Sitting of 14 March 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Absconding Debtors (Ireland).
3° Metropolitan Improvements (Repayment out of Consolidated Fund); Land Improvement (Ireland).

CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the consideration of this Bill as amended,
MR. SPOONERmoved that the Bill be re-committed. This Bill was one to enable the Crystal Palace Company to divert certain roads and make certain purchases of land, and also for other purposes connected with the company. He did not now intend to go at all into the question of the

149
opening of the palace on Sunday, which was far too important to be discussed incidentally on a Motion of this kind, but should confine himself to two points. The House was asked by that Bill to confirm an agreement between the Crystal Palace Company and the Brighton Railway Company, without having the agreement before them, or knowing one word about it. Now, he thought this in itself was highly objectionable. He had, however, obtained a copy of the agreement from the agent for the Bill, and he found that it bound the railway company to run trains to and from the Crystal Palace when it was opened, and to issue tickets entitling the holder to be carried there and back, and to admission into the palace and grounds. From the price received for such tickets the railway company were to deduct 9d. for the fare, and to pay over the remainder to the Crystal Palace Company. This constituted the Brighton Company agents to receive and pay over money to the Crystal Palace Company. Now, the charter obtained by the Crystal Palace Company from the late Government specified distinctly that they should not receive money for admission into the building on Sundays without the authority of an Act of Parliament; but if the power he had mentioned were given, there would be nothing to prevent the Crystal Palace Company from indirectly doing so through the hands of the Brighton Railway. He did not impute any such intention to the directors of the Crystal Palace Company, but he thought that the House ought not give any company the power to evade the obligations of their charter by a side wind.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Bill be re-committed, for the purpose of inserting the object, nature, and terms of the agreement entered into on the 22nd day of June 1852, between the Crystal Palace and the London and Brighton Railway Companies, referred to in the said Bill; and that it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision accordingly."
MR. GEACHsaid, he could assure the House that the Directors of the Crystal Palace Company had no desire by indirect means to avoid the obligation contained in their charter, which prevented them from opening the building on Sunday without the authority of Parliament. This, however, was a Bill for the purpose of diverting a road, and it was of very great importance that there should not be one
150
day's delay in procuring the power for making that diversion. With a view to meet the objection which had been raised, if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) would allow the Report on the Bill to be considered, he would undertake that the clause with reference to the Brighton Railway Company should be struck out of the Bill on the third reading, so that there could be no pretence at all for supposing that the Bill would be made the means of opening the Crystal Palace on the Sunday in violation of the charter. He hoped, therefore the hon. Gentleman would allow the Bill to be now considered.
MR. DEEDESsaid, that he was ready to withdraw his opposition to the Bill, on the understanding that the clause in question were withdrawn on the third reading; but he wished to draw the attention of the House to the very objectionable principle of a company's getting by a side wind the recognition of an agreement which was not in substance before the public or the House, and by means of which the very contrary of that which was the wish of the Legislature might be done.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, that his hon. Friend was in error in stating that this agreement had not been before the Committee. When he (Mr. Patten) saw the Bill, he took the same objection as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), and suggested to the Committee that such a clause should not be admitted. He then found, however, that they had carefully examined it, and had found it unobjectionable, before passing the clause. He himself also examined the agreement, and was in a position to state that there was nothing in it which could, either directly or indirectly, enable the Crystal Palace Company to open their grounds on Sunday. He thought, indeed, that no agreement should be confirmed by that House unless it was set forth in the Bill. However, as the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Geach) proposed to strike out the clause on the third reading, he should recommend his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire not to press his Motion.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, he also thought the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Geach) would meet the objection.
MR. LAINGsaid, that as Chairman of the Crystal Palace Company, he could assure the House that they, as promoters of this Bill, had no idea that the agree-

151
ment which had been alluded to could in no way affect the question of Sunday opening; and he wished distinctly to disclaim, on the part of the Directors, any intention to introduce a clause into this Bill which should affect that question. He did not believe it would do so; but, if there was any doubt upon the matter, he was quite willing that it should be struck out.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he considered that the offer to withdraw the clause relating to the agreement, quite exonerated the Directors of the Crystal Palace Company from the imputation of desiring, by means of that agreement, to avoid the obligation which the charter imposed upon them.
MR. SPOONER,said, that upon the understanding that the clause in question would be struck out of the Bill at the third reading, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be read 3°.

LONDON AND WESTMINSTER THAMES RAILWAY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
SIR JOHN SHELLEY,after presenting a petition from certain wharfingers and others interested in the property on the north bank of the Thames against the Bill, moved that it be read a second time that day six months. It was evident that the proposed railway would cause great obstruction to the traffic on the river, and to the trade of the wharfingers on the banks, while it would afford little benefit to the public; for the provision made by the small steamboats for the conveyance of passengers along the river afforded ample accommodation.
MR. MASTERMANwas understood to press the second reading of the Bill on the ground that the railway would afford increased facilities for traffic, which were very much wanted.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. J. WILSONobjected, that the interests of the Crown would be affected by this Bill, and that the Board of Works
152
and the Commissioners of Land Revenues ought to have been consulted. As that had not been done, unless the promoters consented to postpone the second reading, he should be compelled to move that it be put off to that day six months.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTbelieved his hon. Friend was now too late. The Government ought to have been more wide awake. He believed the Bill would be of great public advantage. The objection to it came from the steamboat companies, who did not want the competition of a railway; he was, however, for giving to the public the benefit of as much competition as possible, and he hoped the Government would not oppose the second reading.
MR. HUMEconcurred with his noble Friend that the Government ought to have have been more wide awake, in regard to this Bill, which would no doubt interfere with land belonging to the Crown, namely, that which was below highwater mark. It would be better to postpone the second reading until the question of how far the Bill would affect the rights of the Crown had been reported upon by the proper officers.
MR. MASTERMANconsented, and the second reading was postponed to the 4th of April.
Bill to be read 2° on Monday, 4th April.

THE IRISH LEVEES.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he begged to ask the hon. Secretary of the Treasury if directions had been sent to Ireland by any Government authority of this country, to discontinue the expense of inserting in the Dublin newspapers the usual notices of levees about to be held by the Lord Lieutenant. He asked this question, because all parties in Ireland had taken it as an intimation of the Government that they were about to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he would state to the House the circumstances under which the order referred to by the hon. Gentleman had been issued by the late Government. In the course of the last year a bill came in for advertisements, and upon that bill being examined, it was found to consist of three specific items of charge—one having reference to matters in connexion with various Acts of Parliament; another to matters of a public interest; while the third related to expenditure on account of balls and levees. He had to state to the House that the sum total of

153
the account amounted to 330 l. 13 s. 8d., and of that sum 7l. 3s. 4d. was charged for advertisements of the first class, 4l. 10 s. 10 d. for those of the second class—while no less a sum than 318 l. 19 s. 6d. was to be paid on account of the advertisement of balls and levees. Upon inquiry, it was found that, in the course of last year, the advertisements on account of one levee alone, being seventeen in number, amounted to 35 l. 18 s., and the expenditure on account of sixty-one advertisements of the ball which followed, was no less than 41 l. The late Government, therefore, came to the conclusion that the practice in Dublin and London in reference to these matters should be assimilated, and that the notices should be confined in future to the Gazette; and that was an arrangement which entirely coincided with the views of the present Government also.

AUSTRIA AND TURKEY.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir I wish to make an inquiry of the Government respecting the present relations between Austria and the Porte. I observe in a public journal of great authority that an ultimatum has been presented by Austria to the Porte, containing nine requirements. I have them here, but I shall not trouble the House with them, except to say that they are all requirements painful in their nature and perilous, I think, to the independence of the Porte. Two of them, however, I must notice. One of them requires the immediate evacuation of Montenegro by the army of the Porte; the second requisition is that Kleck and Sultorina, the only two ports of the Adriatic to which British commerce, at the low rate of the Turkish tariff, can pour its cargoes and goods into that part of the world, shall be now closed to our enterprize. This journal also states that unfortunately the ultimatum has not only been presented but accepted. I wish to know, therefore, from the noble Lord if the Government have received any official intelligence of those circumstances; also I would inquire of the noble Lord whether—if the discussions between Austria and the Sublime Porte are concluded—Her Majesty's Government have received official information to the effect stated in the journal to which I have referred; and if the noble Lord is prepared to lay upon the table all such papers as may illustrate our relations both with regard to Austria and the Porte in reference to those proceedings?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, Her Ma-
154
jesty's Government have received official information from Constantinople as to the final arrangement of the differences between Austria and the Sublime Porte, and that the demands made by Count Leiningen on the part of Austria had been agreed to by the Porte. I will, however, only refer to the two that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to. It was demanded on the part of Austria that the former status should be re-established in Montenegro, and that it should be evacuated by the Turkish troops, Count Leiningen undertaking that the Turkish troops should not be molested in their march. Another demand was, that the status of the two ports of Kleck and Sutorina as it had existed for some years should not be disturbed; and that likewise was acceded to on the part of the Porte. On the subject of this last condition a communication had been made by Colonel Rose, Her Majesty's Chargéd'Affaires at Constantinople, the effect of which was, that nothing should be done with reference to those important territories, Kleck and Sutorina, without the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government. With respect to other conditions of the treaty concerning the refugees now holding service in the Turkish army, it is supposed that Austria desired that those persons should be confined to the interior; but the demand was modified, and Austria now seems to be satisfied by the removal of the Turkish army from Montenegro. There was an important question with regard to the protection of the Christians of Bosnia, with respect to which the first demand was modified. As to the demand for injuries inflicted on Austrian subjects, it has been satisfied by the condition of paying a certain sum of money. As to laying the papers on the table, I beg to say, in the first place, that I believe it is not usual, when there has been a negotiation between two foreign Powers, in which this country is not directly and immediately concerned, and when these negotiations have ended satisfactorily, and have not resulted in hostilities, to lay the papers on the table. In the next place, I cannot think that the public interest can be served by laying such papers on the table, for, in the course of a negotiation of this kind, demands are put forward which afterwards are modified on representations being made, and the laying of papers on the table might occasion difficulties in the attempt to come to the satisfactory settlement of such a question.
MR. DISRAELI: Do I understand the

155
noble Lord to say that the ports of Kleck and Sutorina are closed?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: That was the former condition of those ports, and I suppose for the present they do remain closed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he proposed to take the Consolidated Fund Bill somewhat out of its usual course by moving that it be read a Third Time To-morrow at half-past Four o'clock, before the notices of Motion.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was unwilling to interpose any difficulty in the progress of the Bill moved by the hon. Gentleman, but he felt that a great many Members on his side of the House had to complain of the manner in which the present Government were proceeding with the public business. Without any previous notice, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had that evening completely altered the course of business as it was laid down in the paper of the House. He proposed to postpone until Friday next the Committee on the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill, and to go into Committee that evening on the Jews Bill, altogether contrary to the arrangement of business in the Votes. Now it was impossible for hon. Members to discharge their duties properly in that House if such a system was to be allowed. It was obvious that the noble Lord had made this change with a view of forcing on the third reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill before the Easter recess. He thought it was not consistent with the usual conduct of the noble Lord to attempt to shuffle off the expression of public opinion that was manifesting itself every day against this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had that evening presented an important petition against the Bill, which was not got up until they had received the news of its having been read a second time on Friday night last. And now the noble Lord was endeavouring to hurry forward with the most unusual speed the further stages of the measure, at a time when he (Mr. Newdegate) himself knew there were many petitions in preparation to be yet presented against the Bill. He was almost disposed to say that this was a tyrannical course adopted by the Government; unfair towards the independent Members of that House, and
156
disrespectful to the feelings of a large portion of the most educated classes of the community. He trusted that the noble Lord would not compel him or the party with which he (Mr. Newdegate) acted to take up a position in respect to the Government on this question, which he would deprecate; but it was their duty to prevent the attempt that was now made to intercept them in the discharge of their duty, and to preclude the genuine expression of their constituents in reference to the Bill from reaching that House. Even if the Bill went through Committee that evening, he trusted that the noble Lord would not propose to take the third reading on Friday next.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had sat opposite the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) for many years whilst he was leader of that House, and he was bound to say that in general the noble Lord had shown a great desire to study the convenience of hon. Members in his conduct of public business. But he thought that his friends around him had great reason to complain of the arrangements made that evening, to which his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had just alluded. He knew that some of his friends had remained in London that day for the sole purpose of taking part in the discussion on the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill, which they had expected would have come on that evening. He submitted that it was not altogether usual, when a Bill of that magnitude and importance was fixed for discussion on a particular evening, that a postponement of it should take place without a longer notice than a few minutes before the time fixed for the question being considered in its usual order. And in respect to a Bill of such importance as the Jewish Disabilities Bill, he submitted it was rather unusual to pass it through Committee and a third reading in one week.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the change which has been made in the order of business this evening, is in order to act with the utmost fairness to the House. I propose to introduce an alteration of considerable importance into the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill, and I thought that if I proposed that alteration, and asked the House to decide upon it without their having had time to consider it, hon. Members would have had just reason to complain of my conduct. Assuming that the alteration that I have suggested will be approved of by Her Majesty's Government, I de-

157
termined to postpone the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill. With respect to the Jewish Disabilities Bill, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) complains very much that that Bill should be pressed upon the consideration of the House to-night; and that it has not been postponed for a considerable time in order to allow petitions to be presented to the House against it. Why, Sir, the House must be aware, and the country must be aware, of the state of progress of this Bill. I believe it is more than a month since I gave a notice upon the subject, and I am quite certain that there was sufficient time, even before I introduced the Bill, to present petitions upon the subject. But it does not appear that any very large number of petitions has been presented against the Bill. But few petitions were presented until the Bill approached the second reading, and then the industry that has been displayed in order to procure petitions has certainly produced some petitions, but not to any very considerable amount. The subject is perfectly familiar to the House. It is, in fact, difficult to find any new argument on the subject. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have argued the subject exceedingly well—so well, indeed, that they have exhausted the arguments on the other side; and I cannot but say nearly the same thing for our side; so that if we postpone the Bill for a month, or even for three months, I doubt whether any one could find any fresh arguments on the subject. There is, therefore, no sufficient reason for postponing a Bill upon which hon. Members generally have made up their minds.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he would suggest to the noble Lord the propriety of postponing the Committee upon the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill until after Easter.
Subject dropped.

THE "HOUSEHOLD NARRATIVE."
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that as the Consolidated Fund Bill would shortly come under the consideration of the House, and as that Bill had reference to the revenue, he would take the present opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, which had also relation to the same subject. He wished to call the attention of that right hon. Gentleman to the unsatisfactory state in which the law now was with reference to the taxes that are imposed upon news and intelligence. The hon. and learned
158
Gentleman the Attorney General of the late Government (Sir F. Thesiger) stated, on the 6th of December last, that immediate legislation on that subject was necessary; and upon the statement which that hon. and learned Gentleman then made, the House granted to him leave to bring in a Bill. Since that time no further proceedings had been taken in the matter. He trusted he might be permitted to say a few words, with the view of reminding the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer of what had occurred with reference to this subject. In November, 1851, a suit for penalties against the publishers of the Household Narrative, edited by Mr. C. Dickens, was brought in the Court of Exchequer. The Judges of that Court decided in favour of Messrs. Bradbury and Evans, and against the Board of Inland Revenue. The Board of Inland Revenue declined to acquiesce in that decision. The parties who had defended that action, at very considerable expense, were informed that further proceedings would be taken to set aside the decision of the Court of Exchequer, and were left in that state of suspense. The law officers were required to report upon the case, and they advised the Crown that the appeal should be proceeded with. Subsequently, there was a change of Government. The law officers of Lord Derby's Government considered the question, and they advised first of all, he believed, that the decision of the Court of Exchequer was contrary to law; but, in the next place, as they thought it would be a great grievance to Messrs. Bradbury and Evans to proceed against them a second time, they advised that future litigation should be set aside by the bringing in of a Bill on the subject. But that Bill was stopped by the fall of the Derby Administration. They were now arrived at the year 1853, and this simple matter, which he believed any gentleman could have settled in half an hour, was still hanging up in suspense. That delay was not only inconvenient but oppressive to Messrs. Bradbury and Evans. He was aware that the law officers of the Crown might have been prevented by pressure of business from reporting upon the matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he would ask that right hon. Gentleman whether he would promise that he would use all speed conveniently possible in order to bring this matter to a termination? They-had had first the Board of Inland Revenue, then they had had the Court of Exchequer,

159
then they had had three Chancellors of the Exchequer, besides three different sets of law officers of the Crown, who had applied their minds to this question—whether a monthly publication containing news was liable to stamp duty or not. The time for decision had come. At that moment there were parties in the country who were deterred from issuing such publications, in consequence of the threat held out that an attempt would be made to obtain a reversal of the decision of the Court of Exchequer. Such a state of things was extremely oppressive to the parties concerned, and he, therefore, hoped that the Government would lose no time in bringing the matter to a conclusion.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,said, that if any weight were due to the opinions of those legal parties with whom he-had the opportunity of conversing on this subject, he could inform the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the question was not at all so simple a one as he supposed; for there were other points involved of some importance. One was, the point as to the number of days which constituted the interval between each publication which brought it within the meaning of the Statute. He agreed in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman that the present state of the question was most unsatisfactory, and he promised that as far as he could urge on a settlement of it the suspense should not be permitted to continue for one day longer than was necessary. He had asked the opinion of the law officers on the subject. That opinion, he believed, would be soon in possession of the Government. He would give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that when that opinion was received, no time would be lost in coming to a final decision upon the question at issue.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would suggest a very simple process of dealing with this question, on which so many Chancellors of the Exchequer and law officers had been so long employed—let them at once repeal the tax. He made that suggestion in the firm belief that the revenue would suffer nothing by its adoption. At present there were sixty publications, such as the Household Narrative, thirty of which were charged with stamp, and thirty were allowed to escape from it. It appeared that neither the Board of Inland Revenue, nor the law officers of the Crown, nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could say which publication ought, and which ought
160
not, to be liable to the stamp; and the simplest process would be to put an end to the stamp altogether. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer might lose in its abolition would be gained by the payment for the sending through the post of those publications which were now unstamped, and which, therefore, could not be sent post free. He would almost give a guarantee to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would within twelve months regain by postage all that the revenue might lose by the abolition of the stamp.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, the House would probably allow him to make a few remarks on this question, which was not so entirely free from difficulty as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson) seemed to suppose. The House was already aware of the state of the question at the time that the late Government came into power. At that time there had been a decision by a majority of the Judges in the Court of Exchequer in favour of exempting the Household Narrative from duty; but Her Majesty's late Government found that the law officers of the Government of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) were of opinion that that decision was not quite satisfactory, and they were rather disposed to think that the opinion of Baron Parke, who differed from the majority of the Court, was the better opinion. But, at all events, they thought that it was essential that the opinion of a court of appeal should be taken before they agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court of Exchequer. Now, he must confess, that had the matter come before him originally, he should have entertained the same opinion as the law officers of the Government of the noble Lord on this subject. At all events, he felt himself bound by their opinion. It was consequently determined that the decision of the Court of Exchequer should be appealed against. There were, however, different opinions as to the mode in which the case should be presented to the Court for rehearing; and ultimately his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli) was of opinion that, without any detriment to the public interest, a Bill might be introduced, by which publications like the Household Narrative might be exempt from duty. But, at the same time, the great difficulty in framing a Bill of that kind was this, that unless you were extremely careful how you worded your Bill, you might exempt from taxation

161
a number of publications which clearly, as the law existed, were liable to duty. With some difficulty a Bill was prepared, and that Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had stated, he (Sir F. Thesiger) obtained leave to introduce. But it was the right hon. Gentleman himself, by starting a preliminary objection, who prevented that Bill from being brought in. [Mr. M. GIBSON: Oh! no.] The right hon. Gentleman took this objection: it was necessary in framing that Bill to take care that those publications which clearly were liable to duty under the existing law, but with respect to which some doubt might arise in consequence of the decision of the Court of Exchequer whether they were liable to duty or not—it was necessary to take care that a schedule should be framed which would embrace those publications which were clearly liable to duty. The right hon. Gentleman, however, objected that, inasmuch as the decision of the Court of Exchequer made it doubtful whether publications like the Household Narrative might not be exempted from duty, a Bill which would make it perfectly certain that they were liable to duty was one which could only be introduced in a Committee of the whole House. He (Sir F. Thesiger) felt the force of the objection, and he intended so to introduce the Bill. But in the meantime the resignation of the late Government prevented him from proceeding with the Bill. The more he looked at this subject, the more difficult he found it to be. Of course the easiest way of getting rid of the difficulty would he to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose. But that was a matter entirely for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who he did not suppose was likely to accede to the proposition. He (Sir F. Thesiger) could well understand that the present law officers found this to be a matter of great difficulty.
MR. COBDENsaid, he begged to second the suggestion of his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Montrose. It appeared to him that they were placed in a most humiliating position. The House and the country had to wait until the ingenuity of lawyers could frame a Bill to prevent the free diffusion of knowledge—for that was what the Government were aiming at. And under what circumstances were they doing so? All parties were agreed that the political franchise should be extended; the Government admitted that the rights
162
of the people should be enlarged; and yet, at the very same time, they were exerting all the ingenuity in their power to prevent, as far as they could, the people from obtaining political knowledge. This was the great difficulty which the Government had to deal with in this matter—they could not define what news was. Nobody could define what news was. He had an opportunity of cross-examining the law adviser of the Crown, and the chairman and secretary of the Inland Revenue Board, on this subject. He endeavoured to learn from them what was their idea of news. He asked them if they considered the Queen's Speech to be news? They answered, "Yes; anybody publishing the Queen's Speech without a stamp would be liable to prosecution." Then they were asked, "Is the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on opening his Budget news?" "No; we think that might be published without a stamp." Now every one knew that far more importance was attached to a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on opening his Budget, than a Queen's Speech. And therefore, to say that the one was news, and the other was not, showed how impossible it was to define what news was. The only plan was to abolish the law which required a stamp to be put upon publications containing news. In fact, that law was already completely evaded; for there were fifty or sixty publications in the metropolis, like the Athenœum and the Builder, which published news, and yet the owners considered it to be optional to them whether or not those publications should be stamped. Let every newspaper have the same privilege as the Athenœum and Builder, and the fifty or sixty similar publications. Let them be stamped or unstamped just as the proprietors pleased. Let Mr. Rowland Hill have absolute control over them as far as their transmission by post was concerned. Mr. Rowland Hill told the Committee that he could manage these publications; and if they were left to him, be (Mr. Cobden) had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose nothing. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer get rid of this newspaper stamp, which was a reproach to us. Let him signalise his rule by putting an end to this tax on knowledge.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to ask a question in connexion with this matter, namely, whether it was the intention of the Treasury to reimburse Messrs. Bradbury and Evans the costs in which the prosecu-

163
tion to which they had been subjected had involved them, and in which the Government had been defeated? There did not appear to be an intention to attempt to enforce the law against them by any further appeal, and it was only right that private individuals who had suffered from an unsuccessful prosecution on the part of the Government should be reimbursed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member had opened a subject entirely new to him, and he must, therefore, decline to give any pledge. Any application of the nature indicated by the hon. Member would be considered on its merits.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he understood that the late hon. and learned Attorney General had stated in his place that when the Government was unfortunate in its appeals to the law, the expenses to the parties would be returned; and if that were to be the rule in future, it surely ought also to be applicable in the case of Messrs. Bradbury and Evans.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,with regard to the general subject, wished to say that it was under consideration.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, that as Attorney General in the late Government, he had given no pledge on the subject, except that he would bring in a Bill which would place the Crown, when defeated in such prosecutions, in the same position as any other prosecutor in respect to costs.
MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, he believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had intimated that the late Government had under consideration the general question, and not the particular case now referred to. He now desired to inform the House, that the law officers of three successive Administrations having failed in solving the difficulties connected with the question, and having failed also in obtaining a judgment of a Court of Law in their favour, it was now proposed to obtain the judgment of a police magistrate upon the subject. One of his constituents had published a paper called the Potteries Free Press, and the Government, overlooking Punch and other publications, had determined to pick out this unfortunate man and to summon him before a police magistrate for the payment of a penalty of 20 l. On Thursday next the magistrate at Bow Street police-office was to decide a point of law which had puzzled the law officers of three suc-
164
cessive Administrations. He asked whether such a proceeding was carried on with the knowledge and concurrence of the present law officers of the Crown? and whether this anticipated decision of the magistrate was to be taken as a solution of the difficulty?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. Gentleman was totally mistaken in supposing the two cases to be similar. The difficulty in the case of Messrs. Bradbury and Evans arose from the circumstance of their paper being published at an interval of not less than twenty-six days, whereas the Potteries Free Press was published every week, contained a regular statement of public news, and therefore fell not within the decision in the case of the publication by Messrs. Bradbury and Evans. It was a clear open infraction of the law; and without entering into the question whether or not it would be politic to repeal the stamp laws, it was the bounden duty of the law officers to enforce the law as it existed. Therefore it was with the sanction of the Government that the case alluded to was proceeded with.
MR. EWARTsaid, he trusted the consideration of the Government would be given to the expediency of establishing a postage duty instead of the stamp duty on publications.
Subject dropped.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS (REPAYMENT OUT OF CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to obtain an assurance from the First Commissioner of Works, that the Crown rents arising out of the public improvements in question would be sold without delay.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, so soon as the Government could get the full value for those Crown rents, they would be ready to sell them.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must complain of irregularity and deviation from sound principle in these attacks upon the Consolidated Fund.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member imputed irregularity with regard to the original transaction out of which the necessity for this Bill arose, or as to the Bill itself. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be the last man to propose to the House to make any charge upon the Consolidated Fund, to the de-

165
triment of that fund; but in this case the expense was already saddled upon the public, and the whole question was, whether it should remain in the form of debt, at a heavy charge for interest, whilst we had balances at the bankers, or whether we should employ those balances in paying off the debt, and thereby transfer the interest to the benefit of the Consolidated Fund.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to know—supposing it appeared to the lenders of the money that the Approaches to London Bridge Fund was insufficient to guarantee them the repayment of the money they had lent—whether his right hon. Friend was perfectly certain that by putting this charge on the Consolidated Fund, and releasing altogether the land revenues of the Crown, which ought never to have been charged, the whole principal and interest were likely to be paid.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he felt the greatest possible certainty on the subject. The population of London might be decimated—for they did not know what calamities might not occur—but adverting to the rate at which the coal fund now yielded, nothing to his mind was more plain than that the "Approaches Fund," and the other assets which were liable, would be amply sufficient to guarantee the whole of the debt and interest.
Bill read 3°:—On Question, "That the Bill do pass,"
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEmoved the addition of a clause, providing that an annual account should be rendered by the Treasury of the sums paid into the Consolidated Fund, and of the disbursements therefrom under the authority of the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no objection to the clause. He wished, however, to add the following explanation to his preceding statement. The simple reason why the Bank of England and the other principal capitalists had refused to lend money upon the security of the London Bridge Approaches Fund was, that that fund was pledged for other purposes, and that therefore there were no means left to repay such loans.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any guarantee as to the time when the coal duties would cease?
The CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that that was a matter regulated by Act of Parliament, and that he
166
did not think it likely that the present or any future Chancellor of the Exchequer would propose to extend the term; but if they did, no doubt the hon. Gentleman would be in his place to resist them, and that probably with success.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that nothing could be more easy than to refer to the coal accounts.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, he must beg to dispute that; and he should like to be informed when certain returns, for which he had moved at the commencement of the Session, would be laid upon the table? Those returns were dependent, it was fair to state, not upon the Government, but upon the authorities of the City.
Clause agreed to.
Bill passed.

JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, that the admission of Jews into Parliament was a subject which must interest all, the history and records of that wonderful people being impressed on our earliest memory. But it was a question of more than mere feeling. Did he consider the Jew simply as a man and a citizen of this free country, he should rejoice to see him enjoy all the rights of the one and all the privileges of the other, and take his seat among those who framed, amended, or abolished the laws which governed or maintained it. But while he viewed him as a legislator, and reflected that these laws not only regulated the foreign and domestic policy of the State, but also the government of the Church, and that one of his most important and gravest duties was to extend to the remotest bound of this vast Empire the knowledge and benefits of Christianity—desirous as he was to speak in a becoming spirit of the religious belief of others—he must protest against the admission into Parliament of one who, however wise, honourable, or benevolent ho might be, unhappily for himself, disbelieved the divine legation of the Eternal Son of God. Justice and truth alike forbade him to aid in promulgating doctrines which he conscientiously believed to be erroneous. There was no fear, it was alleged, of any great influence being exercised by the Members that could be chosen out of a body numbering little more than 40,000 in this country. But, was it

167
a matter of numbers, or a question of principle? What body would they represent? What was their interest in this country? What social standing and position? In what degree of estimation were they held? Whom did the House propose to admit? Men without a country, legally naturalised here, but at heart aliens yearning for their ancient land. How could they legislate for a country which all but they fully regarded, and honoured, and loved as home? They considered themselves as a separate nation in a state of dispersion, and therefore forbidden to identify themselves politically with any State in which they were born or resided. Upon these grounds he was opposed to this measure.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he must condemn the mode in which the noble Lord pressed forward this Bill as most unfair. The Canada Clergy Reserves Bill was first on the paper for that evening; and, not being aware of its sudden postponement, hon. Members, who were absent, could not possibly have anticipated that the Jews' Bill would come on so soon, which would account for the thinness of the House at that moment. It also appeared to him that the noble Lord was taking advantage of the fact, that on Friday next, when he understood the third reading would be taken, many Members would have left town for the holidays; and thus a division taken on the third reading would give an impression to the country of a majority in favour of the measure, which was not real. He appealed to the noble Lord to postpone the third reading until after Easter.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had only postponed the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill for the purpose of making alterations in it. The course he had taken would, in his opinion, facilitate public business; for if the third reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill were postponed till after Easter, it might happen that there would not be enough to occupy the attention of the House for the whole of Friday evening. The subject had been so thoroughly discussed that he could not anticipate any new arguments upon it.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had himself no objection to the Bill passing through Committee to-night, nor to the third reading taking place on Friday; but it would undoubtedly be more satisfactory to his friends around him if it were postponed till after Easter.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he could
168
not consent to postpone the Bill, but he would undertake not to bring it on at a late hour on Friday. He would not bring it on after ten o'clock.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not understand what economy of time there could be in thrusting the Bill through its later stages in the way proposed by the noble Lord; in fact, passing it through three stages within the period of one week. The course now pursued, he contended, was not the ordinary method of dealing with a question of such importance as this; and if the noble Lord would not postpone the third reading until after Easter, his (Mr. Newdegate's) impression would be that the noble Lord regarded the division on the second reading as showing a strength in favour of the measure which did not really exist in that House. As to economy of time, there was plenty of other business before the House, and the noble Lord might rest assured that no time would be lost if he took other business on Friday. He trusted, therefore, the noble Lord would not be guilty of what appeared to him (Mr. Newdegate) a manifest disrespect for the feeling of the country, which, whatever the noble Lord might think, was very deep and intense against this measure—indeed, the more the subject had been discussed, the deeper had that feeling grown. He could declare, from his own personal observation, that that was the fact; and he conceived that nothing was calculated to create greater jealousy with regard to the conduct of the Government than the existence of a wide-spread impression that they were attempting to force the Bill through that House with improper haste.
MR. MILESsaid, that Easter fell exceedingly early this year, and notice of Motion had been given on the part of the Government that after the recess Orders of the Day should have precedence of Motions on Thursdays; thus the noble Lord would have an additional day for the consideration of the Government business. He appealed to the noble Lord, then, to reconsider the question, and to name as early a day as he pleased after Easter for the discussion on the third reading, in order that hon. Members might have a fair chance of being present to record their votes.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was surprised at this attempt on the part of Gentlemen opposite to postpone the measure, and thought the noble Lord had exercised a wise discretion in determining to press for-

169
ward and get rid of it as early as possible so far as that House was concerned.
MR. W. M. SMITHsaid, as representing a large and important constituency, he willingly bore his testimony to what had been stated by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) as to the intensity of feeling which prevailed out of doors in respect of this Bill; and he entreated the noble Lord not to incur the charge of having proceeded with undue haste by taking the course he had indicated, but rather to postpone the measure until after Easter, that the constituencies might have an opportunity of expressing, by petition, their opinions with regard to it.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he also represented a large constituency, who formed part of the metropolis. The place he represented numbered 400,000 inhabitants, who were assessed at more than 2,000,000 sterling; and, speaking to some extent their opinions, he must appeal to the noble Lord not to think for one moment of postponing this measure. This was no new topic. It was the most unprofitable discussion that House could have; and surely when it had been so long debated on both sides, it was much better to arrive at a conclusion at once, for he was sure that, whatever eloquence might be displayed, not one single vote would be turned by it.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he considered that the request for postponement was a reasonable one. True, the question had been repeatedly discussed; but to assert that the principle of the Bill was not a novel one in its application to the law of England, was what no scholar or statesman would maintain; and he must say he had never heard a more extraordinary statement than that which was made the other night—that the Jews were excluded from this House by accident. He held that it was not unreasonable to request the postponement of the third reading until an early day after Easter; and that was the whole extent of the request which had been made.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, the pretence for procrastination was to give the country time to consider the question; but for his part he thought time enough had been given for that purpose already. It had been debated in that House in every succeeding Session for many years past; and he remembered that when, five years
170
ago, time was given for consideration, the result was, that instead of the petitioners against the measure being as two to one, the petitioners in its favour were as six to one.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that on the occasion to which the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) referred, he (Mr. Newdegate) had risen in that House, and asserted that the petitions in favour of the measure were got up by hired parties; that the signatures were in the first instance obtained at the rate of 3s. the hundred; that tables were stationed at different places in the streets for the purpose, and that one person would frequently write a dozen names at a time. That at length 3s. a hundred was not deemed a sufficient sum for the parties employed, and that at last a fixed duty of 5s. per day was afterwards paid to the men who procured the signatures. In this House he had openly declared that the signatures were purchased and paid for, and he offered to the noble Lord himself to prove it before a Select Committee; but the noble Lord dared not to move for that Committee. Twice he (Mr. Newdegate) challenged the noble Lord to do so, but he never dared to accept the challenge; and now, again, if petitions were got up and presented to that House in favour of the Jew Bill, he ventured to predict that the signatures would be bought as they were in 1847. On the other hand, with regard to the petitions against the Bill, he could answer for it, that the large number he had presented were genuine expressions of the opinions of various localities unpurchased and unsolicited. He (Mr. Newdegate) could assure the noble Lord that so little did the agents, employed to obtain the signatures in favour of the Jew Bill in 1847, like the work, that it was from them he had received the information with respect to the transactions to which he had referred.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he would also appeal to the noble Lord whether, upon the whole, and seeing the light in which the question was regarded by the religious feeling of the country, and that many Members had already left town, it would not be more satisfactory to let the third reading stand over until after the Easter recess.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had no desire to proceed with unnecessary haste with the Bill; but he would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) that the Bill had been

171
opposed upon its introduction, and also upon its second reading. The House, therefore, had already expressed its opinion twice on the subject, and after that he could not expect that its opinion would be changed. Besides, he had already undertaken not to bring it on at a late hour on Friday. This subject was a constant source of delay, and delay only would be the result if he assented to the suggestion, for, as he was now told that Members had left town, so he would be told the first week after Easter that they had not arrived.
MR. W. M. SMITHsaid, the Bill in question was not of an ordinary character, but involved a principle of the utmost importance, and therefore it ought not to be pushed forward with unseemly eagerness, nor treated as an ordinary measure.
MR. J. A. SMITHbegged, in reply to the observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), to give the statement of that hon. Gentleman the "most positive and absolute denial that courtesy enabled him to give." If, however, the hon. Gentleman really entertained the opinion he had expressed in reference to the subject, he (Mr. J. A. Smith) would be prepared, with the greatest possible readiness, to meet him on any occasion, and to give him an explanation of any accusation he might think proper to make.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he could not rest under the imputation of having stated that which was not correct. Now it happened that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was sitting near the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) when he (Mr. Newdegate) offered to prove the statement he had made; and if the hon. Gentleman was so confident of the inaccuracy of the charge, why had he not then accepted the opportunity offered him of testing it? Five years had elapsed since that, and he must say it was rather hard, at this distance of time, to be asked to prove it. At the time he made the assertion he intimated his readiness to produce the proof before a Committee of the House; under these circumstances, the hon. Member must forgive him if he did not consent now to retract the assertion, he had made.
COLONEL SIBTHORP: Sir, I rise merely to say that, whatever may be the manœuvres of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), I trust that hon. Members on this
172
side of the House, recollecting what they owe to the country, will pursue that course which their constituencies will approve of, and do their duty to the country, and, above all, to their Protestant Queen.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

LAND IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDmoved an Amendment to the 36th clause, to the effect that an appeal in all cases of tenancy over 50 l. per annum should be from the Commissioners to the assistant barrister, or the Judge of Assize.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he must object to the Amendment, on the ground that it would be a departure from the Act of 1847, which was the foundation of the present measure. Nothing could work better than the Act of 1847, which had no power of appeal, and, as a proof that such a power was unnecessary, the Commissioners under the Act of 1847 had only been called upon in four cases to adjudicate between landlord and tenant. In all the other numberless cases the parties had mutually agreed between themselves on the amount of rent to be added for the improvement of the land; and he thought a useless power of appeal, which must lead to delay and litigation, would be prejudicial to the beneficial operation of the Act.
MR. STAPLETONsaid, he would move the omission of the 36th clause, as it contained a novel principle of jurisprudence, unless both clause and Amendment were submitted to the Select Committee.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, the clause was drawn up consistently with all Irish precedent, which in legislation was one-sided, as for the landlord and against the tenant; but it was totally adverse to the principles of jurisprudence as practised in this country.
MR. R. MOOREsaid, he should oppose the Amendment as interfering with the machinery of the Act of 1847, which had been found to work so well.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he must deny that the decisions of the Commissioners, as stated by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier) had been satisfactory. He should support the Amendment.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he preferred

173
the clause without the Amendment, but he hoped the Amendment would not be opposed, as it was the result of a compromise which he trusted the House would support.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the best possible proof that the Amendment should not be adopted, was the fact stated by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier) that only four cases out of all that had been decided by the Commissioners were objected to.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

SAFETY IN RAILWAY TRAVELLING.
MR. H. BROWNsaid, he had a notice on the paper relative to safety in Railway travelling, but since he had entered the House a communication had been made to him which induced him to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He wished to ask whether it was at all probable that the Select Committee now sitting upon railways would result in such a Resolution on Report as could be practically adopted by the House? If that were the case, he should withdraw his proposed Resolution. If not, he was perfectly prepared to go on with it.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the Motion of which the hon. Gentleman had given notice was one to the wording of which he had no objection to offer. The hon. Member proposed, in the first instance, to declare that it was—
"The duty of a good Government to propose to that House all such measures as might appear necessary for the public good."
To the doctrine thus expressed he was not disposed to take the slightest exception. The hon. Gentleman then proposed to declare, that—
"The great increase in the number of accidents which have of late occurred on railways demands the special attention of this House, and that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to propose more effectual measures than now exist for securing the safety of the public while travelling on railways."
From the sentiment thus expressed he was not inclined to dissent. The Committee which had been appointed by the last Government, on the subject of railways, was now sitting upstairs, and would feel it their duty to extend their inquiries to the question to which the hon. Member's Motion
174
related—a question in which, it was scarcely necessary to say, that Her Majesty's Government, the Members of the Committee, and every Member of that House, felt the deepest possible interest. Since he (Mr. Cardwell) had had the honour of presiding over the Railway Committee, they had examined the most eminent men connected with the railway interests of these countries. They were now going to examine witnesses not connected with railways, and in the course of their deliberations they would, undoubtedly, consider it their duty to devote especial attention to the particular subject which the hon. Member desired to bring under the notice of the House. It was, of course, impossible for him to anticipate the result of the Committee's inquiries. Up to this point they had confined themselves, in the most laborious and painstaking manner, to the collecting of evidence; and, considering the magnitude and importance of the subject, and how early it was in the Session, and how many witnesses yet remained to be examined, he was sure that the hon. Member did not mean to impute it to them as a matter of censure that they had not as yet come before the House with any expression of opinion. Under all the circumstances of the case he was inclined to think that the hon. Member would not be wanting in his duty to the public if he were to permit the Committee to enter into a consideration of the subject to which his notice referred, before proceeding to ascertain the sense of the House upon it. He owed it to the Committee to say, that he had never seen any similar body take in hand the matter upon which they were called to adjudicate, in a manner more earnest and energetic; and he should be greatly disappointed if their labours did not result in a measure beneficial to the public interest.
MR. H. BROWNsaid, after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, he was quite content to postpone his Motion for the present, in order to see whether any practical proposition which the House could adopt would result from the labours of the Committee. He confessed he bad very little hope that such would be the case; still he was quite willing, in deference to the wishes of the Government, to postpone the consideration of the question to a very early period after Easter, when, if nothing satisfactory was elicited, he certainly should go on with it.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Indemnity.
2a Grand Jury Cess (Ireland).
Reported.—County Elections Polls; Inland Revenue Office; Commons Inclosure (No. 2).
3a Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.

CRIMINAL LAW REFORM.
LORD ST. LEONARDSobserved, that he had on a former occasion, when introducing one of the Bills he had laid before their Lordships for the amendment of the law, expressed his anxiety to prevent and punish the commission of offences and assaults by husbands against wives, and against children of tender years by adults: but he was very happy to see that a Bill had been introduced in another place to confer greater powers on magistrates and courts of justice for the punishment of such offences; and he hoped some steps would be made, by the exercise of those powers of summary conviction and of indictment, to put an end to a class of outrages which certainly were a disgrace to this country. As some doubt had been expressed respecting the increase and prevalence of these offences, he begged leave to move for an Address (of which he had not thought it necessary to give notice) to the Crown for a Return of the number of convictions in England and Wales, during the several years 1850, 1851, and 1852, for murder or manslaughter by husbands of wives, or for batteries or assaults by husbands on wives: and also, like Return for the several years 1840, 1841, and 1842.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there was no objection to agree to the Motion; but he doubted if the records would give the required information, or show in what cases the persons convicted were the husbands of the injured women.
Motion agreed to.

COMMERCIAL LAW.
LORD BROUGHAMwished to put a question to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) on a subject of very great importance. Their Lordships were aware of the great anxiety prevailing amongst all the mercantile classes in this country, and in a great degree also amongst

123
the same class in Scotland and reland, upon the subject of the difference between the mercantile law of England and Ireland on the one hand, and of Scotland on the other. In England and Ireland, as their Lordships were aware, the land was for the most part alike; but in Scotland, the land differed greatly from that which prevailed in Great Britain. The consequence of course was, considerable inconvenience in commercial transactions between parties residing in those respective countries. The trading communities were alive to this inconvenience; and a conference had been held on the subject in the metropolis in the month of November last, attended by delegates from all the great towns of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The result was, that a deputation headed by the Earl of Clarendon went to the noble Earl then at the head of the Government (the Earl of Derby), who expressed a great desire to accede to their wishes by appointing a Commission to examine the whole of this important subject. The defects of the present laws were undeniable, and the advantages that would result from their assimilation equally so. The principle of the banking laws, for example, required investigation, and the possibility of assimilating them must be thoroughly sifted by full inquiry and evidence on the subject. This was the opinion, he believed, of the trading classes in the provinces, and it was shared by the great mercantile body of the capital, as was proved by the signatures of 220 of the principal firms in the City appended to a memorial on the subject. There was much anxiety existing that the mercantile law of England should be extended to Scotland, rather than that of Scotland to England; but he believed a preferable result would be, that a system superior to either should be created by the amalgamation of both. He begged to ask the noble Earl, whether it was intended to take any measure with a view to the promotion of an object so desirable?
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, their Lordships were probably aware that, at the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1851, a Commission had been issued to inquire into the law of partnership. His opinion was, that the whole subject adverted to by his noble and learned Friend, deserved the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and he thought he might say that a Commission to examine and inquire into it would be issued accordingly.

MERCANTILE MARINE.
LORD COLCHESTERrose to move for certain returns, and to call their Lordships' attention to the question of our mercantile marine. Upon a former occasion he had inquired the intention of the Government as to the consolidation of the laws affecting the mercantile marine, and upon that occasion he was referred to some statements about to be made in another place upon the subject. Having, however, attended to the statement which had been made by the President of the Board of Trade, conveyed through the usual channels of information, he had not discovered any satisfactory answer to his inquiries; on which, therefore, he still desired information. He did not propose to enter into the questions as to pilotage or light-dues; but referred entirely to the laws regulating the relations, rights, and duties of masters, owners, and men in the British merchant service. This subject had come under the consideration of the Board of Trade last summer, when the late Government were in office, and he desired to draw attention to their views and intentions on the question. Among the grievances of which the shipowners complained most loudly, was the uncertainty of the laws existing upon this subject. The Board found, accordingly, an immense multiplicity of Acts of Parliament regulating the relative rights of the various parties in the mercantile marine. For instance, there were not less than ten different Acts relating to the obligations of parties in the merchant service, independent of those relating to navigation generally. This was in itself a mischief and an evil; and the importance of simplifying and ascertaining the law was prominently dwelt upon in a pamphlet recently published by a well-known shipowner, Mr. Lindsay. A Bill had been prepared by the late Government to consolidate these Acts, and to introduce such amendments into the existing regulations as had been found necessary in practice, and to carry out to their full extent the principle of the Act of 1850, which had not been then fully acted upon, in consequence of the opposition of the parties engaged in the shipping trade? Those amendments related to a great variety of subjects, of which the first he might mention was that of registry. By the present law every person wishing to enter the sea service, whether in the Royal Navy, or the merchant service, must be provided with a register; he was required to go to the

125
proper office and obtain a register ticket, describing his person, place of birth, and other points fixed by the schedule of the Act. If this ticket were once lost, he could not again be employed until be obtained a new ticket. This he might do by going to the registrar, and showing that the ticket had not been lost by any fault of his, when he would obtain a new one without payment; but if he could not satisfy the registrar on this point, the Act said that he should be liable to a penalty of from 5s. to 10 s. Now this provision had given rise to great discontent among the seamen, chiefly by reason of a misconception of the law; for the custom had arisen of taking the seaman before a magistrate and getting him fined to the amount of the penalty. There was great doubt whether this was legal; and high authorities, the law officers of the Crown, had declared that it was not a legal course to pursue, and that the statute only contemplated this result—that the registrar should not deliver a new certificate, unless, under the circumstances in question of the loss of the old one not being accounted for, the fine or penalty was first paid. The seaman, of course, had strongly objected to the being brought up before a magistrate as if they had been guilty of some criminal offence; and this had occasioned such discontent among them that many of them had actually left the British service, and entered into that of foreign countries. Another cause of dissatisfaction on the part of the shipowners had been this—that the non-production by the seaman of his certificate of registry was not admitted to be conclusive evidence of desertion. This had never been intended by the Act under which the registry was required. The Act had been passed in 1834 by Sir James Graham, then, as he was now, First Lord of the Admiralty. His intention was merely to enable the Government at all times to know the number of British seamen in existence if the country should require their services. The ticket, however, being a proof of identity was useful to the seaman to enable him to show his claim for pension, or to recover wages due to him, and advantageous to the shipowner in tracing deserters; and beyond this the objections of either party arose from a mistake as to the original intention, and to the actual law in existence. It had been proposed to amend the clause as to the fine for renewal of a lost ticket, and to make a regulation for the disposal
126
of the ticket in the hands of a shipping-master, on the seaman's arrival in port, to prevent its loss. Another part of the subject, of considerable importance, related to the provisions which ought to be made for the health and comfort of the seamen on shipboard, which was generally admitted to be very inadequate, and to carry further the enactments of 1850. The men complained that at present they too often had not sufficient protection from wet and cold. Again, some amendment of the law was required respecting regulations for the preservation of discipline. It had been the intention of his right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley) to pass an Act explaining the powers of masters of ships to punish for breaches of discipline, and to place the law in an intelligible form, and also to extend the powers of the Naval Courts, which had been found to work well, appointed under the Act of 1850. Another clause in the Act of 1850 related to men volunteering from merchant ships for the Navy—a matter which had attracted the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and on this subject he thought it would be very desirable that regulations should be passed respecting the payment of wages, which would prevent temptations to the seamen to leave their ships. At present a merchant seaman could at any time, by merely volunteering into a man-of-war, compel the master to discharge him and pay him at once all arrears of wages. He proposed that it should be enough to give a certificate of the amount due, properly authenticated and guaranteed. There was another subject of great importance to the character of our mercantile marine. Provisions had been made for examination of masters and mates of "foreign-going" vessels with regard to their ability for taking the command of ships; and it was proposed by the late Government to extend this gradually to the "home trade" vessels above a certain tonnage; it had been objected that these would be valueless without provision for instruction. With this view it had been decided to establish schools for merchant seamen, and the object had been to find funds for the purpose. At first no means of educating persons to be called to these duties existed; but by a recent Act the Board of Trade could appropriate the surplus of the Merchant Seamen's Fund to such a purpose; and last year, there being a surplus of 4,000/., steps had been taken to institute a number of

127
schools: a portion of this surplus had been applied, to the establishment of schools in Liverpool and London, in connexion with the "Sailors' Homes," and these schools had already been well attended. The Board of Trade communicated with the Committee of Council on Education requesting instruction as to the best mode of carrying out this object, and communications were held on the subject with the local marine boards of London and Liverpool. He wished to have copies of these communications produced, in order to show what were the intentions of the late Government; and he wished to know whether it was the intention of the present Government to carry out the system of schools which had been thus commenced. There was another point to which he wished to direct attention: he meant the restrictions requiring a British crew to consist of at least three-fourths British seamen. He (Lord Colchester) was sure that their Lordships, although the subject might seem a dry one, were well aware of its great importance to the welfare of the country. Our mercantile marine was the nursery of our Navy; and if we could not, in time of necessity, get sailors from that marine, to man our ships of war, where should we seek them? With this view, he objected to a measure which had emanated from the present Government, for wholly removing the restrictions against enlistment of foreign seamen in our mercantile marine. By the existing law, the Queen had power by proclamation to vary from time to time the proportion of British seamen; and it was a provision of the existing Act, that foreigners, after having served a certain number of years, might be considered British seamen. He did not object to some relaxation of these restrictions; but he could not help thinking, that if it was intended to throw open the manning of British ships to foreigners, it might hereafter be a subject of the deepest regret, and he would express his earnest hope that Her Majesty's Government might be induced to reconsider this point. He would quote the opinion lately expressed by a writer of authority on this subject. Mr. W. S. Lindsay states—
"If shipowners desire to contest successfully with other countries, the supremacy of the seas, they must devote more care and attention to the welfare of those in their service. Physically and morally they must be mindful of their seamen. They must make them as comfortable as circumstances will admit while at sea; make them feel,
128
that by being faithful to their duties, and adopting a sober and correct line of conduct, they will be cared for in sickness and old age; and give them to understand that those who serve well, may always find employment in their ships, and receive promotion when competent."—[Mercantile Marine Laws considered, by W. S. Lindsay, p. 203.]
But, unfortunately, in too many instances, men were got at the lowest possible wages and cast adrift the moment they were not wanted; and surely such shipowners had only themselves to blame if, when they were in need of seamen, they could not get them. There were, however, shining exceptions. An eminent shipowner, Mr. Green, had laid out 10,000 l. in building a "Home," and providing for the comforts of his officers and men while on shore, and had always followed a fair and just system of paying them good wages—never getting rid of those who served well, but rewarding them by promotion; and the result was, that men rarely left him, and he never had any want of seamen. If such a system were pursued by other owners, there would never have any necessity for resorting to foreign countries for men to man their vessels. These were the views of the late Government on the subject, and in order to show those views more clearly, he would move for returns of correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Lords of the Treasury on the subject. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
"That there be laid before this House, Return of the Number of persons who passed their Examination for Masters and Mates of Merchant Ships, between the 1st January 1852, and the 1st January 1853, distinguishing the Number in each Class: And also,
"Copies of any Correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Committee of Council on Education relative to the Establishment of Schools for Merchant Seamen and Apprentices."
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYtrusted that he should be able to give a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord on many of the points to which he had referred. With regard to the grievance of the mercantile marine arising from the many and multifarious Acts relating to their interests, the subject of the consolidation of those Acts was under the consideration of the Government; but while so many Bills were at present before the other House of Parliament affecting the mercantile marine, it would not be expedient to introduce any general measure of consolidation at this period of the Session, as whatever was done now might have all to

129
be done over again afterwards. When those measures had been passed, he hoped to be able to introduce a measure which should be complete in all its details. With respect to the system of registry tickets for seamen, he admitted that vexatious evils might have arisen in the carrying of that system into execution; but it was well known that the registry was established as much for Admiralty purposes as for the mercantile marine. The subject, however, was before the First Lord of the Admiralty, by whom the whole matter would be considered. With regard to the discipline of the merchant service, that was entirely a matter of detail. The Government, he could assure the noble Lord, were very desirous of improving the efficiency of the naval courts abroad; but this point involved to a certain extent the conflicting authorities of foreign with British law; and whatever was done to increase the power of those courts must be done with due care and deliberation. He believed the plan that had already been proposed in the other House of Parliament would not differ materially from the scheme of the noble Lord opposite for the consolidation of these Acts. The present Government proposed that the sailors on board of merchant ships should not be deprived of the right of volunteering to enter Her Majesty's ships in foreign ports; but it was not intended that the captain of the merchant ship should be required in all cases, as had hitherto been the practice, to pay all his wages to the seaman so volunteering, and transfer all his property to Her Majesty's ship. The men's wages would not in future have to be paid till the ship returned home, and compensation would be allowed, upon certain conditions, to the captain of the merchant vessel who had sustained injury by being deprived of the services of part of his crew, and being put to additional expense by employing new hands. These, he thought, were all the points which the noble Lord said he meant to touch upon in relation to the consolidation of the Acts relating to the mercantile marine. The noble Lord would see that they were not very numerous in themselves; and if they were all, he (Lord Stanley) would grant that it might be possible to introduce a Bill for the consolidation of these Acts. But when the noble Lord considered that, besides the points to which he had alluded, there were also the questions of pilotage, lighthouses, salvage, desertion, and many
130
others, which were now the subjects of legislation, he would see that it would be advisable to postpone for the present the introduction of a measure of consolidation. The noble Lord had called attention to the system of examination for masters and mates of the mercantile marine. That system was working exceedingly well, and he trusted that the effect of it would be to place the masters and mates of the British merchant service in a high position as compared with any foreign merchant service in the higher branches of education. The noble Lord said that we ought to establish a system of instruction whereby masters and mates would be qualified for undergoing the examination, and that during the last year he had established two schools for that purpose, the expenses of which were to be defrayed out of the surplus funds in the hands of the Board of Trade, arising from the fees payable by masters and mates passing the examination, and from other sources. He (Lord Stanley) believed that the Board of Trade was empowered by Act of Parliament to appropriate this surplus in such a manner; but it was only right to say that certain local marine boards had objected to such an application of these funds. An application had been made to the Committee of Privy Council on Education for pecuniary assistance to these schools; and he trusted that that department would be able to give the case a favourable consideration—for he felt a very great interest in the schools, and should be sorry to see them falling into decay from want of support, because he was sure they were effecting a great improvement in the character of the mercantile marine. It was the wish of the Government that no further fees or dues should be required from the mercantile marine in respect of lights, pilotage, ballasting, the examination of masters and mates, or the engaging or discharging of seamen, than such as were absolutely necessary for maintaining the establishments in efficiency; and they wished, also, that there should be a department of the Government which should be always responsible to Parliament for the proper expenditure of the sum so levied from the mercantile marine. They desired, further, that the local boards and local authorities should have the management and direction of such matters as could best be conducted by them; but they thought, likewise, that there should be a control and superintendence on the part of a responsible depart-

131
ment of the Executive to see that the objects were fairly carried out. There would be no objection to the production of the returns which the noble Lord opposite asked for.
The DUKE of NORTHUMBERLANDsaid, that a large sum of money had been raised at Shields for the erection of a sailors' home, but entirely on the strength of a promise made by the former Government, that there should be a nautical school maintained there by the Government. He wished to ask whether that promise would be ratified or not by the present Administration?
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwas understood to answer that an application for a contribution in aid of the school at Shields had been made by the President of the Board of Trade to the Committee of Privy Council on Education, but no reply had yet been received.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that with respect to the subject before the House, he might perhaps be allowed to make a suggestion. The returns showed the number of seamen engaged in the foreign trade, but there was no return to show the number of seamen at home in each month of the year. He thought it would be highly desirable to have the number known, so that we should be able to ascertain in a moment of emergency how strong a force was obtainable. He hoped that, under the new measure, the present right of anchorage would not be taken away.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwas not aware of any such intention on the part of the present Government. As far as he knew, the rights of Her Majesty's ships as to anchorage had never been considered by the mercantile marine to be a serious grievance.
On Question, agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATUTES.
LORD LYNDHURSTrequested the attention of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack to a question of which he had given notice, respecting the course it was the intention of the Government to pursue with regard to the amendment of the law, and also with regard to the amendment of the statutes. He had learnt when his noble and learned Friend at the beginning of the present year made his statement with respect to the measures which the Government meant to pursue on the amendment of the law, and from
132
what had appeared in the usual sources of intelligence, that one of those measures related to a revision of the statutes; that it was the intention of his noble Friend to strike out without qualification from the Statute-book a great variety of Acts; that he further intended to classify the remainder, and to purify them to a certain extent from those ambiguities and defects to which they were subject. Their Lordships must be aware of the importance of this matter before they entered upon the consideration of any amendment of the law. The learned Gentleman who had been selected for the performance of that task, or rather who had been proposed to take the superintendence of it, was certainly not much to be envied. It was a laborious and certainly not a very inviting duty which he had undertaken to perform. But it was fair he (Lord Lyndhurst) should state, that in his opinion, and in the opinion of other noble and learned Lords, no other individual could be selected for the purpose of performing this task more satisfactorily for the public than the Gentleman in question, from his long experience and habit of dealing with this subject, from his general acquirements, and from his extensive attainments in the studies of the law. It appeared, however, that the object of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack related principally or almost entirely to the past—to the correction of past legislation and past errors—and that he passed over the question what steps might be taken for the purpose of preventing the recurrence of those errors, and of avoiding such irregularities and inconsistencies in future. If that were the course about to be pursued by his noble and learned Friend, he (Lord Lyndhurst) ventured to say that that course and the measure his noble and learned Friend thought to carry into effect, would not be quite satisfactory, either to the profession or to the public. No man accustomed to the proceedings of our courts of justice—and no person was better informed on that subject than his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack—no person could attend to those proceedings without having noticed from time to time complaints made by learned Judges of the defective and careless manner in which our legislation was conducted. It habitually occurred that courts of justice were occupied for hours, and sometimes for days, in attempting to reconcile inconsistencies, to clear up obscurities, and to produce, as it were, light out of darkness;

133
and often with a very unsatisfactory result. Not only so, but counsel were employed at great expense to the suitors to conduct subtle and intricate arguments directed to the same object. It was remarkable that these evils were continually accumulating without any attempt to apply a remedy. Many of their Lordships might happen to recollect that this subject was brought prominently forward by a late noble and learned Lord, Lord Langdale, who pointed out with great particularity the evils and inconveniences which attended the present system, and stated, without the least exaggeration, that it constantly happened that Acts of Parliament were so framed as almost to defy interpretation. In 1848 a noble and learned Lord now present, in an able and comprehensive speech, drew attention to the same subject, assigning many instances of the existing evils, and forcing conviction on the mind of every one who heard him; but, unfortunately, that also was attended with no practical effect. A day or two since he (Lord Lyndhurst) happened to turn over a volume of reports of the Court of Chancery, and he was struck by the statement of one of the Judges in that court, of high character and of great learning, that it was almost impossible to form a satisfactory opinion on the construction of a particular Act, so full was it of ambiguities and inconsistencies. Now it appeared to him that it was impossible to proceed further with the measures which his noble and learned Friend proposed without attempting to unite with it some remedy for the evils of which he (Lord Lyndhurst) complained. If he were asked what was the principal cause to which those errors were to be attributed, he should say that it was to the way in which amendments were introduced into Bills in their progress through both Houses of Parliament. An amendment was proposed by a noble Lord, or a Member of the other House, who, very probably had not taken the pains to read the enactment to which the amendment applied. The amendment was, perhaps, inconsistent with the general scope of the Bill, or not in accordance even with that particular clause on which it was engrafted. Was it surprising that under such circumstances errors of construction and inconsistencies of various kinds should arise in their legislation? Errors in an Act of Parliament might often be ascribed to the careless manner in which it was originally framed on its first introduction to Parlia-
134
ment, either in that or in the other House of Parliament. If their Lordships would allow him for a few moments to refer to one or two instances, he thought he should be able to show what was the inconvenience and evil arising under one Act of Parliament, to show that it was an evil that was still undiminished, and was continued in an aggravated form. By the Act to which he was referring, which had reference to the County Courts, and was passed a few years ago, it was provided that where the sum sought to be recovered was under 20 l., and the plaintiff and defendant resided more than twenty miles apart, it was declared that the Judge of the Court before which the cause was tried "may" award the plaintiff costs. What was the result? An action was brought not long ago in the Court of Exchequer. It might have been brought in the County Court, as in this case the Courts had concurrent jurisdiction. The plaintiff recovered 13 l. odd, and a question arose as to the meaning of the Act with reference to costs, whether it was imperative or at the discretion of the Judge to give costs. The question was argued at great length in the Court of Exchequer, one of the learned Judges having stated that he doubted with respect to the construction of the clause. The result was, that it was decided that the word "may" must receive its ordinary interpretation, and that it was at the discretion of the Judge to give costs or not, as he thought proper. The same question came before the same Court two or three weeks after. There was the same argument with the same result. Again, after a short interval, another cause came before the Court of Common Pleas. The question was again elaborately argued; the decisions in the Court of Exchequer were cited and commented on at great length; the discussion lasted almost for an entire day; the Court took time to consider its judgment, and the Chief Justice delivered an elaborate judgment, entering on the subject at great length, and deciding that "may" was not to be used in its discretionary sense, and was to be used in its imperative sense. How easy, he asked their Lordships to mark, would it have been to avoid such a difficulty! The word "shall" was always imperative; "may" was power to do something—gave a discretion; and the introduction of the words "at his discretion" would have obviated all the difficulty, and would have saved that waste of time and unnecessary ex-

135
penditure. The errors were sometimes of a ludicrous character. He would state what took place some years back on a statute with reference to the insertion of words which applied to a forged register of baptism. A heavy pecuniary penalty was at first proposed as the punishment for the offence; and, according to a subsequent clause of the Bill, it was provided that one-half of the penalty should go to the person giving information, and the other half to the parish. In the progress of the Bill through Parliament it came to be thought that a pecuniary penalty was not a proper punishment for the offence, and fourteen years' transportation was substituted. But the party who had charge of that Bill, as a legislator, either in that House or in the other, omitted to strike out the other clause of the Bill by which the penalty was to be divided; and the result was, that the whole parish became entitled to seven years' transportation, and the other half was to go to the informer. The absurdity was obvious, but he cited it as a striking instance of the carelessness with which Acts of Parliament were framed, and as showing how little attention or supervision was exercised during the passage of the statutes through Parliament. He should refer to one more instance. It related to a particular Bill, which passed two or three years ago, originating in that House, which also had reference to the County Courts. That Bill consisted of twenty-five clauses on its first introduction. Their Lordships passed it without alteration, and it went down to the other House of Parliament; sixteen clauses were struck out, and eighteen others inserted; the Bill occupied five months in its progress through Parliament; it came up to their Lordships' House again at the close of the Session, and was passed into a law without inquiry. The result was, that there was not a single clause of that Bill free from error. One object of the Bill was to give the Judge of a County Court power to execute process out of his own district under certain forms. That was the evident object of the party who proposed the amendment; but the measure, so far from effecting that object, effected directly the reverse, and left the law precisely as it had found it; the lengthened clause which had been introduced proved entirely inoperative. In another clause some directions were given as to making provision with respect to the Treasurers' accounts; and to the County Courts trea-
136
surers the same powers were given as had been given by "the last-mentioned Act." On looking to the "last-mentioned Act," it appeared that the subject of it was en-entirely different, for there was nothing at all in that Act which related to the matter out of which the reference arose, and there had been no previous Act upon the subject. Again, there was a clause giving compensation to persons whose offices were abolished; and there was a provision at the end that, where a party received compensation, and was afterwards appointed to an office, the compensation should abate pro tanto so long as he should hold that office. All that was reasonable enough, and in accordance with what was the usual course. But in the progress of the Bill through the other House of Parliament another class of persons claimed to receive compensation, and a clause was introduced to that effect; but the party who had charge of the Bill, seeing that there was already a general clause of compensation, thought that all he had to do would be to add the particular offices to that clause; but he omitted adverting to the provision that the parties should not be paid in the event of their holding office; so that here were two provisions of an Act of Parliament entirely at variance with each other. He (Lord Lyndhurst) would repeat that he did not think there was in that Act a single clause which was not, more or less, in discordance with others. He might multiply these cases almost without limit. The cases to which he had referred were not nearly so strong as those pressed on their Lordships' attention in 1848 by his noble and learned Friend; but he (Lord Lyndhurst) had selected the cases on account of their recent occurrence, for the purpose of showing their Lordships the continuance of an evil which was of the gravest kind; and he called on their Lordships—he exhorted them in the strongest manner—to provide some remedy against the continuance of that evil. It had always appeared to him that it would not be difficult to provide a remedy; that they ought to have some person of competent information appointed by the Government—with such assistance as might be necessary—to make himself master of every Bill, to watch it in its progress, and to communicate, from time to time, to some authorities in either House any observations that might occur to him with reference to the Bill, either in its original or amended state. By these means,

137
if the evil were not entirely got rid of, it would be very much diminished. But it was not for him (Lord Lyndhurst) or for a mere private individual to go into detail on this subject; it was a subject for the consideration of the Government; and he would take leave to conclude the short statement he had made by asking his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack whether, in regard to his measure for the revision of the statutes, it was his intention to follow or accompany it by any measure or proceeding for the purpose of remedying the evils to which the attention of their Lordships had now been called?
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he was sure their Lordships always listened to any statement made by his noble and learned Friend with much pleasure and attention; and he could not but rejoice at the circumstance that the announcement which he (the Lord Chancellor) had to make at the opening of the present Session had led to the inquiry which his noble and learned Friend had just addressed to him. He could assure their Lordships that he felt as strongly as his noble and learned Friend could feel, the absolute necessity of coming to some arrangement whereby their legislation for the future might be made more perfect than it now was; and when he announced, on the first day of their meeting, the intention he had formed of endeavouring to consolidate the existing statutes, he stated then, and he had not the least difficulty in repeating now, to his noble and learned Friend, that one of the main objects which he should always have in view so long as he had any connexion with the work of consolidating the statutes, would be not only to devise the best mode of consolidating the legislation that was already passed, but also to provide a better mode of legislating for the future. At the same time he did not wish to mislead his noble and learned Friend or the House, by inducing them to believe what was not the truth, that he had in his mind at that moment any definite plan with regard to this subject. He had stated, on the first day of their meeting, that the best chance of arriving at such a result was not to speculate any longer as to what was the best mode of proceeding, but to proceed at once to do something. With that view he had, since he announced his intention a month ago, secured the services of a very learned gentleman, to whom his noble and learned Friend had alluded, and who to his general
138
qualifications added the peculiar qualification upon this subject, that he was, practically, the only remaining Commissioner who framed the report suggesting the mode in which the statute law should be consolidated. Being necessarily unable, from his other avocations, to attend to the practical details of the matter himself, he (the Lord Chancellor) had secured the services of a few efficient men to devote themselves exclusively to the task. He had not wished that it should commence before the Easter recess, because he could not, till then, give his personal attention continuously to the subject; but he had put the matter into such a train, that he believed in the first week of next month the work would be commenced, and an attempt would be made, as he previously intimated, in the first place, to ascertain precisely and exactly of what the Statute-book consisted—for he believed there were thirty-eight quarto volumes printed, not above six or seven of which were now in force. That being done, he would take one or two rather easy subjects, and consolidate the statutes relating to them first, and turn them into better language and form, and then lay them before the House as a specimen of what could be done in that respect. When that had been completed, whether it would not be right to extend the work further, and engage a larger staff for its execution, he would not now speculate. One direction, which be should always give to every person engaged on this subject, and upon which he would always fix his own attention, was, not only to endeavour to render in a more definite and intelligible form the statutes that were already passed, but to discover and suggest a practical mode of reforming all prospective legislation likewise.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that when it fell to his lot, some years ago, to have the charge of measures in their passage through Parliament, it was his practice to have the Bills reprinted with the amendments that were made in them, and then give the House time to consider them fully, and he found that course to be one that was attended with very great advantage. He wished also to observe, that if their Lordships' House was to continue to have a great number of Bills thrown upon its attention at once at the end of a Session, no arrangement that they could make could by possibility save them from the discredit of passing Acts which nobody could comprehend.
LORD REDESDALEobserved, with reference to the first instance adduced by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), upon the subject of the language of Acts of Parliament, that it showed that the Judges as well as the Legislature had something to do in the matter. If the Court of Exchequer on the third occasion had adhered to the two former decisions—[A PEER: It was another Court.]—If the other Court had also held that "may" was permissive, and that Parliament would use the word "shall" when it meant to make a thing imperative, they would have come to a conclusion which would have facilitated the proceedings of the Legislature. If that was understood to be the rule, it would be very convenient, and avoid such unnecessary expletives as "if they shall think fit."
LORD LYNDHURSTremarked that it was no new thing; for these hundred years there had been doubts upon the word "may"—whether it was to be considered permissive or not.
LORD ST. LEONARDSmust confess it was with some alarm that he had heard his noble and learned Friend say that he intended to alter the language and form of the statutes which he proposed to digest and classify. The moment you touched an Act of Parliament in its form and language you made a new statute, which must receive its construction according to the language you used. Men's titles might depend upon the old Act; and, from what had been stated of the difficulty in settling whether "may" should be considered imperative, the House might easily suppose how Very extensive might be the operation of the slightest alteration made in an Act of Parliament. The moment you attempted to alter the language of your Acts of Parliament it was no more a digest or a classification, but a code; and if we were to have a code, it must embrace both common and statute law. In Committee they had been trying the operation of what might be considered a code; and if all their Lordships had had the experience which some of them had had on that Committee, they would have some notion of the difficulties in the way of codification. The alteration of a single word would vary, to a great extent, the proposition of law. With regard to the shape in which Bills passed the Houses of Parliament, nothing but a careful perusal by a competent person taking a Bill as a whole could give the slightest chance of its
140
being passed in anything like a perfect shape; and here lay the true remedy for errors—that every important Bill should be framed by a competent person, and that no one should be allowed to introduce an alteration which was not afterwards submitted to the person who framed the Bill. In Committee an alteration was often proposed and adopted, the effect of which was not seen at the moment; and it was hopeless to expect Bills to be free from gross errors unless such alterations were looked at by a person who understood the whole measure, and the bearing of the different clauses. He (Lord St. Leonards) was afraid that House must take some blame to itself for many of these errors. In Committee of the whole House, Bills did not receive that consideration which very often the importance of the subject demanded. They were not discussed in Committee of that House; and, if clauses had to be considered, it became a conversation across the table which the House generally could not hear. Their Lordships had it in their power to remedy much of the evil as far as concerned Bills in that House, by taking care that in Committee of the whole House amendments and alterations should be openly mentioned and understood, and, if necessary, regularly discussed, before being passed. But no man or set of men could be answerable for Bills brought up at the end of a Session in great numbers, and thrown upon the table of the House. The Government of the day, however, must always have great power in regard to the bringing up Bills to that House. There were many that might be introduced there which were unnecessarily introduced in the other House; and so their Lordships, left with scarcely any business to transact at the commencement of a Session, found Bills brought up at its close in such quantities as to make them utterly unable to perform the business properly. He believed that with a little care a great many of the evils which had been pointed out might be remedied.
The EARL of ABERDEENbelieved that much the same complaint had been made for 40 years, and every Government had professed their anxiety to find a remedy, but none of them had been able to do so. He could say for the present Government that they desired to facilitate the progress of legislation as much as they could by introducing into that House such measures as could properly be introduced there; and he hoped the House would find

141
itself able to give due consideration to the measures that came before it.
LORD BROUGHAMneed hardly say, that the manner in which laws were made was a matter of the utmost importance. He recollected once, when he had urged the subject upon the House, and proposed a remedy for the admitted evil; a most honoured Friend, the late Lord Ashburton, said—
"Of all the changes and amendments in the law which you are proposing, this is by much the most self-evident, and it is the clear and undeniable duty of the Parliament to adopt the measure you propose; and yet you may depend upon it you will find it far less difficult to carry any or all of the rest of your proposed amendments than to obtain the sanction of Parliament to this, which is the most urgently necessary and the most clearly easy to be adopted."
He (Lord Brougham) agreed with his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) that in altering the language of Acts of Parliament which you were digesting, as well as in framing a new law, you must have regard to the judicial interpretation already put upon certain language; but he thought the task, though difficult, was anything rather than impossible. He was convinced that means might be taken to put matters on such a footing that gross errors should be avoided, and that some course might be pursued to make it not only probable, but absolutely certain, that the House should not fall into such mistakes as his other noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had given a few samples of—and he might have multiplied them almost without end. But though he thought that might be done, and he hoped would be done, he doubted whether they would be doing enough if they only prevented these gross errors from getting into their Statute-book. He agreed that great care must be taken in the original framing of each Act, and in the changing of its clauses during discussion, and that still greater care was necessary when it came back from another place with alterations not always in the nature of amendments; but that this could be done by the superintending care of any one individual he must entirely deny. The best security against oversight was in more minds than one being applied to the matter. His noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) had said most justly that it would be better if more care were bestowed by their Lordships in working out the details of measures in Committee and subsequent stages; but though he would not say he was hopeless
142
that their Lordships would ever bestow such care—though he would not say he despaired of ever seeing such a goodly assemblage as he had the honour then to address attending in all the stages of a long and elaborate measure, remaining not only through the next critical half-hour, not only sitting through that difficult time (six to seven o'clock), but through four or five hours more, to go over a whole measure—though he would not say he entirely despaired of this, his hopes were moderate indeed. While he did not think that a substitute could be found for the exercise of the discretion and wisdom of the House—Heaven forbid that the idea should cross any man's mind of attempting to find a substitute for that!—he thought it by no means impossible, and most highly desirable, that they should take advantage of help, of other labour, and skill, and knowledge, in aid of their own—what civilians called as to evidence an adminiculum. Some years since he had laid before the House Resolutions of this kind with regard to Private Bills, proposing the formation of a Board of five permanent officers acting in conjunction with the two Houses of Parliament, and in all respects ancillary—not substituted for them, but aiding them—and performing parts of their labour which it was impossible for them satisfactorily to perform. A board of this description, under the Great Seal, under the Lord Chancellor as Minister of Justice, acting under that superintendence and in communication with the Government, would enable them to secure the due preparation of Bills, and to watch their progress through the Houses, and ascertain whether by alterations introduced at any stage error was committed, obscurity or inconsistency introduced, thus giving a measure as nearly as possible approaching to perfection. He had always thought that the appointment of a Minister of Justice would be an highly expedient measure. Men would often agree to a thing who objected to the name, and he thought the late changes in the law, the appointment of two Lords Justices in addition to more Vice-Chancellors, had—he would not say substantially converted the Lord Chancellor into a Minister of Justice—but had given him power to act as a Minister of Justice incalculably more easily than ever before. Let those who apprehended prejudices against a useful measure to be so powerful as to forbid the hope of ultimate success, remember these

143
memorable words of a dear and lamented and truly venerable friend of his, and of many present, Sir Samuel Romilly, uttered by him after failing for the third or fourth time to obtain the assent of Parliament to some of those enlightened measures of amendment of the law which he so often proposed:—"I am not so unacquainted with the nature of prejudice as not to have observed that it strikes deep root and flourishes in all soils, and spreads its branches in every direction; but I have observed also that, flourish as it may, it must, by laws sacred and immutable, wither and decay before the powerful and repeated touch of truth." He added that he should again propose the same measure, if spared through another year; but, said he, "whatever my fate, the seed which is scattered has not fallen upon stony ground." And it had not; and let the judicious and prudent and moderate amender of the law take comfort to himself from this fact—every one of those measures which that illustrious man propounded—defeated at first, so that he, unhappily, did not live to see his own triumph—had now become the law of the land, together with an amount of other improvements which even he, sanguine as he was, hardly dared to expect.

COUNTY ELECTIONS POLLS BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that as he should not be present at the future stages of the Bill, he must take this opportunity of thanking his noble Friend for a measure which he thought must be a considerable improvement in the election procedure. It must, among other advantages, have that of preventing in some, though only an inconsiderable, degree the corruption so generally and so greatly complained of, no small part of the bribery at elections taking place after the first day's poll. In once more adverting to this painful subject, he must express his dissent from many whom he greatly respected, whose disposition to extirpate that grievous evil he believed to be most sincere, regarding the means which they held to be effectual, and which he felt confident must entirely fail. An extension of the suffrage was one. Now no one could be more friendly than he was to all safe and fit extension—to all measures which would give the franchise to the classes who ought to be entrusted with it—not, Heaven forbid! by universal suf-
144
frage, but by enabling all those to vote whose condition and whose intelligence gave them a title to exercise that important public trust. But his desire to see the constituent body thus extended, and even greatly extended, did not arise from any expectation that the increase of numbers would extirpate bribery. There was the same risk of bribery in a great as in a small body of electors. When parties were equally, or nearly balanced, then it was that bribery was committed. In a borough of 1,000 voters, if 900 or 950 were one way, and the rest another, no man would be silly enough to attempt purchasing a majority; but it was when four or five hundred were one way and the rest the other way, that it was worth while to gain over enough to turn the balance. This held just as true of places where there were 10,000 or 12,000 voters. When 4,000 or 5,000 were one way, and 6,000 or 7,000 the other, be it in a provincial town or a great city—he, of course, could not be supposed to speak of that on the river which washed these walls—then it was that bribery became practicable, and that men were tempted to commit it. The great bulk of the electors were respectable persons, and were long found to vote on either side. A few hundreds of another kind held back, and were sought by the agents of corruption as open to bribery and as able to turn the election. The total number of the voters had nothing to do with the question. The other favourite expedient was, the method of secret voting. He had always been unable to perceive how this could check bribery, after the best attention he could give the arguments in its favour. He spoke not of its affording a protection against influence and intimidation, though on that he conceived the argument also failed. But he was now speaking of its alleged operation in preventing bribery; and with all his respect for the many persons of importance in such controversies, and all the attention he could bestow upon their reasonings, he professed his utter inability to discern how the plan could in any the least degree prevent bribery. It would, no doubt, prevent, and most effectually prevent, all punishment of the offence—all prosecutions for it would be impossible—because no detection of it could take place. But how an offence was to be prevented by giving impunity to the commission of it, he was at a loss to imagine. The only result would be, that

145
the course of the offence might be charged. Those who wished to purchase votes would make the payment of the price depend upon the event of the contest—they would engage to give the voters so much if Mr. So-and-So was returned. The confidential agent would make this bargain with the voters, and would thus convert each one into an active coadjutor, by making it his interest both to vote himself, and get others to vote with him. His hopes of extinguishing bribery rested on other grounds, and he earnestly besought his noble friends of the Government to bestow their best attention on this important amendment of the law. His noble Friend at the head of the Government had that evening gladdened him by the affirmative answer he had given on the important subject of the Commission on the assimilation of the Mercantile Law. He trusted he would now further declare the disposition of the Government to take effectual steps for improving the Bribery Law—whether by providing the means of effectually prosecuting the offence, or by increasing the punishment of it, or by requiring such a declaration as he (Lord Brougham) had once and again strongly recommended, or by all of these means.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, he could assure his noble and learned Friend that he himself could not be more desirous or anxious to check the present amount of bribery and corruption than were Her Majesty's Government. This being the case, of course the subject occupied their most serious attention, and he trusted that something might be done. His noble Friend the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell), if he had not actually given notice of a measure in the other House of Parliament, had stated that his attention was directed to the subject, with the view and hope of meeting the evil to which the noble and learned Lord had referred, and which, if it continued as it existed at present, would go far to bring our whole representative system into contempt. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) was not prepared to say that at that moment any measure was ready for introduction into that or the other House of Parliament; but that something would be attempted he thought he might confidently say, and he hoped their Lordships would give their active co-operation in promoting a measure which had really become a matter of necessity.
LORD BROUGHAMhoped that not
146
only their Lordships, but the other House of Parliament, would show that they were resolved in good earnest to endeavour to put down this evil.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEconsidered that it was incumbent upon Parliament to do all in its power to repress the practices which had been lately exposed by the Committees of the other House; and he had not the slightest doubt that they would give their ready and willing co-operation and assistance to any measures calculated to attain that end. He must say, however, that he thought, in justice to the country, they ought not to lay too much stress upon the exposures which were now made. He did not mean to mitigate or to attempt to explain away the nature of the transactions which had been disclosed before Committees of the other House; but he had heard it said repeatedly that there was obviously a greater and grosser amount of corruption at the last general election than had ever prevailed before, and that the crime of bribery and corruption was on the increase—and he wished to say that, for his own part, he greatly doubted the truth of that statement. He did not think it desirable that the idea should go forth, not only to this country but to the world at large, that the whole Parliamentary constituencies of the country were in a gradual course of progressive corruption. It must be remembered that a great change had taken place in the course of investigation applied to these cases. A short time since it was indispensable not only to allege cases of bribery and treating, and to prove the acts themselves, but to connect them with the candidate—the person principally interested in the result of the election. That practice, as their Lordships were aware, was now entirely altered, and in the case of any contested election it was only necessary to prove one single case of an offence of this description, though wholly unknown to the candidate, in order to invalidate the election, and displace the person returned. He believed, from his own experience, he might venture to say that there was scarcely a Member of the other House who had gone through a contested election, who, if all the transactions of his election were investigated, would not be exposed to the greatest risk of being unseated. No man who had passed through a contested election could be ignorant that when men were engaged in a struggle of that kind, many persons

147
placed themselves in the position of friends of the candidate, with whom the candidates had no reason to refuse to act, and that when such persons became excited during the conflict, they might be induced to commit these acts without expecting the responsibility to attach to any one but themselves. If, however, such acts were now proved before Election Committees, they were enough to invalidate the returns. Under these circumstances he thought that, because at the last election a great many offences of this description were proved to have taken place, it was not just and fair to the constituencies of this country to conclude that they were now far more corrupt than they were formerly. His belief was, that the operation of public opinion, and the gradual discouragements applied by legislation of late years, had tended materially to diminish practices of this kind; and while he considered it the duty of both Houses of Parliament to apply their best energies to their repression, he thought they should not hastily jump to the conclusion that the corruption was grosser and more extensive than on any former occasion.
The EARL of CARLISLEfully concurred in the spirit of the remarks which had just fallen from his noble Friend, whose experience in the matter of elections had been somewhat analogous to and concurrent with his own. And yielding, as he did to no man in his wish to check and prevent bribery and corruption, he still thought it would not be for the benefit, even of virtue itself, to make the pursuit and running down of what was vicious, go on with so much want of discrimination as to include in it what the general sense of mankind would never regard as wholly and equally reprehensible. For instance, the act of a man who gave a glass of beer to a voter who had made a long journey to support a candidate, ought not to be looked on in the same light as a person committing direct and downright acts of bribery. He trusted the Bill now under consideration would be found serviceable, because it had been found from experience that the second day's poll not only imposed considerable additional expense on the candidate, but had a tendency to lead parties to have recourse to bribery and other discreditable acts, which he was glad to observe the Legislature showing a strong disposition to discourage.
Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

OFFICE OF EXAMINER (COURT OF CHANCERY) BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving that the House go into Committte on this Bill, said he wished to make a single remark with reference to a petition which he had presented to their Lordships on Friday evening last from the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, on the subject of one of the clauses. That clause provided that the Examiners should be appointed from the class of barristers. The members of that association complained of that provision, alleging that it was a grievance to them that the chances of appointment should not be extended to solicitors as well as barristers, and that solicitors should be ineligible to those offices. He wished to observe for their satisfaction that the subject had been well considered in another place; but independently of that, it would be impossible not to confine the appointment to barristers without acting on a different principle from that which had been laid down in all analogous cases. The new Vice-Chancellors must be selected from the class of barristers, and the duties of the Examiners were now so extensive and so important, that it would be impossible to secure fit persons to discharge them from any other class than that of barristers. The solicitors must, therefore, not consider that any slur was cast upon them by this provision of the Bill.
House in Committee; an Amendment made: the Report thereof to be received To-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.