register. No doubt the persons who made such a transfer would expose themselves to the possibility of being cheated; but the same provision was introduced into this Bill which existed with reference to stock—namely, that if a party about to be defrauded discovered the intended fraud, he might obtain what was called an inhibition, which would prevent the misappropriation of the property. He had no doubt there would be a great many transactions of this sort. He believed it would be a very common thing for parties who made mortgagees or settlements which they did not wish should be known, and who had perfect confidence in one another, to make these arrangements. If, for instance, a person wanted a loan for a short time, and knew he was dealing with an honourable man, he would say, "I will mortgage this property to you, but I hope you will not Insist upon registering it. I will not deal with it again without communicating with you." The transaction would be perfectly valid as between the borrower and the lender; and the effect of such arrangements Would be very materially to diminish the number of deeds to be registered. A good deal had been said on the subject of the additional expense that would be imposed on purchasers by these provisions. No doubt of it. There would be the expense of a copy of the deed—the expense, perhaps, of two skins of parchment instead of 6ne, and of the law Stationer's charge for the copy—but that would not be much. Then there would be the expense of remitting the copy to the registrar, but that would be a more trifle. The copy might be sent

943
as a parcel through the Post Office, and the charge would probably not be more than 2s. for transmitting it from the remotest part of England. With regard to the expense of the registry, it had been calculated that, including rent, or interest upon purchase-money, for the house that would be required, the cost might be 20,000 l. a year at first. If they had to register 100,000 deeds annually, a payment of 4s. a deed would raise 20,000 l., and 5s. a deed on an average would yield 25,000 l. He did not mean that the expense of a deed to every poor man would be 5s., hut this amount he took as an average. He thought that deeds relating to property under a certain value should not cost more than 6d. or 1s., so that the burden would fall almost insensibly upon the poorer classes of purchasers.
It had been said by the noble Lord (Lord St. Leonards) that "a collection in London of all the title-deeds of all the property in England and Wales would, in times of confusion and revolution, probably invite the first blow. They who approve of Socialist principles would doubtless consider it a considerable step towards an equal division of property that no man could show a separate title to any given portion of it. The risk of fire—bear in mind the fate of our Houses of Parliament; the dangers to be apprehended from the ebullitions of a mob; the dishonesty of inferior officers in purloining the old parchments for sale, and the like, may be added to the catalogue. The plan, moreover, would open a fine harvest to a legitimate Government for taxation, and to an illegitimate Government for confiscation. The State would possess, in one building, all the title-deeds to all the property in England and Wales." Now, with all deference to his noble and learned Friend, he begged to say that if this was all the objection which he and those who opposed the measure could bring against it, he did not think there would he any serious difficulty on the subject. In his opinion, in case of a popular tumult or civil war, there would be more temptation in the 21,000,000 sovereigns in the Bank of England, than in all the papers and parchments which could be found in the Register-office.
Moved—That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD ST. LEONARDS, after presenting a petition from the Managing Committee of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, praying that the Bill might not be allowed to pass into a law, said that
944
he rose with deep regret to oppose the measure, because he should have been very glad if he could have conscientiously supported the first measure of legal reform which his noble and learned Friend had brought before the House. But he thought their Lordships would admit that he had no other alternative when he stated that for twenty-three years he had, both in and out of Parliament, strongly, constantly, and consistently opposed the very measure—with some slight alterations—he might not call them improvements—which was now before their Lordships. But, as both Houses of Parliament had repeatedly heard elaborate reasons in favour of the Bill, while nobody had come forward to state what the objections to the Bill were, their Lordships, he hoped, would not think it unseemly if, in these circumstances, he should now state the grounds upon which, for so long a period, he had objected to the measure.
And here, before proceeding further, he begged to say that he had been surprised to hear his noble and learned Friend speaking of him as a "distinguished authority" on this subject. He assured their Lordships that he had never assumed to speak as an "authority" upon it; and that if he now asked them not to read a Bill a second time, it was only because of the reasons which he should submit to them, and of the weight of which their Lordships themselves were quite competent to judge. He would not even ask his noble Friends on his own side of the House to vote against the Bill unless they should he satisfied with the reasons which he should state why the Bill ought not to pass into a law; and with respect to the noble Lords on the other side of the House, if they should think that his objections had any weight, he confidently relied, notwithstanding what had passed on previous occasions when their Lordships voted in favour of a similar Bill, before they had heard the objections that could be urged against it, that they would now freely give him their support.
He felt that he laboured under some difficulty in stating his objections to the Bill, because his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, by referring to a publication of his (Lord St. Leonards) on the subject, had anticipated his objections; but as, of course, his noble and learned Friend had stated them in a manner not likely to attract their Lordships' attention, he should feel it to be his duty to state them with a little more particularity; and of course

945
he also felt the difficulty of the position in which he was placed by the circumstance that the same Bill in effect as that now in question had already been approved of by their Lordships. In order, however, to remove some obstacles out of his way, he should first refer to the history of the Bill The Bill, as their Lordships bad already heard, originally emanated from the Real Property Commissioners, at the head of whom was his noble and learned Friend the present Lord Chief Justice (Lord Camp bell). It was recommended by those Commissioners, and was carefully prepared by that able lawyer Mr. Duval, with the best assistance, so that if any Bill could have been expected to come out as a perfect Registry Bill it was the one now on their Lordships' table. It was first brought before Parliament in 1830 by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), who, was then a Member of the other House, with great support and with every possible reason for passing it if it were a Bill that ought to pass. But it did not pass—it was not proceeded with that Session. It was again introduced by his noble and learned Friend in 1831, and again with drawn—the table of the House of Commons having, in the meantime, been loaded with petitions against it. It was for the third time brought forward in 1832, when it was referred to a Select Committee; but it was ultimately rejected upon the bringing up of the report of the Committee by a Committee of the whole House—rejected, that was, as soon as it was seriously taken up by the House. In 1833 it was again brought forward in the House of Commons, but not by his noble and learned Friend. On this occasion the Bill again went to a division, and was rejected by a majority of 82 to 69. It was brought before the House of Commons for the fifth time in 1834, and was rejected on the second reading by a majority of 151 to 69. Their Lordships would see, therefore, that there was nothing very surprising in finding that he (Lord St. Leonards), who bad always opposed the Bill, should take the present opportunity, which was the first that had presented itself, of stating to their Lordships what the real objections to it, in his apprehension, were.
In 1845 the Bill was introduced into their Lordships' House, but not proceeded with. In 1846 the Committee of their Lordships was appointed to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, for the purpose of inquiring into the Burdens on
946
Land. That Committee came to the concllusion, which he believed to be quite an erroneous one, that the burdens on land would be relieved by a General Registry Bill, and, as its consequence, the simplifying the transfer of property. He believed that, so far from this being the case, the burdens would be greatly increased by such a measure. On the recommendation of that Committee a Bill was introduced into their Lordships' House by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell. That Bill was also dropped, like its predecessors. Then came the recommendation of the measure in the Queen's Speech, after which one would have thought that the noble and learned Lord then on the woolsack (Lord Truro) would have felt it his duty, as the organ of the Government, to introduce a measure on the subject; but the Bill was again introduced by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), who, though not connected with the Government, undertook to become sponsor for it. After repeated postponements and great consideration, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, who made a report which, in his opinion, entirely destroyed the effect of the Bill—the Amendments they proposed rendering it quite powerless, leaving all the mischief, and taking away all the benefit. That Bill, also, was ultimately allowed to drop in the other House of Parliament; and now, at the end of twenty-three years, although they had seen that every one of the eight times it had been introduced before, it had broken down, the Bill had been introduced for the ninth time. It was a measure of unspeakable importance, and, if it could be made to work, it ought to succeed; but if it, could not work, it would only be a snare, it would only introduce more fraud, and would delude owners of property instead of benefiting them. This was his fixed opinion; but if his noble and learned Friend could show him that the Bill would answer its purpose, and would at the same time effect the security of property, he would readily vote for it.
There were several things in connexion with this measure which were quite certain. In the first place, the expense was certain. That was not at all problematical. In the next place, it was certain it would benefit no man's title who was now living, but it would shortly occur that every man's present title would be held under two systems: some of his deeds

947
would be in his own possession and not registered, and some would be registered, and either out of his possession, or he must, as he probably would, in every case, incur the expense of two title deeds, for it was scarcely likely that any one would place his deeds out of his own control, and where he could never see them without paying. It was equally certain that this Bill, though it had been recommended as a relief to the land, would not save the landed interest the thousandth part of a shilling. It would only transfer the loss from one individual to another. It was fortunate for the landed interest that this Bill had not passed twenty years ago, for it had been clearly shown by the report of the last Commission, that if it had passed, without an accompanying map, it would have been a snare instead of a security to the landowners. It was a well-known fact, that for the last two centuries the most learned persons in the country had desired to have a general register. But this was an argument that cut two ways:—had it not occurred to the noble and learned Lord to consider why the desire of these learned persons had never up to this moment been carried out? It had never been carried out, simply because it had been found impossible to frame a measure that would work well. It had been tried in Yorkshire, in Middlesex, in Ireland, and, in a different shape, in Scotland; it had been tried also in almost all foreign countries, and the result had been failure in every single instance. Scotland stood, however, on different grounds. The arguments of those who supported the measure were mainly these—that it would give safety to purchasers; that it would shorten the transfers of property; that it would prevent fraud; that it would prevent forgery; and, also, what was called "tacking."
He would proceed at once to inquire, would this Bill, or would it not, do what it purported to do—give safety to purchasers? A general register had previously failed of its purpose. Would, then, this Bill execute that in which other Bills had failed? Mr. Duval had done what had not been attempted in the present instance. He had faced the difficulties in such a manner as to endeavour to obviate them, having inserted in the Bill all the different modes in which it was to work. Mr. Duval, in a letter which he had written to him (Lord St. Leonards) upon this Subject, about the time of the introduction
948
of the original Bill, made these observations:—
"I send you some notes explanatory of the object and effect of the clauses in the Register Bill relating to the mode of registration. If you will take the trouble of reading them, I think you will at least see that very great pains have been taken to render the details as perfect as possible. I know you well enough to be satisfied that you will not form your opinion on the Bill upon any suggestion which may have been made to you as to its complexity. The fact is, that the system is itself extremely simple, and that the apparent complexity of the provisions arises from an attempt on my part to leave as little as possible for future decision; to anticipate and provide for every case which can arise, and to give to the operation of the system every convenience of which it allows. Whatever may be the fate of the measure, I am anxious to have your favourable opinion, above that of any other man, of what I have done, and I know with what facility you will be able to form a just estimate."
The Bills introduced, up to the last one prior to the new Commission being appointed, had all proceeded upon Mr. Duval's plan; and when that Commission was appointed, the learned persons who composed it, after examining with great prudence and intelligence Mr. Duval's plan, made a very elaborate report; and what did their Lordships think, after the lapse of so many years, and the constant repetition of that plan by Mr. Duval, was the conclusion at which the Commissioners arrived? Why, that Mr. Duval's plan had altogether failed, and could not operate for the purpose for which he had intended it. In that report, in point of fact, they condemned by anticipation the very Bill of which his noble and learned Friend upon the woolsack now moved the second reading. They stated, that for a long time the index of names only would be referred to, that there was danger of mistakes or misrepresentations in titles, and that cases of documentary evidence and ignorance of title were not provided for. Over and over again, paying Mr. Duval the highest compliments, which he so richly deserved, still they stated that his plan was open to all those objections. They put also other cases in which, under Mr. Duval's plan, there might be a registry of two distinct and conflicting titles of the same property, so that a man might buy under one registry without having the slightest knowledge brought to him of the other conflicting title. Then, they asked themselves what they were to do? Mr. Duval's plan was good, so far as it went, but it would not work without a map.

949
They said, referring to a particular form of index, that such an index could only be attained through the medium of a map. But, on the other hand, in a supplementary paper, two of the learned Commissioners said—
"Not only do we consider that the plan of the former Commissioners, with certain modifications, would be far superior, and with the use of private maps, where considered desirable by the parties interested, adequate to all the purposes and requirements of 'an effective system of registration;' but after long and patient investigation, our conviction is that any plan of map indexes, however specious in theory, would, in practice, not only be found wanting in efficiency for many of the important purposes of registration, but in the course of a few years would become productive of serious evils; evils affecting the facility of transfer and the security of titles, and attaching peculiarly to such a plan, and that, instead of diminishing the burdens on land, it would ultimately add materially to them.
They stated that it would cost about 2,000,000 l. His noble and learned Friend, he believed, estimated it at nearer 3,000,000 l. Now, he asked their Lordships to look at the difficulties and expense which would attend this system of mapping. Our neighbours, the French, had in the year 1808, for purposes of a fiscal nature, had a map of the whole country constructed. In 1838 they reported that the state of confusion which had arisen upon that map by a lapse of thirty years was so great that a now one would be necessary. They represented that it would cost 200,000,000 francs, and that it would require thirty years to execute. Certainly England and Wales were not the size of France; hut their Lordships might imagine from that statement, how difficult it was to form such a map. Let them take a ride a few miles round London, and see how every field was altered day by day, and almost hour by hour, by the operation of building societies or other agencies. The moment a house was built, or a small portion cut of so as to alter the previously existing boundary, down must go a surveyor to make a survey of that alteration, and to define the new boundaries. So often as that was done there must be new plans, which must be added to the original plan; and not only must there be an enormous staff of engineers, surveyors, and map makers, with a constant expenditure of many thousands a year, but they would, in the course of time, be so overburdened with these maps that that of itself would destroy nil the benefit to result from them. It became apparent, then, that the map
950
would introduce vast difficulties and expense, and that without the map the register would be of no value at all. Indexes of names were equally a difficulty. In Middlesex, for instance, there were hundreds of the respectable families of Joneses and Smiths constantly migrating, and of whom it would be impossible to keep any accurate account. The result of the inquiry was, that under the Commission, the Bill was brought in with a map. It was sent to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, and he believed that upon the Motion of his noble and learned Friend then upon the woolsack, maps were rejected in the Committee.
LORD BROUGHAM: They were not absolutely rejected; we could not get them.
LORD ST. LEONARDS: At all events, the Committee, striking out the maps, substituted this measure: that the registrar should have the authority to furnish maps whenever he thought proper. That provision was struck out in the passage of the Bill through the House. What was it then? It was a measure which the Commissioners, on whose report they had been acting, had told them most distinctly was powerless for the purpose for which it was intended. Was that, then, the Bill which their Lordships were now to be asked to support? If it were, at all events they must not be asked to support it upon the authority of the Commissioners.
He denounced this measure, in the face of the people of England, as one which would produce great delusion, and would afford no assistance in the requisite direction. Although it would bring to the solicitors great profits, yet all the solicitors of England were opposed to it. The present Bill did not tell what was to be the number of registrars, what their salaries were to be, the number of their clerks, or the amount of fees. In the first Bill there were schedules in which these items might be filled up; but by the present Bill the whole of the patronage was in the hands of the Crown or the Lord Chancellor. He wished to impress upon the House that this was not a measure which had been recommended by any Commission. On the contrary, it was opposed to every recommendation of every Commission, and he could not understand the arguments which had been adduced against those recommendations. He apprehended, therefore, that this plan would entirely fail.
The next point was with regard to as-

951
sisting the transfer of land. He believed there never had been a greater delusion than had existed on this subject. He would take upon himself to say that it would in no manner assist the transfer of land. There were persons who believed that it would shorten abstracts and conveyances. It would do no such thing. He spoke with experience and knowledge upon this matter, the first part of his life having been passed as a conveyancer in considering the validity of titles and answering cases. He had seen, probably more titles in his day than any man living; therefore, while he spoke with humility, he spoke also with experience, and he asserted that the plan proposed would neither shorten the abstract a single word, nor assist the transfer or conveyance. Were abstracts in the counties of York and Middlesex, both which were register counties, shorter than abstracts of title deeds to estates in other counties? It was well known that they were not.
His noble and learned Friend had quoted the numbers of deeds and instruments registered in Yorkshire, but he had forgotten to enumerate the numbers that were not registered. He (Lord St. Leonards) could again speak from experience. He had seen great numbers of titles to estates in the register counties, the muniments of which had not been registered; and in not one of those had there been any suppression of title. Then their Lordships were told that the Bill would provide a place of safe custody for deeds, and it contained a provision compelling every man to bring up his deeds to town and leave them there, the object of this arrangement being to prevent a suppression of deeds. It was said, "Here will be a safe place for a man's deeds," and therefore they proposed to compel every man to bring his deeds up, whether he would or no, to one great building in town, and to give him—what?—why, to make him pay whenever he desired to look at them. But an Englishman liked to have his own sheepskins in his own box. As to the suppression of deeds, he must again refer to experience, and he told their Lordships that he never recollected a single instance of the suppression of a really important deed. He had tried frequently to recollect if such a case had occurred within his experience; and though attorneys might sometimes suppress a deed which they believed to be of no importance, yet he repeated that he never knew a single instance arising of the suppression of an im-
952
portant deed. The Commissioners of 1832 declared that the suppression of deeds was very rare indeed; and the Incorporated Law Society, in their petition against the Bill of 1851, affirmed that nothing was so rare as the suppression of deeds. It was, in fact, the general opinion of the best-informed persons, that though, no doubt, such suppression might take place, it scarcely ever did. He would put it to their Lordships, then, whether they were prepared to saddle the country with a charge of 1,000,000 l. a year, at the very least, even without maps, merely in order to guard against the contingency of an occasional suppression of a deed? If Parliament would let purchasers alone, they would get on very well without its assistance. Once a man had paid his purchase money, had his conveyance executed, and got his title deeds, he (Lord St. Leonards) would, generally speaking, insure him for 5s. against risk of losing his estate by any subsequent Act. But if Parliament passed this Bill, nobody would be secure of his title; and, at the very best, would have to be darting to the registry office on all sorts of occasions to inspect, to enter caveats, to withdraw caveats, and what not; and, after all, with the full protection purported to be given by these caveats, the man of whom you had bought a property might, unless you were very quick indeed, and very fortunate, too, in the registrar and his arrangements, mortgage the very property he had sold to you, and completely oust you. Look at the danger, too, arising from mistakes on the part of the registrars. There was a case in the books of a man named Crompton, who had registered his estate in one of the registered counties; the clerk inadvertently inserted the name as "Compton." Here the mere literal error of a clerk absolutely compromised a man's whole property. How were their Lordships to guard against such errors, such fatal errors? Again, the deeds, when registered, were to be deposited in boxes, accessible to clerks and porters. Now, how many instances had we before us every year, every month, of clerks and porters who had access to valuable deeds and other documents abstracting and selling them for waste paper, to the enormous, to the irreparable, damage of those to whom they belonged? Thus, then, while the Bill purported to guard against evils which might, in point of fact, be said to have no existence; it created dangers of the most serious cha-

953
racter, and struck at the very root of every man's title.
One evil he had referred to, the Bill proposed to remedy in a very curious way. In the first Bill on this subject, introduced elsewhere by his noble and learned Friend opposite, it was provided that the registrar should be personally liable for any damage arising to parties from negligence or error on the part of the registrars or their clerks; but in the present measure there was no such liability cast on these officials—an exemption by no means calculated to sharpen their vigilance. If loss should befall any one by the fault of the registry office, indeed, the Bill said that the injured party should have compensation out of the Consolidated Fund—so that, at first sight, it might appear that no one had occasion to apprehend ultimate loss except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who might from time to time be called upon to refund 50,000 l. or 60,000 l. or so, lost to registered persons by the negligence of the registrars. But the Bill, anxious to relieve the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from any such grave fears, conferred on the Registrar General, who was the master of the whole concern, in whom all power was reposed, authority, from time to time, to frame any new regulations and formalities that for any reason might seem to him expedient, and to require from all persons registered strict adherence to those regulations and formalities, in default of which adherence, from whatever cause, parties were to have no claim for compensation for any loss that might befall them from the neglect of the officials. This indirectly took away all chance of compensation.
It was said that the measure was expedient, with a view to the abridging transfers of land; but it was in no degree requisite for that purpose, which might be effectually accomplished without it. He would himself undertake to prepare a conveyance of any noble Lord's whole property within a single sheet of letter paper, as thoroughly effectual to all intents and purposes as though it occupied twenty skins of parchment. But men preferred a settled form, the operation of which was well understood, to any new although a shorter one; and he himself would, if he were to make a purchase, still adopt the common form, although avoiding prolixity. All that was needed, in this respect, was still further to simplify the law of real property. Much had been done in this way within the memory of the present
954
generation, and he did not at all despond as to the effectuation of most of what remained to be done. Suits in equity had been so abridged by the substitution of claims for bills and other provision, that the result, formerly attained only by large outlay, and after long delay, could now be arrived at with little expense, and almost immediately. Legal estates, which could not be got in except at great expense, when outstanding in lunatics, mortgagees, or trustees, would now be readily obtained at little expense. Fines and recoveries had been swept away, and a new scheme substituted, elaborate indeed, but which effectually did away with all the expense of fines and recoveries, and also with all their dangers—dangers which had heretofore involved the utter ruin of scores and scores of important families; the time for barring the title to a property had been limited from sixty to forty years; the barrage of dower on a husband's estate could now, under the new Dower Act, be effected by the mere declaration of the husband, without expense; outstanding terms had been swept away;—and in every direction expenses, difficulties, and delays, had been so obviated, that the outlay of time and money upon conveyances now bore no relation whatever to the former condition of things. Still, more might be accomplished. It was his opinion that the effect of reducing the time for recovering an estate from sixty to forty years was to render it no longer necessary to carry back abstracts of titles for sixty years; but as a tenant for life might live more than forty years, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) when Chancellor, held that a title must still be made out for sixty years. He hoped still to be able to place this on a better footing. Some desired to have a transfer of land made as simple as a transfer of stock in the funds; but that was impossible:—some expense must be incurred, though the expense need not be so great as was commonly supposed. He could not better illustrate this fact, than with a statement with which he had been favoured by an eminent conveyancer, of the actual expenses recently incurred by a party in the investment of more than 1,000,000 l. sterling in, land. The entire amount of the purchase money was 1,068,421 l. 19 s., which was laid out in the purchase of fifteen estates; and there was beside, included in the bill, the cost of the sale of an estate, for

955
80,000 l. How much did their Lordships suppose the hill of the solicitors to have been for the whole of these transactions, including their own payments out of pocket, fees to counsel, payments for stamps—from which, obviously, they derived no advantage, but the precise reverse of advantage—and the charges of other solicitors? Why, the entire bill of the solicitors for this outlay of 1,068,421 l. 19 s. upon the purchase of fifteen estates, containing in all 26,286 acres, all charges for counsel's fees, for stamps, but not including ad valorem stamps, for payments to other solicitors, and for the sale of an estate for 80,000 l., was 3,420 l. 8s. 17 d., of which 838 l. 12 s. went in counsel's fees, 183 l. 17 s. 6d. in stamps, and 261 l. 18 s. 5d. to other solicitors. Let this expense be compared with the common charge for investment of a like sum in the funds. Above all, let it be compared with the enormous and improper charges on sales to purchasers of railway shares. While upon the topic of the expenses of transfer, he wished to observe that it was not only the interests of large proprietors that were menaced by this Bill; by no means. The interests of the humbler classes—of the smaller tradesmen—of operatives—even of labourers—were at stake. Their Lordships had, probably, no idea of the minute purchases of real property that were being constantly made by these classes. There was, for instance, a large number of building societies now in operation, some with a capital approaching half a million sterling, the collective property of thousands of humble men, whose aim was the purchase of a plot of ground and the erection of a house upon it, and whose natural and proper pride, when they should first tread upon the little freehold their industry and their prudence had achieved for them, would be as glowing as that of any of their Lordships in acceding to the broad acres of his ancestors. Their Lordships would scarcely suppose that on the humble acquisitions of these worthy and industrious persons the proposed measure would impose a serious impediment, and inflict a grave loss; yet such would be the case. He held in his hand a letter he had received from a gentleman with whom he was not personally acquainted, Mr. Green, a solicitor at Bury St. Edmunds, whose object was to get him to oppose this measure, and, among other grounds, to show the extent of the
956
hardships which it would inflict on small purchasers. The Commissioners of 1833 admitted that the Bill was not necessary for the safety of small purchasers, but they contended that its provisions must include all assurances, in order to insure a completeness of system. That gentleman said—
"The counsel and eminent London solicitors, who alone appear to have been consulted on this subject, have little conception of the number and minuteness of the transactions with which the general practitioner is conversant, and of the effect which would be produced by the additional expense and delay of registration. These would not be proportioned to the amount, but would attach themselves without distinction on every transaction. A difference in the rate of registration fees can be a question of only a few shillings; the real burden lies in those multitudinous details which rest with the solicitor, and which will be exactly as troublesome in the smallest as in the largest transaction. It is important to exhibit the proportion of small and large transactions as ascertained by actual experience. I believe that the business of my firm represents rather a higher proportion than the average business of the kingdom, for, while the great London offices have many larger transactions, the great body of practitioners have fewer transactions above 500 l. Yet an examination of upwards of 300 conveyances and 450 mortgages transacted by my firm in the last three years exhibits the following percentage proportion:—

Conveyances.

Mortgages.

3,000 l., and upwards.

3

30

4

26

From 2,000 l. to 3,000 l

4

2

From 1,000 l.to 2,000 l.

9

10

From 500 l. to 1,000 l.

14.

10

From 400 l. to 500 l.

9

70

12

74

From 300 l. to 400 l.

6

12

From 200 l. to 300 l.

19

11

From 100 l. to 200 l.

17

13

Under 100 l.

19.

26

100

100

It appears, therefore, that of conveyances 70 per cent, and of mortgages 74 per cent, are under 500 l. I may add that in 40 per cent of the conveyances, and in 98 per cent of the mortgages, we were concerned for both parties. The prevalence of this practice diminishes so much the expense and delay, that the increase of both, resulting from registration, will be out of all proportion to the present amount. In these cases the cost of the conveyances under 500 l. has been from 2l. to 7l., and of mortgages from 1l. to 6l., in proportion to the amount, exclusive of stamps. There is nothing in the proposed system of registration which will subtract 1s. from these minor conveyances and mortgagees, and every proceeding under it will be an addition of labour and expense. I have carefully computed the expenses which must be incurred on every occasion, and cannot make them less than 5l. on every conveyance, and 4l. 10 s. on every mortgage, exclusive of registrar's fees, and assuming that printed forms and every facility will be provided. And in the case of a mortgage there will be at least half the same expense incurred in clearing it from the register on its dis-

957
charge; and these processes can never be waved, but must invariably be pursued in every transaction, great and small. But the expense, great as it is, will not be the only or even the principal objection. A considerable and indefinite amount of delay must be occasioned. Delay in mortgage transactions is of great moment. Of the 70 per cent of mortgages under 500 l., I venture to say that a half were prepared and executed within a week from the application for the money, and many of them on the same day. Equitable mortgages or memoranda with deposits of title deeds are invariably completed on the same day, and are commonly managed by hankers in the country, without the interposition of a solicitor. This would now be impossible. In the cases of mortgages and conveyances in general, the time occupied in searches and subsequent registration of the deed cannot be much less than fourteen days."
That paper showed not only that transfers of small properties were made for very small sums, but that registration would be an additional expense, would give no benefit in return for the injury it would inflict upon these small purchasers, and would create delay, which in most cases would be a serious evil. A system of registration would lead to the necessity of searches, of going to register sales, mortgages, and the subsequent discharge of them, caveats, and inhibitions—all of which would cause expense, and, as they would depend upon the attorney, he must come to town to see after these transactions.
There was a strange anomaly in the proposed measure. His noble and learned Friend had found it necessary to make a provision for putting on the register the title of a person who was a trustee, and allowing a reference to some document without going into the trusts, and then, said his noble and learned Friend, any one might safely buy from that person, although it was known he was a trustee. But was not that trusting to a title that was not on the register? The owner of the property might place confidence in the trustee; but the trustee, by mortgaging or selling the estate, might beggar him and his family, and it would then be said that it was his own fault for trusting the man and not the register. Why should they not guard themselves by the register as to that other document? Were they to have a general register at a cost of 1,000,000 l. a year in order to place on the register, not the real title, but the legal transfer, keeping the former off it? The person whose name was on the register might sell the property; but, said his noble and learned Friend, a party interested in the property might prevent a sale by putting on the register an inhibition. In many
958
cases a Chancery suit would, follow: but a simple injunction would not do, and by this Bill he would be deprived of the protection which the law now afforded. A party would say, "I have trusted this man, thinking he was an honest man, and he has sold my estate." The answer would be, "You must have been a blockhead to put your estate in his hands." That showed the weakness of the system.
But he was now approaching a very important part of the subject. His noble and learned Friend proposed that, in order to make this system work, they must do away with notice. Now, the object of a general registration was to communicate knowledge—to give to the party going to advance money on mortgage or to purchase an estate notice of deeds previously executed relating to the same property. A court of equity said, "If you know of a transaction, although the deed is not registered, you shall be bound by it;" but by this Bill, although knowledge of a previous purchase might be brought home to the mortgagee, the purchase deed not being registered, the mortgage could be enforced. Put a common case. A man bought an estate and paid for it—was in possession—his title made out, but his purchase deed was not registered. The seller representing himself as still the owner, although he had sold the estate, sells or mortgages it to another. If the person with whom he was dealing happened to know that he had already sold it, what did the court of equity do? What it was right to do. It said that the party having that notice should be hound by it, although the former deed was not registered; and he could not recover against the purchaser of the property. The highest authorities were in favour of retaining that practice. It was sometimes argued that in the interpretation of constructive notice, equity went too far—and that might be correct. But the moment that equity did that which their Lordships and the House of Commons were now called upon to do, the court would cease to be a court of equity, and would be stamped with iniquity. The same injustice would apply even to persons who had attempted to register. He had known several instances in which clerks who had been sent to register deeds had neglected to do so, and the charges for registration had been made out against the party interested, although his deeds were not registered at all. But, under

959
this Bill, that party would be bound, and might lose his estate, and unless he registered his deeds himself, or saw them registered, he could never be sure that another party could not come behind his back and take away his property. Upon this doctrine of notice it was said the majority of the Commissioners were in favour of doing away with notice. But he held in his hand the heads of a Bill—Mr. Duval's Bill—which was brought into the House of Commons by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) in 1830, and, in a letter addressed to him by Mr. Duval on the subject of the Bill, Mr. Duval said—
"I send you a printed copy of the Registration Bill. Upon the clause, p. 31, as to notice, and the proviso, p. 24, which you will find struck out, the Commissioners are equally divided. The consequence is, that as this provision is not authorised by the report, it will not be included in the Bill as brought in by Campbell. Sanders, Tinney, Brodie, and myself are in favour of the clause, and Bell has written a long paper on the same side, which is in the appendix to the Report; and I send you a copy of a letter he wrote to me a day or two ago, which, in substance, proposes what I had inserted in the Bill, and is now struck out. My own impression is, that the provision saving the jurisdiction of equity in cases of actual notice is highly important."
The clause to which Mr. Duval referred did away with notice; but then Mr. Duval added this proviso:—
"Provided always that this present provision shall be without prejudice to the provision hereinafter contained for preserving the jurisdiction of courts of equity in cases of fraud."
And by another clause in the Act it was provided—
"That this Act shall not prejudice the jurisdiction of courts of equity in cases of fraud; and that the provisions hereinbefore contained for giving priority to subsequent assurances registered in the manner required by this Act, notwithstanding notice of a prior assurance, or proceeding, or act, or matter, and for protecting assurances executed during the pendency of suits in equity, shall not be construed to enact or declare or imply that actual notice at the time of making any assurance by this Act authorised to be registered, either to the party to or in whose favour such assurance shall be made, or his attorney or agent, of any such prior assurance, or proceeding, or act, or matter as aforesaid, or of the pendency of any such suit as aforesaid, or of the presenting of any petition of appeal or rehearing in any such suit, shall not be considered or be made use of as evidence of fraud in such party, or his attorney or agent."
By that Bill, then, Mr. Duval provided that direct notice should be binding upon a party, and that he should not be allowed, as the Bill now before their Lordships proposed,
960
to defraud the person to whom the property was sold, and who had paid his money. On the 30th of March, 1834, Mr. Duval wrote again to him, saying—
"There is one point upon which I think I have made some communications to you before. It is my clear opinion that equity must retain its jurisdiction in cases of fraud. The former Bill had such a provision, which I introduced, instead of leaving the party to bring an action, and I never had a doubt of such a clause being ultimately inserted in the Bill."
The Commissioners, then, were equally divided upon the point; and up to the last moment Mr. Duval was of opinion, as he (Lord St. Leonards) was, and always should remain, that direct notice should be binding upon a party. The object of registration was to give notice. If a man had notice it would be the most inequitable of all transactions to say it should not be binding.
It was very tedious to go through all the points of the subject, but it was most important that their Lordships should be made acquainted with them. Now, there was a vast number of deeds that were never put upon the register in the register counties. In the first place, there was the expense of the register itself. A statement, which he thought entitled to great attention, was issued against the Bill of 1851 by the Incorporated Law Society, in which that body informed their Lordships and the other House of Parliament that the number of instruments to be registered in a year amounted to not less than 300,000, or about 1,000 a day. His noble and learned Friend seemed to forget that the parties in every case must go into an examination of the deeds—for no man would buy an estate without seeing the deeds; persons would constantly be making searches; a considerable number of attorneys would be continually occupied in examining deeds, or entering caveats, or entering discharges of mortgages: scores of clerks would be running about in every direction;—and taking into account the number of persons who would be engaged in the transaction of the business to be carried on, it would be found that an enormous deal of room would be necessary for the accommodation of the department. He would take off one-third from the estimate of the number of deeds to be annually registered, and assuming the deeds at 200,000 yearly, and the expense upon an aver-age 5l. each (and he was perfectly satisfied that he understated the case),

961
the expense would be not less than 1,000,000 l. a year; and if the system were to be set going, 2,000,000 l. or 3,000,000 l. would be wanted to start with. They were told that the object of the Bill was to relieve the burdens on land; but he contended that the effect of establishing the proposed system of registration would be, without conferring any corresponding benefit on the public, to increase their burdens to an enormous extent; and if the Bill had been entitled "a Bill to increase the Burdens on Land without any corresponding Benefit," it would have been a more accurate description of its practical effect. If there had been complaints the other day against a house tax, how would the people be content with a registry tax that would exceed the house tax in the severity with which it would press on the country? There was no man who would have been subjected to the house tax, who might not come within the incidence of this tax—he could not escape from it. On the ground, then, of the enormous expense which this Bill would involve, he objected to it.
The Bill had been entitled "A Bill for the Registration of Assurances in England and Wales." If he met anything like a mistake he was not in the habit of supposing it a mistake, but he was more in the habit of supposing that he had himself made a mistake—but a provision extending the operation of the Bill to Wales he could not find. Their Lordships had formerly sent down to the other House a Bill for the registration of assurances in England and Wales; but now the noble and learned Lord had cut out Wales. Why should Wales be omitted? [Lord CAMPBELL said, he would show that Wales was comprehended.] The noble and learned Lord was entitled, then, to great credit for the way in which Wales was introduced into the Bill without seeming to intend it. If the Bill was a Bill for England and Wales before, and did apply to Wales, why were words applying it to Wales now cut out? If the system could be shown to work, he should support it with all his heart. A system of registration ought to be domestic and local; it Ought not to be, like that which was now proposed, centralised. The present measure sinned against all sound principle.
There was only one other case to which he would refer for the purpose of illustrating what would be the operation of the Bill, and that was forgery. It was said
962
the object of a general registry was to prevent forgery. So far from preventing forgery, this Bill would assist forgery. Hitherto the form had been one that gave validity to the deed executed. The memorial had been required to be attested by one of the witnesses who had attested the deed itself. In this Bill that requirement was dispensed with; there was no certainty that the deed registered was a real deed; it might be a forged deed, but as a matter of course it was registered, whether forged or not. In those cases in which forgeries had been committed, he regretted to say that they had been committed by the agents and solicitors who had a man's deeds using his deeds without his knowledge, forging his name, and thus executing mortgages on his estate, which remained for years undiscovered; it could never be known from the register, unless there were other transactions. The deeds being on the registry would give no notice to the man whose name was forged, but their being on the registry would give a seeming validity to the transaction, which otherwise it would not have. The Bill, therefore, instead of being a protection against forgery, would greatly add to the facilities for forgery.
There was another point to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention in regard to the bearing of this measure on the transactions of private life. The Bill called on persons to give the date, the names of the parties, and the effect of the conveyance; and if any one required to know the nature of the deed, it must be produced. The Committee of 1832 thought it right that men should be compelled to disclose all the circumstances of their title. Times were very much changed. There was a time when Judges would not allow a man to produce his title. An anecdote was told of Lord Kenyon, that when a man had brought his deeds into court, he was told by that learned Judge to sit on the box which contained them, and to let no man see his title. No man ought to be called upon to disclose the titles to his property, except in case of absolute necessity. This Bill, too, would enable money lenders to discover the interests of improvident young men under family settlements. Many a man had been saved because he could not show, during his father's lifetime, what his interest was in the family property.

963
Without trespassing further on the attention of their Lordships, he should say, in conclusion, that he ought to apologise for having occupied so much of their time; hut the subject was one of great importance, and this was the first opportunity on which the objections he had to the measure could have been stated. He hoped the remarks he had made would be received in the spirit in which they were tendered. The measure had been introduced by one for whose memory he entertained the highest respect, and was advocated by many persons to whose opinions he attached great weight; but after the experience of a great many years in those particular departments to which the Bill had relation, he should say it was because of the responsibility which, under these circumstances, attached to him, that he had felt it his duty to state fully his opinion of the Bill.
Amendment moved, "That the Bill be read a Second Time that day Six Months."
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he rose to address their Lordships under circumstances of great discouragement. His noble and learned Friend had occupied the House so long, that it was now but thinly attended—not from any fault of his noble and learned Friend, but from the nature of the subject. However, he was much comforted by thinking that the Bill was safe. On the side on which his noble and learned Friend sat, only half-a-dozen Peers could be counted. His noble and learned Friend had forgot to make his Motion, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months; but he (Lord Campbell) presumed that their Lordships must hold that Motion as having been made; and he presumed that his noble and learned Friend was prepared to walk out in support of that Motion; but he thought his noble and learned Friend would not have a very numerous following. On the whole, he (Lord Campbell) was sanguine that their Lordships would go into Committee on the Bill, for which the points brought forward by his noble and learned Friend seemed much fitter than for this debate on the principle. He wished to address himself to one or two points on which his noble and learned Friend had touched. He should begin by relieving his noble Friend from anxiety on the subject of Wales. He would assure his noble and learned Friend that he had found a mare's nest; and unless his other arguments against the Bill were sounder than this on
964
which he had placed such reliance, his objections would vanish into thin air. Considering the great learning of his noble and learned Friend, he thought that he must have been aware that Wales, being under obedience to the Crown of England, was by the common law part of England; but, still more, one would have thought his noble and learned Friend must have been aware that to remove all doubt and ambiguity there had been a Declaratory Act, which was the 20th George II., c. 42. [Lord ST. LEONARDS rose, as about to offer an explanation]—"Don't now; it is not proper." He thought his noble and learned Friend would have been obliged to him for the information he had communicated; and when his noble and learned Friend had resumed his seat, as regularity required, he should show that it was enacted—not enacted, but declared—by the first section of the Act already mentioned, that in all cases where the Kingdom of England, or that part of Great Britain called England, had been or should be mentioned in any Act of Parliament, the same had been and should be deemed and taken to comprehend and include the dominion of Wales and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed—which he hoped accordingly would shortly have the benefit of enjoying this Bill as part of the law of England. Notwithstanding that slip of his noble and learned Friend, he (Lord Campbell) had the greatest respect for him as a lawyer and a Judge. He was a consummate master of his art. If he (Lord Campbell) had a title to an estate to settle, he should with eagerness have sought his noble and learned Friend's opinion; if he had a dispute in a court of equity on the construction of a deed, he should have desired to have his noble and learned Friend for counsel; and when his noble and learned Friend was elevated to the Bench, there was no one before whom, if he (Lord Campbell) had a cause for trial, he should have been been more willing that it should come. But he believed his noble and learned Friend bad a horror of legislation on this subject, which blinded his judgment and made him forget many things he had learned. He said he wished the Bill thrown out on the second reading; but if he consented to its going before a Select Committee, efforts might there be made to amend it, and there was hardly an objection he had made which might not be removed in Committee. But no; he was determined at once that the Bill should be thrown out on the second

965
reading—that very Bill which their Lordships passed in 1851, nemine contradidente; when the Motion was put, "That this Bill do pass," not a single "not content" was pronounced. But his noble and learned Friend relied on the speech he had made that night to change the opinions of all who heard him, and bring about a complete revolution of public sentiment. He was under a misapprehension in supposing that there was any novelty in what their Lordships had heard that night. It was a most able statement, but it was all old. Lord St. Leonards was not a Member of the House of Commons, but Sir Edward Sugden was a Member of the House of Commons. He had various opportunities of opposing the measure when formerly introduced; and he copiously availed himself of those opportunities, or he (Lord Campbell) was mistaken. Again, the noble and learned Lord published a most able pamphlet in 1830 or 1831, which was very generally circulated; but lest it should not have due justice done to it, his noble and learned Friend republished it again, and again, and again. In the Law of Vendors and Purchasers that pamphlet was incorporated, and was always bound up with it, so that all who wished to have the benefit of the Law of Vendors and Purchasers were compelled to have the benefit of the pamphlet against registration. The noble and learned Lord had also more recently republished the same pamphlet under the title of Shall we Register or Not? That pamphlet was circulated among their Lordships, and it was by no means unknown to them when their Lordships unanimously passed the same Bill as that which his noble and learned Friend now so strongly opposed. After their Lordships had been pleased on a former occasion unanimously to pass the Bill, his noble and learned Friend was rather sanguine in his expectation that their Lordships would throw out this Bill on the second reading. There was a considerable number of topics to which his noble and learned Friend had adverted which might have been better reserved for the Committee; but there were some which he (Lord Campbell) felt it to be his duty now to remark on. His noble and learned Friend had declared that he was a friend to registration in the abstract; but if that were so, why did he oppose this Bill, which might be moulded in Committee into any shape he pleased? He (Lord Campbell) was afraid his noble and
966
learned Friend was by no means a warm friend to registration, because, if registration was liable to some of the objections he had taken, they were fundamental and irremediable. The noble and learned Lord had stated, that all systems of registration which had been attempted had been failures. He (Lord Campbell) must take upon himself to give a totally different opinion, for he believed that in every country where registration had been attempted, it had had success, more or less. In Scotland there had been a registry for two centuries; and he believed the Scotch would sooner surrender almost any of their institutions, of which they were so proud. It had been found most useful, too, in Ireland, and in the Colonies, and on the Continent. If it was not found beneficial, would it not have been abolished? But it had never been renounced by any country which had adopted it. Then, as to the expense of the present system, the noble and learned Lord urged that the expense of a conveyance without registration was not so very great, as was supposed, and he brought an instance which he cited in all his pamphlets, whore 1,000,000 l. was laid out at an expense of only 3,000 l. But was that a fair criterion of the general expense incurred in the transfer of land? His noble and learned Friend knew that it was not. The 1,000,000 l. was laid out chiefly in a few large purchases—one of nearly 500,000 l. What would have been the expense if there had been some hundreds of purchases? The noble and learned Lord said, that at present there was little concealment of deeds. He (Lord Campbell) believed there was no great insecurity with regard to purchases, just because of the enormous expense incurred in inquiries he-fore completing the purchase. But, with all the expense, he would ask, with regard to mortgages, if there were not many instances under the present system in which mortgagees had been defrauded by deeds being suppressed? Our equity reports swarmed with cases upon that subject; and it was to guard purchasers against the frauds incident to the present system that his noble and learned Friend had published the very profound treatise he had formerly referred to, consisting of three bulky volumes, from which, however, no line could be spared, except perhaps the chapter against a general registration. Considering, then, the insecurity and the great expense of the present system, he

967
would ask if it was not desirable that they should adopt the plan propounded in this Bill, by which they would know at a glance every deed which could possibly affect the land they meant to purchase? His noble and learned Friend, indeed, allowed that such a system would be beneficial in itself; that he was a friend to registration in the abstract, and that it must be an immense advantage to have absolute security; and therefore he would proceed to notice the objections which his noble and learned Friend brought forward to counterbalance the benefit. But before doing so, he must refer to what had been stated respecting maps in the Bill of 1851. He believed that his noble and learned Friend was under a great mistake in stating that the Commission which recommended the measure declared that it could not be carried out without a series of maps, and had denounced Mr. Duval's measure as mischievous and impracticable. On this subject he would refer to his noble Friend on the lower bench (Lord Beaumont), who had been very active in that Commission, and who, he had no doubt, would confirm his statement, that that was not the opinion of the Commissioners; that they were of opinion that maps would be an advantage—and that was his (Lord Campbell's) opinion—but that they were by no means of opinion that maps were indispensable. The best proof of that was, that afterwards, when maps were struck out in Committee, both Lord Langdale and the noble Lord (Lord Beaumont), with the concurrence of all the Commissioners, thought the Bill ought to pass. Not one of the Commissioners expressed his dissent from that; so that this Bill now before the House was substantially the same measure as that which was unanimously recommended by Mr. Duval and the first Commission, and must he considered as having the recommendation of Lord Langdale and all the members of the second Commission. But to proceed with the objections that had been made. His noble and learned Friend dwelt chiefly upon the expense. Now, if the system of registration was so advisable, and was calculated to produce the benefits expected, the expense (even if likely to be much greater) could never be considered a formidable obstacle. But the first Commission took infinite pains upon that subject, and came to the conclusion that for 20,000 l. a fire-proof building of brick, mortar, and
968
iron might be constructed that would hold ail the deeds of England and Wales for sixty years to come; and perhaps at the end of a century there might be no objection to a grand auto da fé, and deeds no longer useful might he consigned to a great bonfire. The Commission had also calculated the expense of the establishment, and they found that, for 20,000 l. a year, officers of sufficient number and competency might be engaged for the service required. What reason was there to suppose that that would be a burden upon the public which the public could not and would not easily bear? But the truth was, this would he a self-supporting institution, and, with very moderate fees, there would be an ample fund to pay all the expense, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be no loser by it. But his noble and learned Friend had over and over again, in his pamphlet, held up the danger of a new tax upon land as the great bugbear. He said it would open to a "legitimate" Government—that was, he supposed, a Protectionist Government—a fine field for taxation; and to an illegitimate Government—that was, he supposed, a Liberal Government—one for confiscation. The present Government was to confiscate where the late Government was to tax. But his noble and learned Friend was not content with that, for he went on to say that the Crown would have easy access to the documents of individuals whose estates it wished to confiscate. So they were to suppose that Her Majesty Queen Victoria would endeavour to lay hold of the estates of Her subjects, making use, he fancied, of the Attorney General or of the Lord Chancellor for that purpose. But his noble and learned Friend had very lately been the Keeper of the Queen's conscience, and he was sure that he would never have advised such a course to be taken; and if not, he might have equal confidence in the noble and learned Lord who sat at present on the woolsack. His noble and learned Friend then said that this Bill would cause a serious expense to small purchasers. He was ready to admit that that was a matter for serious consideration. Upon large purchases there must be a great benefit to purchaser and seller, because as it would supersede the search for deeds, the land would bear a higher price. The noble and learned Lord seemed to think it would not be a gain to the landed interest, but only a transfer

969
of loss from one to another; bat in truth it would prevent loss altogether. At present there was in every transaction a loss on both sides. Though the expenses of the transfer fell upon the purchaser, they were deducted by him from the purchase-money; he gave so much the less for the property. So with regard to mortgages under the present system, the burden upon the landed interest was enormous. If 500 l. was required to be raised on land, the whole title deeds of a large estate were required to be ransacked, and in that way the expense of the mortgage bore a large proportion to the sum that was borrowed. A landowner would pay 6 or 7 per cent for money while the market price was only 5 per cent, and a fall in the rate of interest was no relief to him, because if he attempted to borrow the money at the lower rate of interest, or to transfer the mortgage, all the title deeds must be again ransacked by the conveyancer, and there would be all the costs to pay over again. To large estates, therefore, there could be no doubt the proposed system would be a benefit. It was true, however, that in small transactions even 5l. might be a heavy charge; but he (Lord Campbell) was most sanguine in the belief that in Committee a scheme might be devised whereby the expense upon small purchases might be made altogether insensible. His noble and learned Friend relied much on the new risk that would arise from a system of general registration, and he had stated to-night what he stated before in his pamphlet—the case where the word "Compton" was written instead of "Crompton." But in order that this mistake should be productive of mischief, it was necessary that there should be a combination of mistake on the part of the registrar, and of fraud on the part of the vendor with respect to the same land; and it was almost impossible that such a conjunction should occur. At the present moment, all officers in the register counties of England, and in Edinburgh, and in Dublin, were liable to an action if they committed a mistake by which any person suffered; and there was no instance, he believed, of such an action having ever been brought. The remedy given by this Bill against the Consolidated Fund he considered to be merely for tranquillising unnecessary fears; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer need be under no apprehension that his budget would be at all affected by that clause in the Bill, for the
970
probability of such an action being brought—and successfully brought—was infinitesimally small. Besides, there would be a remedy against those whose fault caused the loss; they would give security for the due execution of their duty, and they and their sureties would be liable to be sued for neglect. [Lord ST. LEONARDS: Is that in the Bill?] A clause to that effect would be proposed in Committee. His noble and learned Friend had dwelt at great length upon the inconvenience that would arise from disclosures. Now, he had first to state that disclosures would not necessarily arise under this Bill; and next, that he did not agree with his noble and learned Friend as to the evil that was to be apprehended from disclosures. In the first place, disclosures might, if it was so desired, be prevented. Trusts need not be registered, though the fee simple title was registered. That was the course with regard to stock at the Bank. Or there might be a certificate required to show that the party who wished to inspect had an interest. But he (Lord Campbell) believed that disclosure would prevent fraud and false credit, and would be a benefit. He could appeal to his noble Friend the President of the Council whether, on a subject on which he was well versed—he meant the shipping interest—whether there was not a register of every ship, with its owner, and every mortgage upon it? Was that an evil? No; on the contrary, merchants and bankers had no difficulty in dealing with shipowners, because the disclosures on the register prevented all fraud or false credit. So with regard to wills. It was well known that at Doctors' Commons for the sum of one shilling sterling any one might see the wills of all the eminent men who had died in England, and, till lately, of Napoleon himself; and he had never heard the slightest complaint on the ground of disclosure. There was another objection which had been frequently made; but as his noble and learned Friend did not refer to it he supposed he might now understand that it was no longer persisted in—that it would interfere with equitable mortgages, and affect the facility of raising money on a sudden by deposit of deeds. His noble and learned Friend did not rely upon that, because it was not tenable. The Bill would be found to give much greater facility than ever to equitable mortgages. His noble and learned Friend knew that even the deposit of the deeds in the case of a

971
mortgage was a very slender security, because they could never be sure that they had got the whole of them; there had been instances of fraudulent persons parcelling out their deeds, and so borrowing several sums of money on the same property to thrice its value. Now, by a clause in the present Bill such frauds would be effectually prevented, and any person in possession of property would be able to raise money upon it with much greater facility; the lender would be perfectly secure, and would therefore lend on more moderate terms. But then his noble and learned Friend said that the persons in possession of property would derive no advantage from the registration in point of security. Now, it was true that the registration would not cure a bad title; that was not the object of registration. It was meant as a security against fraud, and at the end of twenty or thirty years the security would be complete, because once a registry was made, no subsequent unregistered instrument could affect the property. His noble and learned Friend had said that they ought to be governed by the opinions of the solicitors. Now, he (Lord Campbell) entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend that the solicitors were a most respectable body of men; but there existed amongst them a strong esprit de corps. The country solicitors of England were by far the most powerful and influential body in the community, possessing great influence both in the lower House of Parliament and also in their Lordships' House, by means of their advice to those whose affairs they managed. He might mention as an historical fact that he once had the honour of sitting on a Committee on copyhold tenure with the late Sir Robert Peel, where that distinguished man had shown himself a zealous reformer, as he was in every branch of the law. He was anxious for the enfranchisement of copyholds, and the Committee were unanimously of the same opinion with him; but as he (Lord Campbell) was walking away from the Committee with him one day, Sir Robert Peel said to him, "We shall pass this Bill in the Commons, but you will have great difficulty in getting it through the Lords, for the Lords are generally under the dominion of their stewards." He (Lord Campbell) rejoiced that their Lordships were now emancipated. He might remind their Lordships that in the reign of Charles II. there had been a great
972
depression of real property; rents had fallen to a low point, and the depression had been supposed to arise from free trade. A Committee of their Lordships had sat to consider what ought to be done to remedy the evil, and that Committee had proposed two things: the one was a registration of deeds, and the other was a Bill to prohibit the importation of Irish cattle. The latter passed, but the sons of Uriah were too strong against the former; and John Evelyn, a distinguished country gentleman, the author of Sylva, spoke of the lawyers and attorneys who sat in Parliament as locusts, who sought for means by which suits and frauds might prosper, and never would tolerate a general register of deeds. It had been said that the proposed measure would bring all the business to London; and he had no doubt that consideration had operated, along with public spirit, in making country attorneys such enemies of the Bill. It was quite true, as had been stated, that the first act of the reformed Parliament had been to reject a Bill for the registration of deeds. That was a very inauspicious commencement of a career of reform; but he (Lord Campbell) believed that the circumstance was entirely owing to the influence exercised upon the House of Commons by the country solicitors. That influence, however, had declined, was declining, and he hoped might be extinguished, and in that House certainly it had entirely disappeared. With regard to the question of notice, no reliance could be placed upon deeds that were registered if any unregistered deed might be produced, and persons brought forward to swear that, at some previous time, a man's attorney, solicitor, or counsel, had the means of knowing its contents. His noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) had objected to this Bill, on the ground that it was a centralising measure. Well, let the noble and learned Lord propose in Committee—and he was sure any proposal made by the noble and learned Lord would be received most respectfully—that there should be a registry in every county, or in every electoral division, or in every Poor Law union, or in any other division of the country he chose. He (Lord Campbell) certainly considered that a metropolitan registration would be the most beneficial and the most economical. There would be infinitely less inconvenience in having one metropolitan registry than in

973
having registries in small districts, because now England and Wales might be regarded as one great city, travelling between London and Northumberland or Cornwall being now far more rapid than it formerly was between Bedford or Warwick and the metropolis. It must be remembered that if the registries were multiplied, they would have no uniformity of plan, and the difficulty of carrying out the measure would be very materially increased. Another objection upon which great reliance had been placed was, that although registration might have been an excellent thing some 20 years ago, the time for it had gone by. He thought there never was such nonsense written or spoken. Whatever improvements they might have, none could be regarded as substitutes for registration. In fact, registration, as the Real Property Commissioners bad said, was the foundation and the commencement of all improvement. The object of registration was to pat upon record all the deeds that affected real property, so that they might be seen at a glance. Even if deeds were shortened, so that upon a sheet of paper not larger than the palm of a man's hand a conveyance might be drawn that would pass all the estates of their Lordships who were great landed proprietors, that would not get rid of the necessity of registration; for two of those short deeds might be in existence, and a deed might be suppressed which, on production, being a prior deed, would carry the property. He sincerely wished that his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) would address his great abilities to frame a precedent for such short deeds as he had mentioned, so that every conveyance might be ingrossed upon a sheet of note-paper. Although there was the potentality of such a conveyance, he was afraid his noble and learned Friend, when a conveyancer, followed the tautological system; but why should that system be persisted in? If a little bit of paper a few inches square was enough for a conveyance, why should many skins of parchment be consumed? There was no one whose authority on such subject was at all to be compared with that of the noble and learned Lord; and if he were to prepare forms of short conveyances, he (Lord Campbell) was satisfied that, if it were necessary, an Act of Parliament would be passed for enforcing them. He believed there was no department of the law in which his noble and learned Friend
974
might more usefully exert his transcendent talents. Let their Lordships reflect how such a change would facilitate registration. What an easy thing it would be to register these deeds of only four inches square! Why, they would not then want a great building as a registry. Sir Charles Wetherell, who opposed registration, used to talk of the "great mausoleum" in which the deeds were to be buried; but with the newly-invented deeds of his noble and learned Friend—for which, among other things his name would be handed down to a grateful posterity—there would be no occasion for such a structure, for a thousand such deeds might be contained in a tea-chest. He hoped, notwithstanding the Motion with which his noble and learned Friend was supposed to have concluded his speech, that he would not divide the House, for he (Lord Campbell) was most anxious that the Bill should now be read a second time. The measure had been approved, after great deliberation, not only bylaw Lords, but by lay Lords—and it was a matter upon which lay Lords were quite as well qualified to judge as law Lords, because they felt the disadvantages of the present system, and were interested in seeking a remedy. During the sitting of the Committee on this subject in 1851 there was a very numerous attendance of lay Lords, including many eminent Protectionist Peers, and not one single division took place. The only point which was seriously debated was the adoption of maps. That question, he believed, was debated for two days, and the Committee eventually came to the conclusion that, although the map system was desirable, it was at present unattainable, and that the best course would be to proceed at once without maps. He (Lord Campbell) had been very much gratified to hear the compliment which his noble and learned Friend had paid to the Real Property Commissioners for the Bills which they had prepared, and which were brought in by himself (Lord Campbell). The noble and learned Lord now highly eulogised those Bills, and told their Lordships they were hardly aware of the great benefits which such measures conferred upon the country. The time was, however, when the noble and learned Lord looked upon these measures with very considerable alarm, and dreaded the most disastrous effects from them. He (Lord Campbell) could assure the noble and learned Lord that his alarm was equally unfounded if he apprehended any

975
mischief from the Registration Bill. He regarded that noble and learned Lord with the greatest respect, and hoped he (Lord Campbell) might live to see the day when the noble and learned Lord would in his place in that House proclaim the great advantages which had resulted from the adoption of a measure for establishing a general registry of deeds in England and Wales.
LORD BEAUMONTwished to say a few words in explanation of the conduct of the second Commission which sat on this subject, and which had been represented with more ingenuity than correctness by the noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards). The noble and learned Lord had said that the majority of the second Commissioners condemned the scheme suggested by the first Commission. That was not the case. When the subject was referred to the second Commission, they felt it their duty to examine into the matter with the utmost diligence, notwithstanding the previous labours and able report of the former Commission. They consequently went over the whole subject again, and they occupied several years in so doing. They examined various plans of registration which were submitted to them, and after sifting them most carefully they came to the conclusion that Mr. Duval's plan was the best. The Commissioners said, however, that there were defects in the plan, and the noble and learned Lord therefore concluded that the entire scheme had been rejected by them. So far from this being the case, they took Mr. Duval's plan as the groundwork of their proposition, and only sought to correct or remedy those defects which had struck them, and which Mr. Duval himself had pointed out. In fact, the Commission, when examining the plans, found Mr. Duval's to be the best, and they considered that it was perfect in every respect, except with regard to the index. There was no fault to be found with the plan when once the title was on the index, but there was always a difficulty in getting the title upon the index. Mr. Duval was therefore obliged to suggest an index of the names of the grantors. But up to this period they found strong objections to the index of names. The Commissioners therefore thought how they could remedy the evil, and in searching for a remedy they discovered that the difficulty might be got over by using a general map as an index. The majority of the Commissioners immediately adopted that plan, not only because
976
it got over the difficulty which had been suggested to Mr. Duval's plan of an index of names, but because it was in itself the best kind of index, inasmuch as it at once connected the land with the title in the clearest and simplest manner. However, on examining this portion of the subject further, a difference of opinion, as was well known, arose among the Commissioners, two of whom seriously objected to the system of maps, because there were not then in existence any maps sufficient for the purpose. The majority of the Commissioners, however, still adhered to their opinion in favour of the plan of an index by means of a map, and a Bill was accordingly introduced in that form. It was referred to a Select Committee, and in that Committee everybody was agreed that an index by a general map, if it could be obtained, was the best plan that could possibly be adopted; but, unfortunately, there were no maps that would serve the purpose, and in consequence of this difficulty they were again obliged to seek some other device by which the object could be obtained. They came again to the index by names, the objections to which were removed by adopting a suggestion that was made by Mr. Humphreys, and recommended by Mr. Bellenden Ker and other active members of the second Commission, namely, to divide the index of names into a number of small districts, so that it should not be probable that there would be many John Joneses or persons of the same name in any one district. At last the Commissioners arrived at a plan without maps, which overcame every difficulty, or at least which overcame every difficulty which had been suggested to the plan of Mr. Duval. When this last perfectionment of the Bill had taken place, all the members of the second Commission, as well as the members of the Select Committee, were agreed upon it, and the Bill was adopted by them unanimously. After the able speech which had just been delivered by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), which he maintained had overthrown all the objections of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leonards), he would not presume to detain the House at any length on the general question; but he must be allowed to say that, while he had heard the noble and learned Lord opposite with pain in so far as he had opposed the measure, he had heard him with pleasure, inasmuch as he was now convinced that the noble and learned Lord had said all that

977
could be said against the measure. After hearing so able an opponent of the measure as the noble and learned Lord, he was now persuaded that there was no solid argument and no real objection to the Bill. He begged only to add, that for himself, he was convinced that one register office in London for the whole country would he the best for all parties concerned, both as regarded uniformity and economy; but he knew that immense objections would be raised to that proposal in Yorkshire and elsewhere, and, having weighed the matter seriously, he had arrived at the conclusion that if it came to be a question of having no Bill, or a Bill with England and Wales divided into four or five provinces, with a register in each province, he would waive his opinion in favour of centralisation, and adopt the Bill in the latter form.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that in the then thin state of the House, he should not press his Amendment.
LORD BROUGHAMbegged just to say before the question was put, that he entirely and heartily approved of the present, as he had done of the former, Bills on the same subject. He confessed that, like the Commissioners and like his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), he should have preferred a plan with maps, but in the Committee they were satisfied that that was impossible. He thought himself authorised to add on the part of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), who had left the House, that he took the same view as he did as to the impossibility of throwing out the Bill on the second reading, and as to the absolute necessity of going into Committee upon it.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.
House adjourned till To-morrow.