Sitting of 26 May 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Stamp Duties; Jurors and Juries (Ireland); Customs Duties (Sugar and Spirits).
3° Middlesex Industrial Schools; Gaming-Houses.

WAYS AND MEANS—SPIRIT AND SUGAR DUTIES.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee on Ways and Means.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, it would be remembered that upon a former occasion his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved an addition to the duty on Scotch spirits; and in rising to move the Resolution, it was necessary that he should enter into a short explanation. There had been for many years complaints from the distillers of Scotland regarding the difference of the duty as it affected the distillers of malt whisky and the distillers of whisky from grain. It was alleged that the drawback hitherto allowed on malt whisky had not been in proportion to the amount of the duty paid on the malt; and that, therefore, in reality, the malt distiller had to pay not only the ordinary spirit duty, but also an additional duty on malt; and it was understood between the different spirit manufacturers, that the disadvantage under which the malt distiller laboured, prior to the recent alteration in the malt duty, was equivalent to about 6¼d. a gallon. The old duty on spirits in Scotland was 4s. 8d. a gallon upon spirits of all descriptions. The proportion of malt in the manufacture of grain spirit was equivalent to 1½d. per gallon, and, therefore, the gross duty, including the duty, the malt duty, and the spirit duty, was 4s. 9½d. so far as regarded
1024
grain spirit. As regarded malt spirit, the. same duty of 4s. 8d. was charged, but the proportion of malt in a gallon represented a duty of 1s. 4¼d., making a total of 6s. 0¼d. The rule was that one-half of the malt duty, or 8¼d., should be returned in the way of drawback in respect of malt duty, leaving 5s. 3¼d. net duty, or 6¾d. more than was paid for the grain spirit. Now, whether that was right or wrong—right as maintained by the grain distiller, and wrong as maintained by the malt instiller—yet for a great number of years it had prevailed, until it had become almost sanctioned as the relative proportion between those two descriptions of manufacturers. The recent alterations of the malt duties, however, would materially aggravate the disadvantages under which the malt distiller laboured. The new duty on spirits was 5s. 8d. a gallon, and the new duty on the proportion of malt in grain spirits was 2d., making the duty on grain spirit 5s. 10 d.; but the new duty on malt spirit was 5s. 8d., and the new duty on the malt 2s., making 7s. 8d., instead of 6s, 0¼d. as formerly, and if the drawback were calculated on the old principle—that was, if one-half of the new malt duty, or 1s. 0½d., were returned as a drawback—it would leave 6s. 7½d. as the gross amount of the duty, or a difference of 9½d. between the two kinds of spirits, instead of 6¼d. as formerly. It therefore became the duty of the Government to listen to the representations made by the Scotch distiller, who complained of this increase of the distinction. As the increase of the malt duty was for a special and temporary purpose, it was thought fair that no one particular interest should be specially prejudiced. It was therefore arranged by the Government, in conjunction with a deputation from the distillers of Scotland, that the drawback on the malt spirit should be fixed at such a sum as to leave the distillers of malt spirit exactly in the same relative position with regard to grain and malt spirit that they held before; that was, that the duty should be adjusted so as to leave a difference of 6¼d. gallon as formerly. It was also represented by the Scotch distiller that he should have a drawback on exportation to England. At present there was a difference of 1s. 2d. a gallon, but by the recent increase of the malt duty the difference would be increased to 1s. 10 d., and it was arranged that the drawback on spirits corning from Scotland to England should be

1025
increased 8d. a gallon. A similar arrangement had been made with regard to Ireland. In carrying out these two objects, a considerable loss of revenue would be caused, amounting, according to the estimate of the Excise, to no less than 106,000 l. In order to make up that loss it was proposed to increase the duty on spirits in Scotland 4d. a gallon, in addition to the 1s. previously added. This was in strict accordance with the feeling of the Scotch distillers and of Scotch Members, and would be in perfect conformity with the principles of the adjustment now proposed. The loss, he had stated, would be 106,000 l., and the additional duty would yield 108,000 l. When the Excise Duty Bill was in Committee, some returns were referred to for the purpose of showing the difficulty of obtaining an increased revenue from home-made spirits, on the ground that the increased duty would occasion smuggling and illicit distillation. He did not think that there were any sufficient grounds for this assertion. It appeared by returns he had received, that from the 5th of April, 1852, to the 5th of April, 1853, the consumption of spirits in Ireland and Scotland had been respectively 9,820,000 gallons and 7,172,000 gallons, as compared with 10,350,000 gallons, and 6,534,000 gallons in 1853–54. The total consumption of the two countries, therefore, had been 16,992,000 gallons in 1852–53, under the low duties as against 16,934,000 gallons in 1853–54 under the increased duty. When it was considered what efforts had been made during the past year to instil into the people habits of greater sobriety, he should not think, judging from those figures, that there had been any great increase of smuggling in consequence of the augmented duty. He should have some other Resolutions to move, all consequent upon this. There would he an increase of the rum duty in Scotland to equalise the duty on spirits. He should also have to move another Resolution with regard to another subject. He had already moved Resolutions increasing the duty on sugar, and it would be necessary to move increased rates of duty on beet-root sugar manufactured in the United Kingdom. The manufactories in this country were exceedingly small, but there were some. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolutions.
COLONEL DUNNEthought it very unwise further to raise the amount of the duty upon spirits. It had been three times
1026
attempted already, and had signally failed, and he did not believe that it would add so much to the Exchequer as was anticipated.
MR. HUMEsaid, that the only question which the Government had to consider was, whether the increased duty would lead to illicit distillation. He did not think that it would; and, so far from being an improper step, he thought that the Government should raise the duty upon spirits to the highest possible point that might be safe without leading to smuggling and illicit distillation.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEconcurred with the hon. Member in his views with respect to the increase of the duty, and his general approval of the measure now proposed. It would very much tend to prevent illicit distillation, if landlords would insert a clause in their leases, the effect of which would be a forfeiture of them on the part of the tenant whenever he was discovered working an illicit still.
Resolutions agreed to. House resumed.

EXCISE DUTIES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out in several parts of the schedule the words "on or," the effect of which would be to cause the additional duty on whisky to be levied as in the case of the other articles of the Bill, "from and after," and not "on or after," the 8th of May. The hon. Member said, that, although the alteration was but slight, still, if not adopted, it would give rise to much irritation, as on Monday, the 8th of May, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement, large spirit contracts had been entered into by persons who were wholly unaware of the additional duty; and, as whisky was the only article in the present Bill which was made the subject of retroactive legislation, he trusted Government would accede to his Amendment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas sorry that it would be utterly incompatible with his duty to consent to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. In the present instance, the principle upon which the House uniformly acted had been pursued, namely, to make duties chargeable on the day on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement to the House. If the proposal of the hon. Gentleman were assented to,

1027
see what would be the effect. The financial statement was made at five o'clock in the afternoon, and the increased duty would not be chargeable until midnight. As soon, therefore, as the intentions of the Government became known information of them would be instantly conveyed by electric telegraph into every part of the United Kingdom, and the spirit dealers would have some hours during which they would be able to make contracts at the old rates to the extent of many hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Government, in refusing the proposal, were therefore able to entrench themselves, not only behind a precedent, but also behind reason.
MR. V. SCULLYthought the Government could only entrench themselves behind a precedent, and that only a bad one. The same principle, however, had not been extended to sugar and molasses.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDcould not concur in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The duty was paid, not with reference to the date of the contract, but at the time at which the spirits were taken out of bond. Now, the Budget was not proposed until seven or eight in the evening, whereas all the bonded warehouses in the empire were closed at three.
Question put, "That the words 'on or' stand part of the schedule."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 40: Majority 106.
House resumed. Committee report progress.

INCOME TAX (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYtrusted that the right hon. Gentleman had not entirely given up the hope of removing some of the glaring inequalities of this tax. Upon those inequalities he would not now dwell; but he could not help mentioning one of them—the case of the Long Annuitants. The Long Annuities would expire in 1860, and it was likely that the Russian war would last until then. Now, to supposing a person had invested 88 l. on the 1st of May in Long Annuities, he would have to pay 1l. 2s. 2d. a year for income tax; whereas if he had invested the same money in three per cents, he would only have to pay 3s. 6d.; and, supposing that the war lasted till 1860, he would have to pay altogether 5l. 8s. 5d. on the Long Annuities whereas He would only have to pay
1028
16 s. 2d. on the three per cents. It was a breach of faith to tax this class of property in this unequal manner. A great quantity of algebra had been expended before the Income Tax Committee, in order to show that if the income tax were perpetual it would come to the same thing if they invested their property in either way; but as nobody could expect to live for ever, he did not think that that was very satisfactory. He did not deny that the Long Annuitant ought to be taxed, but he had a right to be taxed fairly; and, in a case where a question of justice was involved, no argument ab inconvenienti ought to be allowed for a moment to prevail.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Baronet had raised one of the most important and one of the most intricate and difficult questions that had ever attracted the attention of Parliament, at a moment when not one-tenth of the Members were in the House, and when not one-tenth of those who were actually present, were attending to the subject. It could hardly, therefore, have been introduced at a moment more unpropitious for any real progress towards the solution of a problem which he for one thought never could be solved. But whether it could be or not, his answer must be this—namely, that it was a very grave and difficult question, which, whenever considered at all, could not possibly be considered, or justly considered, with reference to one class alone. It was true that the case of the Long Annuitants differed from that of other classes, inasmuch as it admitted of a very clear and arithmetical statement; but, as regarded the substantial justice of the matter, the Long Annuitant was not differently circumstanced from other persons possessed of temporary incomes. He had never given any promise to attempt the adjustment of the tax upon temporary and permanent incomes, and he rejoiced that he had not, for that would have been a promise which he owned he should not be able to redeem. But nothing could be more irrational than to say that he ought select one class of persons having a temporary interest and give allowances to them, and leave every other class of persons having temporary incomes to the full sweep and stroke of the tax. He doubted whether the case of the Long Annuitants was, after all, the strongest that might be adduced. A great portion of these Long Annuities were created in the midst of war, when they were subject to an income

1029
tax of 10 per cent, and when there was a reasonable prospect that they would continue to be liable to deduction; and therefore, if theirs was the only case they had to deal with—if there were no professional men, no merchants, no traders, no poor widows living on annuities, and with children unprovided for—or if there were none of those countless myriads or hardships that would start up around them as soon as they fairly approached the question, it was doubtful whether they (the Long Annuitants) would be entitled to relief. So, too, if they looked at the matter merely with reference to our own times, they must remember that they had now had an income tax for twelve years, and every bargain which had been made in Long Annuities during that time had doubtless been made with the fullest expectation that they would be liable to deduction on that score. What he wished, then, to impress upon the Committee was, that it would be the grossest injustice and a gross piece of legislative favouritism to attempt to make any exception in favour of any one class of temporary incomes, especially in favour of a class like the Long Annuitants; and that it was quite impossible that Parliament could ever consent to entertain a proposal so partial, so exceptionable, and so unequal as that which had been made by the hon. Baronet.
MR. HUMEsaid, he could not sit still and hear the right hon. Gentleman treat the proposal of the hon. Baronet in the manner he had just done. The hon. Baronet had not asked for a special exception in the case of the Long Annuitants. He had denounced the tax as being full of irregularities, and he had merely quoted the Long Annuitants as one example, and had naturally asked whether there was any hope of an amelioration. The truth was, there was not a corner in the tax—not a single clause in the Bill—which did not involve an injustice; and that injustice was of a nature that admitted of an easy remedy. He must say he had never known the Report of a Committee that contained so many incontrovertible facts, and that had met with so little attention as that upon the income tax. No matter what the difficulties might be, the Government ought to grapple with them, as a gross injustice had been shown. He hoped they would take the question of these adjustments into their serious consideration next year.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, the case of the Long Annuitants involved a breach of faith,
1030
because there was a special contract that the finds should not be taxed.
COLONEL DUNNEcomplained of the uncertainty in Ireland in the mode of levying the tax, and of the hardships to which landed proprietors were subject, through the tax being charged on the poor-law valuation, where the property was let on a long lease at a low rent. The consequence was that the proprietor often paid on more than he received. It was said the parties might get the tax so paid remitted, but this could only be done after a long interval, and with a great deal of trouble. Steps ought to be taken to regulate the practice which prevailed, of either charging the tax on the tenant or the owner.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman had brought forward this matter at the time when the income tax was extended to Ireland, his representations would have been listened to. The Act was to a great extent experimental; and last autumn the Government had thought it right to appoint two Special Commissioners. The Government had heard no complaints, and though they had anticipated much difficulty in levying the tax in Ireland, it had turned out comparatively an easy financial operation. The cases referred to by the hon. Gentleman must be isolated instances. Ample provision had been made for appeal, not to the assessors, but to the special Commissioners. The first half-year's tax, obviously the most difficult, had now been collected; and so little necessity had there been for the interference of the Special Commissioners that the Government had not thought it necessary to continue their employment, and one of them had already been removed to England. Any particular cases of annoyance or inconvenience that might be represented to the Treasury would receive due attention.
MR. URQUHARTbegged to corroborate the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the facility with which the tax had been collected in Ireland.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses, and a new clause was added.
In answer to Mr. HENLEY,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the object of this new clause was to provide for the payment of the tax on Exchequer bills, and other property, for fractional parts of a quarter. Its effect was to make these securities only liable to the 7d, tax until the 5th of April last,

1031
and to the tax of 14 d. from that date till the day on which they expired in June.
MR. HENLEYasked if the clause would apply to mortgages?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that was an entirely different case. Mortgages did not, like Exchequer bills, necessarily expire at the end of the year, but were of a more permanent character. Exchequer bills passed from hand to hand, the practice being for the buyer to pay the interest for the current half-year to the seller, allowance being made for the tax. Without some provision of this kind, those who had purchased Exchequer bills in the last three or four weeks would be out of pocket, having only calculated the half-year's income tax at 7d.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the holders of funded property would all be taxed unduly, as well as the holders of Exchequer bills.
Clause agreed to. House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
Clause 20.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, they had now arrived at a new portion of the Bill—that which gave legislative powers to the Congregation. He had no intention of opposing this clause, but he wished to call attention to its important bearing relative to the next clause but one—the 22nd clause—and to ask some explanation. By Clause 20, any individual member of Congregation might propose amendments to any Statutes propounded by the Hebdomadal Council in writing, and, as far as he could conjecture from the Bill, without deliberation or discussion. By Clause 22 Congregation would deal with Statutes sent down by the Hebdomadal Council not in their original, but in their amended form—that was to say, the form in which they might be amended by any or all of the members of Congregation acting individually. But Clause 22, which gave powers to Congregation as a body to deal with these Statutes, gave not the power of amendment, but that of debate. He wished to ask whether he was right in his interpretation of the two clauses, that individual members might amend without discussion, and the collective body discuss without amending? It seemed to him such a provision would lead to perpetual confu-
1032
sion, and was inverting the order of things in which they ought to proceed, discussion preceding amendment instead of amendment preceding discussion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the right hon. Gentleman had been misled by the language of those two clauses, and the consequence he had drawn was therefore unreal and fictitious. There was no distinction between one member of Congregation individually and the members of Congregation collectively. Clause 20 commenced with the word "any," and Clause 22 with the word "the," which had probably led the right hon. Gentleman into error: but if he liked uniformity, there would be no objection to make Clause 22 commence "any" member, instead of "the" members. He proposed, in Clause 22, to insert the word "first" before "promulgation." By Clause 20 they would give a power of amending, but they did not say anything about discussing. That matter was left in the hands of the University itself. By the two clauses they secured a power of suggesting amendments and a power of discussion. He did not think it would be wise to secure that power of discussion beyond what was judged absolutely necessary. There did not appear to be any reason to meddle with the power of discussion beyond securing one single occasion and by Clause 22 they did secure that occasion. With regard to the power of suggesting amendments, they secured that likewise on a single occasion. If they were right in those two objects, they were right in the order in which they laid them down. It would be a very strange state of things if they provided in Clause 20 a power of discussion, preceding the power of suggesting amendments, and then not provide for the power of discussing the Statute again when submitted to the final vote. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not recommend that course, but would provide an opportunity for debate after amendments were suggested. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have fallen into some confusion from supposing it was the intention of the Bill to provide exactly the amount of privilege to be exercised by these various parties in the course of the business of legislation. That was not so. They laid down in the Bill those things which Parliament held to be absolutely necessary to have laid down, and left the parties as free in the exercise of the powers of legislation as possible.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that, owing to the use of different words in the two clauses, the Bill had been understood in the University of Oxford as he had mentioned. He certainly did not think that the mode adopted in the Bill was at all calculated to ensure the satisfactory discussion and amendment of Statutes. Instead of these three clauses, there should have been one clause, or at most two, giving power to the Congregation to deliberate upon the Statutes, to send up amendments to the Hebdomadal Council, and again deliberate when the Statute came back from the Council. He suggested that the clause should be amended by leaving out the words "Any member of," and substituting the word "the." He thought the power to send up amendments to the Hebdomadal Council should be in the Congregation as a deliberative assembly, and not in every individual member of it, which he was convinced would lead to great difficulty and confusion.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) might or might not be right in the view which he took as to the best method of dealing with this question; but he had evidently left out of sight the present state of the law of the University, and of the powers now existing, which it was the object of this clause to enlarge. At present the Hebdomadal Board might frame any measure it thought fit, and send it down to Convocation, and no member of Convocation could propose, nor could Convocation itself debate, any amendment. They could only vote "aye" or "no" upon the question, and come to that result as the end of their proceedings. Now, he understood that the object of this clause was to put Congregation in the place of Convocation, and to authorise it to say "aye" or "no" upon any measure which might come down for its consideration; but inasmuch as the mind of individual members of Congregation could not be known to the initiative Board, which in this case would be the Hebdomadal Council, it was proposed that they should have the power of making known to the Hebdomadal Council such amendments as they might think fit. Now this was not the case of one individual living at Oxford, making known to another individual living at Oxford, what his views were upon any particular measure in which the University was interested; but it was the case of members of Congregation moving—not in
1034
the Congregation, but in the Hebdomadal Council—such amendments as they thought fit, which amendments the Hebdomadal Council would consider, and, if it approved of them, would adopt them; and then the measure so amended would be sent down again to Congregation, who would say "aye" or "no" upon it. The clause appeared to have been framed for the purpose of preventing debate from running to an indefinite length, which must be the case where individual members had a power of proposing amendments in an assembly where a debate took place. This might or might not be a good object, but it was at all events an enlargement of the present powers, although it did not go to the full extent which his right hon. Friend desired.
MR. PHINNsaid, that the machinery proposed was altogether unnecessary to enable an individual member of Congregation to communicate to the Hebdomadal Council his own views and feelings with reference to a particular measure. It seemed to him that the principle affirmed by the clause came to this—that Convocation was in effect merely to register the decrees of the Hebdomadal Council. A higher question was, however, involved—namely, whether in the present day it was desirable to maintain a principle of having an assembly composed of all the best minds of the University, limited and restricted in their discussions by a Board superior to them, and proposing certain matters merely for their adoption or rejection. He objected to such an assembly being restricted and limited in any such manner. They did not attempt to impose such restraints upon town councils nor upon other public bodies to whom they intrusted powers; and he should suggest that tins and the following clauses be struck out of the Bill.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that a new governing body having been constituted, the Committee was now invited to go into a number of minute regulations as to the mode in which it was to carry on its work. The governing council was to frame Statutes, and to write them in any language they pleased. After framing a Statute, they were to give due notice of it; but the meaning of "due notice" was not stated. Then the ceremony of promulgation was to take place. After that, they were to be proposed in Congregation, when amendments might be proposed by any

1035
member of the Congregation in writing to the Hebdomadal Council. The object of these regulations was twofold. It was first intended to enable members to suggest views upon which, in their opinion, legislation ought to take place. The right hon. Gentleman, it appeared, intended to narrow the proposition to the first promulgation, but by so doing he would throw immense difficulties in the way of legislation, and put a check upon the University doing anything. He did not understand whether it was intended that Congregation should discuss and propose measures—to discuss matters not sent down to them by the Council. He did not understand what their jurisdiction would be, and whether they could discuss an amendment before it was sent to the Council.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERapprehended certainly not by this Bill.
MR. HENLEYsubmitted that the proposition now under consideration would bring matters to a dead lock. It was desirable to give the resident body the opportunity of making their minds fully known to the governing council, in order that they might by means of a Statute be brought into a shape most likely to meet the wishes and wants of the University, and then it would be likely to receive the assent of the Congreation. He doubted whether it would not be wiser to leave all this to the University itself. If legislation was to take place, care ought to be taken to make the measure work properly, otherwise a statutable chain might be put round the University which would disable it from doing what it had now the power to do.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Government had been most careful in framing these clauses; whether they had been successful was another matter, but as far as communicating with those gentlemen who were most closely conversant with the course of business at the University, there had been no deficiency on their part. The right hon. Gentleman, as he understood, doubted whether it was wise to legislate upon the question of the proceedings in Congregation; but thought that if we did legislate at all, we ought to go further and provide more completely for the power of expressing and embodying the opinions of different parties in amendments upon convenient occasions. He would first state the reasons for legislating at all; and, secondly,
1036
those for not having legislated more completely. The right hon. Gentleman knew what jealousies had existed in the University, and what a feeling had prevailed between class and class in consequence of the total want of a legitimately established vent for the sentiments and opinions of men who felt themselves qualified to have a voice in the government of the University. As they wished the Bill to be practically effective in allaying those jealousies, they had listened to the propositions of those who had asked Parliament to secure to those persons an opportunity of being heard. They had proceeded on the principle, not of defining everything that Congregation was to do—not of establishing a maximum of liberty of discussion that the University should give to its own members but they had said—this much liberty, at least, you shall have. This was the view with which the clauses had been framed. They secured, at least, a single opportunity for discussion and for proposing amendments. Those amendments would, he apprehended, go to the Hebdomadal Council, who would thus be made aware of the opinions prevalent in the University, and would take their own course in regard to them before they were called upon to submit the Statute to the vote. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think there ought to be the power of repeated proposals of amendment and repeated discussion. This question the Bill did not touch at all; it was proposed to leave it to the University to make such arrangements as it might think fit with regard to that matter. They wished to lay down that there should be a power of suggesting amendments, but that there should not be a power of moving amendments in Congregation; that there should not be a power of discussion in Congregation; and that adequate notice should be given before the propositions of the Hebdomadal Council were accepted or rejected. He had the utmost confidence that if this were not a good practical system the University would supply what was deficient in it. This was not a London invention; it did not originate with the Cabinet, but it was founded on the suggestions of a large number of the ablest men in the University; and, speaking from his own experience, after having had an immense mass of personal communication with various members of the University, he did not think any strong objection was entertained to the propositions contained in these clauses.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, it must have been the meaning of the person who had framed this clause that a member of the Congregation should have the power of proposing amendments to the Congregation which they might either accept or reject, because the marginal note was, "Proposal of amendments by Congregation." What was the meaning of the clause at present? Was it that any member of the University should have the power of writing a letter to the Hebdomadal Council? for, if so, he thought it was an absurdity. There were other points in these clauses that were far from clear. An amendment was to be proposed in writing to the Hebdomadal Council; but in what shape was it to be brought to the knowledge of the Council? The individual members of the Council might be present at Congregation, but they were not present as a separate estate, but as component parts of Congregation. Again, was there any provision which would oblige the Council to take an amendment into their consideration at all? They might "adopt, alter, or reject it;" but he did not see why they might not, if they pleased, pass it by altogether. It was a question of grave consideration whether this Congregation was the old body composed of different members, or a new body on whom new powers would have to be conferred.
MR. EWARTsaid, it was clear that there must be discussion in the Hebdomadal Council upon the amendments proposed by a member of Congregation, because it required the subtlety of a legal imagination to suppose that the power to "adopt, alter, or reject," did not necessarily imply the power to discuss them. He thought it would be better that the member of Congregation should suggest his amendments to the Congregation, and that Congregation collectively should lay them before the Hebdomadal Council.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that Congregation would not have the power of voting upon such suggestions. The marginal notes were not to be taken as containing the substance of the Bill, for they were very frequently prepared, not by the draughtsman, but by some person in the printing office.
MR. WALPOLEthought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not satisfied the Committee as to what the effect of these clauses would be. Although be might not be perfectly acquainted with the observances of the University of Oxford,
1038
he had endeavoured to understand the Bill now before the Committee, and although he believed himself perfectly competent to understand the plain meaning of a Statute, he had no hesitation in saying that the clause now under discussion gave, as drawn, no power whatever to any person which he might not exercise without the clause. It simply said that any member of Congregation might propose, in writing, an amendment, not to the Congregation, but to the Hebdomadal Council, which the Hebdomadal Council might adopt, alter, or reject. But any member of Congregation might do that now; and if they wanted to give him a statutable right, they must follow up the clause by other words compelling the Hebdomadal Council to give due consideration to the amendments sent in by individual members of the Congregation. The clause, as it stood, was entirely useless, and, taken in connection with the 22nd clause, it gave the power of proposing amendments without discussion, and the power of discussion without making amendments.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALthought that the right hon. Gentleman had not rightly comprehended the meaning of this portion of the Bill. When a Statute was promulgated it would be brought down and read in the House of Congregation, and, on its being so read, the occasion of discussion and argument would arise. It was not intended that members of Congregation should have the power of moving amendments in the same manner as they were moved in the House of Commons; but there was nothing in the Bill to prohibit discussion of amendments. The amendments were to he proposed in a given form—not by motion and voting thereon in Congregation, but after discussion in Congregation, by suggestion of those amendments in a written form to the Hebdomadal Council; and the very circumstance that the amendments were to be so suggested would of necessity impose on the Hebdomadal Council the obligation of considering them. Every member of Congregation might, after discussion or promulgation of the Statute, embody the result of that discussion in a suggestion. The manner of its proceeding from one body to the other was a matter of detail which would be regulated by one of their own ordinances. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in supposing that this section was superfluous inasmuch as every member might have exercised the same

1039
power without it. Every member of the Congregation could not have called upon the Hebdomadal Council to consider a suggestion; but every member might now, after a discussion upon the promulgation of a Statute, embody an amendment in a written suggestion to the Hebdomadal Council. That amendment might be altered, adopted, or rejected. If an alteration of the Statute took place, it would be promulgated afresh, and that might lead to a new discussion, although it could not be attended with the moving of any amendment in the House of Congregation. The whole matter was plain; the Bill only follows the rules at present observed in the University. Any Statute sanctioned by the Hebdomadal Council will be discussed by the Congregation; after that discussion any member may suggest amendments, but it is not intended to give the general powers of a deliberative assembly to the Congregation now, for they have never belonged to Convocation. The objects they wished to accomplish were to give the Congregation the power of discussing the Statutes, and of suggesting amendments which they may also discuss; and any person reading the three sections, with a knowledge of the system now existing at Oxford, must, he thought, admit that they attained their purpose.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONconfessed that the clause, as it stood, appeared to him to be perfectly nugatory; it was giving a legislative sanction to what a man might already do without it. It would have been better to adopt the suggestion in the Report, that the amendments proposed to the Council should receive the support of a certain number of members of Congregation.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, that the Solicitor General had raised a difficulty which he had not experienced before. As he had understood the clause, he did not think that it was open to the objection which had been made by the right hon. Member for Midhurst. He had understood it to be an effective enactment, because after the promulgation of a proposed Statute it was out of the hands of the Hebdomadal Council, and, though suggestions might be sent in to them, they would have been wholly inoperative unless there were some enactment enabling the Hebdomadal Council to get hold again of what they had parted with. That had seemed to him a sufficient ground for the clause. The Solicitor General, however,
1040
stated that the meaning of the clause was, not that any single member of Congregation might make his suggestion as such, but that it must be after discussion in the assembly of Congregation—
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I beg your pardon; I said no such thing. I said that it "might be" after discussion.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE continued: He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to have been answering the objection that these suggestions might be sent by post, and to state that they could only be the result of a discussion in Congregation. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire that it would be in the power of the University, by Statute, to make all these regulations for themselves; or, at all events, they might be enabled to do so by the introduction of a few short words. By that means a great deal of embarrassment and difficulty might be got rid of.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the object of his remark had been merely to show that upon the promulgation of every Statute there would be the fullest power of discussion; and that, if a Statute were altered, it must be re-promulgated, when there might be again a fresh discussion, although that discussion would not be accompanied with the power of moving amendments in the Congregation.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that it appeared, then, that when a Statute was promulgated, the Congregation were not to consider whether they would adopt it, nor were they to consider any amendments upon it, but they were to talk it over—simply, to discuss it. Conceive that intellectual body of 300 persons discussing a subject without any definite end! They were not to say whether they would have it, nor were they to propose amendments, because that was to be done single-handed, by writing to the Hebdomadal Council; but there was to be a sort of vague talk going on, and out of that was to be eliminated some kind of an idea, in some separate mind, which might be sent to the Hebdomadal Council. But that might be done now, as far as he knew, because there was nothing in the law to prevent a person writing a courteous letter containing suggestions to any other person. He was aware that it had long been a matter of complaint that there was no recognised mode for individuals to present suggestions to the notice of the Hebdomadal Board;

1041
but he did not see what was gained by the clause. He doubted very much, from the clause, whether discussion was to take place upon the promulgation of a Statute, and he thought that the explanation of the Solicitor General had done anything but make the matter clear.
MR. RICEsaid, that he put the same construction on the clause as the hon. Baronet the Member for the University. He considered that the clause was to afford an opportunity to the members of Congregation to put the Hebdomadal Council in possession of their views, and he thought it was probable that a number of members of Congregation would so submit their views; but there appeared to him to be a considerable defect in the clause as to the way in which this was to be carried out. He was satisfied with the suggestion made by an hon. Member, that the details on this point had better be left to the University itself; but, at the same time, he agreed with those who thought that the clause was perfectly useless, unless there were some power to compel the Hebdomadal Council to consider the propositions that might be submitted to it; and to obviate this difficulty he would suggest, that after the word "Council," the words "should entertain," or "shall consider" should be inserted.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that three versions had been given of this clause. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) thought the matter ought to be left to the University itself:—but this the Bill did not do, and two versions had been given of what the Bill did do. He himself had put the same construction on it as the hon. Baronet the Member for the University had done. The Solicitor General had, also, given them his version of the clause; but he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, judging from experience, he thought it possible or probable that the members of Congregation would pass their time in discussing amendments on which they had no power to decide? But there was not a word in the clause to bear out that construction. The only interpretation that could be put upon it was, that after the promulgation of any Statute, any member of the Congregation should be at liberty individually to send in any amendment he chooses for the consideration of the Hebdomadal Council. As much misapprehension prevailed in the Committee as to this clause, he would
1042
suggest that the best course would be either to withdraw it, or make it more intelligible.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREdesired to draw the attention of the Committee to the different sense in which the word "promulgated" was used in the 19th and 22nd clauses. He considered that the 20th clause was useless, and that it ought clearly to be stated that any amendment proposed to the Hebdomadal Council should be approved by a certain number of the members of Congregation.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that he was afraid that he had suffered a great disadvantage in not having been present during the whole of the discussion. It seemed to him that the difficulty as regarded this clause was not so great as had been stated. In the first place, he differed from the hon. Member who thought that the word "promulgated" was used in the 19th and 20th clauses in different senses. It was not, as in both cases it expressed the first of two stages through which the Statutes would have to pass. It appeared to him that the intention of the 20th clause was unobjectionable, as by it a legal right was given to any member of Congregation, after having received notice of the tenor of a Statute, to submit to the Hebdomadal Council any view or amendment which he might consider might be advantageously adopted, and, in order to do so, the concurrence of any other member of the Congregation was not necessary. It would then be in the power of the Hebdomadal Council to take the matter into their consideration, and decide whether they would recall the Statute, or accept or reject the amendment so sent to them before submitting it for final acceptance or rejection; but the course of proceeding laid down in the 19th section, if not qualified by the present, would oblige the Council to submit every proposition for absolute decision at the end of seven days from promulgation; but this clause enabled them to withdraw it or to submit it again, as amended. The intention of the clause was unobjectionable; it could do no harm, and might effect some good; he therefore thought the Committee would be justified in passing it in its present form.
LORD ROBERT CECILasked the Solicitor General if he would point out in the 19th clause the precise words which he had said would oblige the Hebdomadal Council to take into consideration and dis-

1043
cuss the amendments which might be submitted to them by the members of Congregation?
THE SOLICITOR GENERALreplied, that he did not say that there were any words throwing on the Hebdomadal Council any legal obligation either to adopt, alter, or reject any amendment submitted to their consideration; but he said that it would naturally follow from the proposal of an amendment that the Hebdomadal Council would discuss, adopt, alter, or reject it; he did not say that the words of the clause were so expressed as to throw on the Council an imperative obligation; neither did he think that there was a necessity for such imperative words, as he apprehended that the authorities of the University might fairly be intrusted to consider amendments, and would not arbitrarily or indelicately thrust them on one side. He did not say, also, that there must be a discussion on every amendment; but he had said that there might be, as whenever a Statute was promulgated the members of Congregation had a right, by the 22nd clause, to speak thereon, though whether they would avail themselves of this power, he could not say.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdesired to draw the attention of the Committee more to the question at large. They had now been half of a night in discussing clauses which, though important, were of secondary consequence, and he regretted to say that they had made no progress. Some hon. Members had been discussing the latter part of the clause before they had come to the first, while other hon. Members had gone back to other clauses; he would therefore submit to the Committee that it was difficult to make progress unless they confined themselves to, and dealt with, point after point.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that they were called upon to make some minute regulations with respect to the governing body of the University, and it was but natural that they should ask for such explanations of these regulations as would enable them to know what they were about to enact. Various constructions had during the evening been put upon this clause (20), proving that much misapprehension existed as to what was meant by it. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bill gave the Congregation power to discuss any matters not submitted to them by the governing body; and he answered he be-
1044
lieved not; but the Solicitor General said they would have power to discuss amendments; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to clear up the point. It would be better, he thought, to leave out this clause altogether.
MR. MOWBRAYproposed that in the 24th line, after the word "Council," words to the following effect should be inserted—"Shall afterwards take into consideration," and which it may adopt, &c.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,did not see the necessity for such words, but would, nevertheless, consent to their adoption.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONdid not see on what principle the resident members of the University were to be allowed to propose written amendments, and the same privilege not be extended to non-resident members. The tendency of the Bill would be to elevate the resident members at the expense and injury of the non-resident. He suggested that some words should be inserted to meet the case he had stated.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was one thing to give the privilege proposed by the clause to a select body in the University, and another thing to extend it to a miscellaneous body of 4,000 gentlemen not residing and who knew hardly anything of what was going on at Oxford. He could not, therefore, agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.
Clause agreed to, with Amendment; as was also Clause 21.
Clause 22 (The Members of Congregation shall, upon the occasion of the promulgation of any Statute, have the right to speak thereon in the English tongue, but without the power of moving any Amendment, and subject to such regulations as the University may make by Statute for the due order of debate).
MR. HENLEYdrew attention to the circumstance that the debate was to be in English on the occasion of the promulgation, while nothing was said as to language when the Statutes were proposed for acceptance.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was desirable, on the one hand, to have an expression of opinion in the Congregation on the proposals of the Hebdomadal Council; but, on the other hand, it was objectionable that anything should be done unnecessarily to multiply discussions. No party in the University

1045
asked for two separate occasions of debate upon any Statute, and he therefore thought it was better not to bind down the University in the matter.
MR. HENLEYthought it would be better to omit the clause altogether; but, seeing it was there, he thought it odd that they should fix upon the language to be used at one stage and not at another. He would leave it to the University to discuss in any language they chose, whether Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; but he thought the debate should take place on the amended proposal, rather than on the crude one.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, his right hon. Friend seemed to suppose that there would be no power of debate after a proposition was amended; but that was a mistake, for the power of debate would arise when the proposition was amended, just as at the time of its promulgation.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, there was a wish in Oxford to have this right of debating in the English language, but he did not think the right should be given by Act of Parliament in such a way as that it could not be displaced by the University. He suggested, therefore, that after the words "English language" words should be inserted to the effect, "if the said University shall by Statute authorise the same."
THE CHANCELLOR of THE EXCHEQUERthought the suggestion of his hon. Friend too narrow a one to deal with the whole of the subject, and that the point would be better considered if the question were raised generally, whether they should adopt some machinery by which the University might make alterations, or whether matters should be left immovable under the Act of Parliament.
MR. WALPOLEwould move that this clause be omitted altogether. He thought all that could be gained by the clause might be gained without it. Everything that was asked by his right hon. Friend was vested in the Congregation, which by the 18th clause had the power of regulating the mode in which the proceedings could be carried on, including, of course, the power of deliberation. That being the case, what was gained by the clause? Absolutely nothing; but this inconvenience might arise, that a statutory power might be given to Congregation of insisting on the right of discussion in the English language. His great objection to the clause was, that he did not wish to see the Congregation turned into a debating society,
1046
which he believed would be the case if they gave them the power, and subjected them to the restriction included in this clause. In support of his views he would cite the authority of Mr. Jowett, who gave it as his opinion, not particularly in reference to this clause, but to such innovation generally, that if changes of this nature were permitted, the University would become one vast debating society, in which, as occasion offered, every political, ecclesiastical, and religious question would be discussed to the exclusion of all questions of collegiate government. He begged, therefore, to move, as an Amendment, that the 22nd clause be omitted.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that Mr. Jowett could scarcely be cited as an authority with reference to this clause, inasmuch as his words applied solely to a large and general measure of reform in these respects, and not to a particular one like that which was contemplated by this clause. He thought matters of that kind, which were matters of detail, were much better when left to be regulated by a liberal reference to the state of opinion and feeling in the University itself, than to any point of abstract principle. The state of the University convinced him that the clause would be extremely useful. They were giving, it was said, to the resident body of the University, great powers. In a University it was in the nature of things that considerable differences of opinion on various subjects must of necessity prevail. That being so, gentlemen who entertained views different from the rest of the University must feel some jealousy if they were placed under the control of what he might call a legislative majority; and it was for the purpose of securing freedom of mind to those who might be in the minority that he thought this clause might be in a great degree recommended.
MR. WIGRAMthought it would be more convenient to leave it to the University to decide as to their power and manner of debating. He considered that the system of debating, as proposed by this clause, would tend in a great measure to disturb the quiet habits of study which ought to prevail in the University. As to the question of amendment, he thought the clause unnecessary, as the 19th clause disposed of that. He should therefore support the Amendment.
MR. GOULBURNwished to know whe-

1047
ther it was the practice at Oxford for undergraduates to be present at the debates in Congregation?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that undergraduates were never present at such debates, although they were sometimes at the proceedings of Convocation.
MR. MOWBRAYconsidered they had no more right to interfere with the particular language the University might like to debate in than they had to interfere with their academical dress. As to the use of the Latin language, it was very well known that this rule was relaxed whenever it might be thought proper, and parties might make use of English instead whenever they pleased. This being so, he did not see the good of imposing the restriction contained in this clause. If it were to be ordained that the members of Convocation were to speak in English, he could understand it, because many of them consisted of men who had long left the University, and might have forgotten their Latin; but to impose such a restriction on the Congregation was an undue and useless interference with its discretion.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that it appeared to him, by allowing the clause to stand as it was, they would enable any important discussion to take place whenever it might be thought necessary; but by leaving it out of the Bill such discussion might at any time be prevented.
MR. HENLEYconsidered that the University ought to be allowed to speak in any language it pleased, and ought not to be restricted any more to the English than to the Irish, Scotch, or any other language. He should support the Amendment.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONagreed with the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire that the University ought to have full power as to its form and manner of debating, and considered the words of this clause inconsistent with the meaning of the 18th. He should vote against the clause, as not only one of interference, but useless.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 70: Majority 64.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 23.
Clause 24 (The Convocation of the University of Oxford shall not, by the provisions of this Act, be deprived of any of the powers by it now lawfully possessed).
MR. HEYWOODmoved to add at the end of the clause, "and shall have the
1048
right of conducting their proceedings in the English tongue."
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREprotested against this proposition as being calculated to turn Convocation into a mere debating society.
MR. WALPOLEthought it somewhat difficult to understand the very contrary votes which the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock had given to-night. First of all, he had opposed the proposition that the Congregation—that which was held out to be the learned and intellectual part of the university—should debate in Latin, and now he would not allow Convocation—the unlearned part of the University, as some one had called it, many of whose members had most likely forgotten much of their Latin—to carry on their proceedings in English. For his part, he thought regulations of this nature would be much better left to be settled by the University.
VISCOUNT BERNARDhoped the Government would endeavour to provide a mode by which, upon some fair and moderate payment, persons might for life continue members of the University. At present, many who had earned distinction at the University were obliged to take their names off the books, owing to the expense of the fees.
MR. NEWDEGATEtrusted that the Government would also take into consideration the necessity of giving due notice and information to the members of Convocation as to the Statutes on which they were to be called on to decide. The Commissioners had suggested that a registry of the addresses of all members of the Convocation should be formed, and some means adopted by which copies of the Statutes and documents on which they had to decide should be transmitted to them. Arrangements ought also to be made for securing to Convocation—as was secured to Congregation—an adequate interval between promulgation and voting, so that the members might have time to make themselves fully acquainted with the subject at issue.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that the terms and conditions under which Statutes were to be made known to Convocation were matters which the University, when it was supplied with a regularly constituted and organised government, would settle for itself perfectly well, and therefore he thought it useless to meddle with the subject in this Bill. He came now to the immediate

1049
question before the House, namely, the proposal by the hon. Member for North Lancashire to give to Convocation the right of conducting its proceedings in the English tongue. He trusted that Parliament would not be disposed to incorporate that provision in the Bill. It might be said that, having given such a power to members of Congregation, it was inconsistent in him to withhold a similar power from members of Convocation. He could not, however, see any inconsistency in the matter. The clause giving the members of Congregation the power of speaking the English tongue was to protect a minority in the University against the possible stifling of all discussion by a majority; but was it desirable to give to the 4,000 gentlemen who composed Convocation a facility for any one, two, or five, or six to create a long debate upon every Statute introduced for discussion? He should say, decidedly not. Looking at the grave matters and the warmth of feeling which entered into the University contests, and to the power which now existed of allowing discussions, if it was thought advisable, to be carried on in the English tongue, it was not desirable to see the University made a scene of periodical hustings display. If the House wished to make Convocation a great debating society, that object would be attained by the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to a question of considerable difficulty which had come to light in the course of the discussion. He alluded to the interval of time which took place between the promulgation of the Statutes in Congregation and their consideration by the various bodies. He had felt it his duty to complain of the extent to which the power of Convocation was diminished, and he had supposed that, in the event of Congregation rejecting a Statute, Convocation would be deprived of powers which it now possessed. He, however, wished for some explanation upon this point from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman did not propose to touch the interval of three days which must elapse between the promulgation of a Statute and its consideration by Convocation; and yet, by the 19th clause of the Bill, Statutes promulgated in Congregation were not to be considered till an interval of seven days had elapsed. The result would be, that consideration by Convocation would pre-
1050
cede that by Congregation, which would be entirely inconsistent with the words of the 19th clause, requiring that every Statute should be proposed there for acceptance or rejection after an interval of seven days. That clause clearly contemplated that the reference to Congregation should be the first reference; and he wished to know if the rejection of a Statute by Convocation, after an interval of three days, was to be final, or whether it was still to go before Congregation?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman drew a discrepancy from a comparison of two things, one of which was in the Bill and the other not. The three days after which it appeared that Statutes were to be decided in Convocation was no provision of the present Bill, but it was a provision of a Statute of the University. The answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman was, that the Bill gave ample and abundant powers to the University to regulate the notices which would be required. The obvious intention of the Bill was, that Statues should go to Convocation before Congregation.
MR. HENLEYobserved, that when the Bill became law the Statutes of the University could not be altered, except in the mode prescribed by the Bill, and no other interval could be fixed for the consideration of Statutes promulgated in Congregation than seven days.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, the Motion of the hon. Member for North Lancashire was such a common-sense proposition that he felt bound to support it. He, attached but little importance to the argument, that if the discussion in the English tongue were allowed Convocation would degenerate into a debating society.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREwould oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for North Lancashire, but, at the same time, he must confess that he was astonished how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had voted for the clause empowering Congregation to speak in the English tongue, could consistently deny the same privilege to Convocation.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 140: Majority 41.
On the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
MR. PHINNobserved, that the 28th clause defined the meaning of the expres-

1051
sion "University or College emoluments," and the 32nd clause provided that no candidate should, after the passing of the Act, be elected to any University or collegiate emolument within the University of Oxford except after having been duly examined. Now, in 1756, Mr. Viner left very valuable benefactions to the University, with the view of promoting the study of the law, and it was supposed that measures would be taken for facilitating legal studies in the University. The first Vinerian Professor was Mr. Justice Blackstone, who raised the professorship to a position which it had never subsequently attained. No examination was at present required for institution to a fellowship or scholarship in the Vinerian foundation. Those emoluments were disposed of by the votes of the majority of Convocation, no peculiar qualification being required on the part of the candidates, and he believed the Vinerian scholars and fellows had rarely been as distinguished in the profession as the Stowell and Eldon scholars and fellows, who were submitted to the test of examination. The Vinerian Professorship had in consequence lapsed into a mere ignoble sinecure, and fulfilled none of the purposes for which the founder designed it. He would put it to the Committee whether these fellowships and scholarships should be bestowed upon persons who, on examination, gave promise of becoming ornaments of the legal profession, or whether they should be bestowed upon persons selected by the votes of country curates and other members of Convocation, who were utterly ignorant of the qualifications of the candidates they supported. He proposed to add at the end of this clause the words, "except the right of election to the fellowships and scholarships endowed by the will of Charles Viner, Esq., which, from and after the passing of this Act, shall be vested in the professors of the University." If the House agreed to his Amendment he intended to propose that in future the scholars and fellows should be elected by the Vinerian Professor, the Professor of Civil Law, and the Professor of Modern History, who were the persons best qualified to decide upon the merits of the candidates.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the subject which the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought before the Committee was a very important one, but this was not the time for entering into it, for there were many parts of the Bill which
1052
they had yet to discuss in relation to which it might more appropriately be considered. He was quite ready to give the subject his best consideration, and to do whatever he could to place the appointment to these scholarships and fellowships on a more satisfactory footing. He must, however, observe that the Vinerian Professorship had not, as the hon. and learned Gentleman bad stated, been degraded into a mere ignoble sinecure, for it was at present held by a gentleman of great ability, merit, and assiduity in the discharge of his duties. Nor was it true that the Vinerian fellowships had never produced men of eminence in the profession, for he had known many of the fellows who were honours to the profession, and had attained the highest consideration in it. He must express his deep obligation to the endowment, for he had had the good fortune to be a Vinerian scholar. He should be happy to confer with the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the subject of the Amendment he wished to introduce, but hoped that he would now consent to postpone it.
MR. PHINNexplained that he had intended to say that the number of the Vinerian fellows and scholars who had been distinguished men was not so great as might have been expected, considering the nature of the endowment. He would withdraw his Amendment for the present.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 25, providing that every oath binding the juror not to disclose any matter or thing relating to his college, although required so to do by lawful authority; to resist or not concur in any change in the Statutes of the University or College; and to do, or forbear from doing, anything the doing or not doing of which would tend to any such concealment, resistance, or non-concurrence, should be an illegal oath.
On the Motion of Mr. WALPOLE, the words, "and no such oath shall hereafter be administered or taken" were inserted at the end of the clause.
MR. BLACKETTmoved as an Amendment to omit the clause, not because he objected to it, but because he wished to extend the principle to all oaths in the University, and he was informed that by the rules of the House he could only do so by cancelling this clause entirely, and substituting another in its place. The House would see that the clause, as proposed by the Government, abrogated and prohibited all oaths on two subjects—those to resist any change in the Statutes, and those "to

1053
do, or forbear from doing, anything the doing or the not doing of which would tend to any such concealment, resistance, or non-concurrence." It left untouched those idle and profane oaths by which members on a college foundation bound themselves in general terms to obey the Statutes of their college. He was quite aware that in a subsequent clause the fellows had the power of dealing with such oaths as they deemed fit. He thought the Commissioners who originally reported on the state of the University assigned a very sufficient reason for not leaving that power in the hands of the college authorities—
"It is not probable that the consent of several of the most important colleges could be obtained to any change in the Statutes. Some would think themselves precluded from aiding in bringing about changes which they would gladly see effected, because they had sworn not to alter or accept alterations. Considering that such persons live in habitual disregard of most of the Statutes which they have sworn to obey, it might be thought that they would gladly seek a remedy for the evil. But such inconsistencies are beyond the reach of arguments. It is probable, however, that many who would not promote a reform actively would willingly conform to the law, as they conform to the law which has set aside the religious purposes for which their college was founded; and we believe that the great majority, however averse to the interposition of the Legislature, would honestly obey its enactments."
That disposed of the argument that it should be left optional to the college authorities to dispose of those oaths if they pleased. There were two things that were plain—first, the solemn sanction of an oath should not be invoked to bind the juror to idle customs; and secondly, oaths were still more objectionable which bound the juror to absolutely illegal practices. He would show that these oaths were open to both those objections. What was the character of the ordinances which the fellows of colleges swore to observe? The Statutes of the college to which he belonged bound the scholars to have a reader at meals, to observe silence, and to attend to what was read. The provost and fellows of Queen's College were to sit together all at one table, to be convened by sound of trumpet by the porter, who was to be their barber, and to wash the fellows' heads. At New College all the fellows were to have a uniform, which they were not at liberty to pawn or to sell for five years. At All Souls the porter was to shave the wardens and the fellows. At New College the fellows and wardens
1054
swore that they would wear a gown closed in front from top to bottom; but when they were going beyond the limits of the University, they were allowed to have such an opening at the posterior and anterior of the gown as might be convenient for riding. At Brasenose attendance at daily devotions was to be enforced by whipping. The heads of Corpus Christi swore that they would forbid any person belonging to the college, servants excepted, to enter the house of any layman or laywoman in the University or its suburbs. At Jesus College all the fellows were to be present at daily prayers, under penalty of fines and whipping. There could be but one opinion as to the odious profanity of swearing, under a solemn sanction, such oaths as these. But that was not all, for oaths were also taken to perform acts which were absolutely illegal. At Queen's College an oath was taken that mass should be performed for the souls of King Edward and Queen Philippa. At New College they swore to hear mass every day, in the course of which they were to repeat the angelic salutation fifty times. All Souls was not founded entirely for the general purposes of study, but there the fellows bound themselves to pray for the soul of Henry V., of glorious memory; also of Thomas, Duke of Clarence, and other Lords, lieges of the realm of England. The only excuse for the maintenance of those forms was, it was said, that the general purport of the oaths was to observe the Statutes, and it was perfectly competent for the college authorities to reduce them,—in plain English common sense, to expunge their illegalities, and yet continue the oath. But any one who was acquainted with the awfully minute and stringent forms with which the oaths were taken year by year and month by month on the admission of candidates to Oxford, must admit it was high time to abrogate them. He would trouble the House with an instance or two, and he must confess he did so with delicacy on account of the solemn form of the words. At New College, William of Wykeham bound the fellows to observe all the Statutes and things contained therein according to the plain letter and grammatical sense. He merely mentioned that on account of its particularity. At Lincoln College the words were—
"I swear by the Holy Gospel of God, in the presence of the vicar, &c., as far as I can I will inviolably observe the Statutes of the college as

1055
far as they concern me so long as I am a fellow of the college."
At Corpus Christi the form was—
"I do swear by the holy body of God, which has been by me corporeally touched, that I will inviolably observe all the Statutes and ordinances so far as they concern me, or may concern my person, according to the plain literal and grammatical sense and meaning of the words, so far as in me lies."
It could not be denied that the observances they swore to in such an awful and even horrifying form were most ridiculous, and he quoted the opinion of Dr. Peacock and Dr. Tyler, who stated that there was not one of these oaths that could not be dispensed with. The Commission of Inquiry into Dublin University, consisting of the Archbishop of Dublin, Lord Ross, the Bishop of Cork, and Lord Chancellor Brady, unanimously recommended that these promissory oaths should be abolished or greatly reduced in number; the Commissioners of Cambridge University came to the same conclusion; and on that point he had double testimony, for those Commissioners adopted the recommendation of the Syndicate of the University. Even the Durham University, which was founded on strict Church of England principles, and on the model of the University of Oxford, shrank from the perpetration of such oaths, only requiring a general declaration of obedience to the authority of the college. He could also quote the high authority of the opinions pronounced last evening by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. He thought, therefore, it was his duty, without objecting to the limitations proposed in this clause, to move its entire omission, with a view of substituting another to provide for the entire abrogation of the oaths in question.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsubmitted that the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman was inconvenient, and not adapted to promote the unprejudiced discussion of the important question he had raised. He would not go the length of saying it would be wise and prudent to prohibit the administration of all promissory oaths in the University of Oxford, and lie thought not only himself and the noble Lord the Member for the City, but a large proportion of the House, could not very consistently go the length proposed by the hon. Gentleman, of prohibiting the administration of all promissory oaths whatever in the University. What he suggested was,
1056
to allow this clause, which he thoroughly approved as far as it went, to pass, and then to introduce his own separate clause. If that clause was carried, the proper course for the Government to pursue would be to drop this clause altogether. That would be a simple course to pursue; by adopting it the hon. Member would be entirely unprejudiced, and would not be in the anomalous position of voting against a clause which he approved. It was true he might now succeed by combining with others to defeat this clause, but it might so happen that by a different combination his own clause might be rejected, and thus the present extreme and objectionable oaths would be left entirely untouched. With this view, if he would withdraw his Amendment, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no objection to give a distinct pledge that if the House expressed a general opinion in favour of the clause intended to be proposed by the hon. Member they would drop their clause.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, it was a matter of regret the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not saved the House the trouble of hearing his (Mr. Blackett's) statement on the Amendment; but as he did not wish to weary them by a repetition of the same objection in introducing a separate clause, he should, unless the House expressed a very decided opinion in favour of a different course, persist in the Amendment.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLdid not think any time would be lost in hearing the Motion for the introduction of a separate clause on the subject; but, if it were introduced now, it would lead to considerable discussion, and many Members might wish to state their reasons for or against it. He doubted whether the present would be a convenient time for raising such a discussion.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERbegged to say one or two words in vindication of the gentlemen who had for many years taken these oaths as they had been administered in the colleges of the University. They had taken them upon a more sound and due construction of their meaning and legal purport than that which was implied, or seemed to be implied, in the speech of the hon. Gentleman. The person taking the oath uses these words—"inasmuch as in me lies," and does not undertake to observe the Statutes further than it is possible for him physically and morally to do so. Though it was undoubtedly desirable that oaths should not be taken which compre-

1057
hended a body of obsolete matter, and contained matters that might be illegal as well as matters that were legal and possible, he did not think a true view of them had been taken by the hon. Gentleman. A thing might become illegal by the intervention of the Legislature, and the law of the land being against the observance of the Statutes, it would be morally impossible to observe them. It seemed to him that, although the form of oath might well deserve to be considered if taken at all, yet that no man swore that he would attend mass or wear a certain description of clothes, or do any of those things in detail, but that he would observe the Statutes according to the strict and grammatical truth, as far as in him lies, that is, as far as the Statutes can be observable by him he will observe them.
MR. BLACKETT,in deference to what appeared to be the wish of the House, withdrew his Amendment.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed. Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Earl Vane, after the death of his Father, by virtue of the Limitation in the Letters Patent, dated 8th July, 1823.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Prisoners Removal.
2a Dublin Port.
Reported.—Manning the Navy; Navy Pay, &c.
3a and passed.—Law of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland); Powers of Leasing (Ireland); Church Building Acts Amendment.

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA—

  TREATY BETWEEN AUSTRIA AND PRUSSIA— QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, their Lordships were aware that there had appeared in the newspapers a some-

  975
  what mysterious document, which purported to be a treaty signed between Austria and Prussia relating to the war in which this country was unfortunately engaged. He was not about to canvas the provisions of that ambiguous document at that moment, but he wished to ask his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he would lay a copy of that paper on the table of the House, accompanied, as he hoped it would be, with such despatches as might have been written to or received from Her Majesty's diplomatic agents abroad, in order to enable their Lordships to interpret the paper correctly, and to show the views by which the document was regarded by this and by other Governments. It appeared to him that there was much doubt and difficulty as to the real purport and bearing of the alliance said to have been entered into. It appeared to him that the paper had as much direction in the way of defence against the Western Powers as it had against Russia. It was true the treaty contained an article which specified certain contingencies in the event of any of which Austria and Prussia were prepared to enter into hostilities against Russia; but those contingencies were now of such on absurd nature that it appeared ridiculous to put them into a serious and important State document. Those contingencies were, that in case the Russian army should cross the Balkan, or should continue to occupy the Danubian Principalities for an indefinite period of time, or should attempt the annexation of those Principalities to Russia—in the event of any of those contingencies taking place, then Austria and Prussia would be prepared to take up arms to resist any such acts. The first of those contingencies appeared to him to be perfectly absurd, inasmuch as it could scarcely come to pass that the Russian army would be able to cross the Balkan. They might as well talk of their crossing the Alps or the Apennines, inasmuch as, being only yet opposed to the Turks, they had not been able to make the least approach to the accomplishment of such an advance. The other contingencies appeared to him to be equally absurd, and they none of them pointed out or explained the real animus of the treaty. But it was rumoured that a protocol had been lately signed at Vienna by the representatives of the Four Powers, and it was possible that that document might be of a more important character
  976
  than the protocols which had preceded it. Judging, however, from the terms in which it was described it appeared to be little more than a repetition of an abstract proposition, which had been made before, and he had almost said of an abstract truism, with respect to the nature of the contest in which this country was engaged; but it did not pledge any party to it, nor did it insure any effective co-operation on the part of Austria and Prussia with France and England in that contest. He would ask his noble Friend to lay that Protocol also on the table of the House, accompanied, as he hoped it would be, with despatches on the subject; because, if they were to have any information at all, he thought it important that their Lordships should have the fullest that could be given with respect to these matters. What had already appeared in the published papers was little calculated to afford information on the events now passing, as the last despatch laid before Parliament was of the date of March 6, from Vienna. There was another very important subject on which he wished to say a few words. He hoped the noble Earl would inform the House when he would be able to lay upon the table those papers which he believed had been promised to be produced in the other House of Parliament—he meant with respect to our relations with Greece. He believed it was a matter of notoriety—at least, it was very currently reported in the streets of Paris and of London—that an expedition had sailed both from this country and France for the purpose of occupying the Greek territories. Such an occupation by France and England, whether separately or cojointly, appeared to him to be a matter of grave consideration; but he did not intend to enter into it at the present moment; at the same time it was so grave and delicate a subject that it deserved the fullest consideration of Parliament. He hoped his noble Friend would be able to state that it would soon be in his power to explain what were the objects of that expedition, and whether or not those objects were defined and recorded in some official document. He for one should rejoice that such an expedition had taken place. There was yet another point which had an important bearing on the conduct of the war, if it were fact. It had been reported in the newspapers that Russia had concluded a treaty with Persia and other Eastern Powers. If the rumour was true,

  977
  he apprehended Her Majesty's Government must have had some information upon the subject from our diplomatic agent at the Court of Teheran. The last time he had occasion to notice the case of Persia, it appeared that our diplomatic agent stationed at the Court of Teheran was absent, and that his post was filled by a subordinate officer attached to the embassy. He thought it was of the highest importance that a person of experience, character, and intelligence should, at this moment particularly, be in that part of the world, because the relations of Russia with those Eastern Powers were matter of most serious consideration. He should be glad, therefore, if his noble Friend could tell the House whether he had reason to believe that there was any truth in the report that Russia had entered into a treaty with Persia?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: In answer to the first question of my noble Friend, respecting the convention that has been lately concluded between Austria and Prussia, I have only to say that the negotiations which were carried on during a considerable length of time between those two Powers were kept a profound secret from this and other Governments, and the treaty was only communicated to us confidentially after the ratifications had been exchanged. That treaty has since been communicated to the Conference at Vienna, at the same time that the convention entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Emperor of the French and the Ottoman Porte was communicated to the Conference. That communication took place on the 23rd of this month, and a protocol annexing the two conventions together was signed on the same day. That protocol has not yet been received in this country, but as soon as it is it shall be laid on your Lordships' table. With respect to Greece, I am prepared to lay before the House the fullest information we can give on the subject, and I am only sorry that the extreme pressure of business in the Foreign Office has prevented me from sooner laying those papers before your Lordships. They are very voluminous, and it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government that they should be quite complete. I hope in the course of three or four days—certainly in the course of next week—they will be produced; and I think your Lordships will then see that there have been ample grounds for that measure of coercion which has been
  978
  reluctantly adopted towards Greece by Her Majesty's Government, in concert with the Government of France—certainly not before it was called for. With respect to Persia, I would, in the first place, say that Colonel Sheil has not been withdrawn from the Court of Teheran, but that he is absent for the recovery of his health. But Her Majesty's representative in Persia, during his absence, Mr. Thomson, our Chargé d'Affaires at the Persian Court, is a person of great experience, and of great zeal and intelligence, and we have every reason to be satisfied with the manner in which he has conducted the affairs of Her Majesty's Government there during the unavoidable absence of Colonel Sheil. I have no reason to believe, from the intelligence which we have received either from Persia or from India, that such a treaty as that to which my noble Friend has alluded, or which has been mentioned in the papers, has been concluded between Russia and Persia. The last engagement we know of as Laving been entered into by Persia was a declaration of neutrality—a neutrality based on the ground of a determination by Persia not to vex or harass Turkey in her war with Russia; and for that purpose Persia has suspended all claims, some of them most just, which she has on Turkey. We have heard that the Russians have advanced to a small place on the Sirr, but we have no reason to believe that any treaty has been concluded between the Czar and Persia, or between him and the Government of Bokhara and Khiva.

  UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
  LORD LYNDHURST presented a petition from the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the University of Cambridge, that the two canonries in the Cathedral of Ely, mentioned in the 3rd and 4th of Victoria, cap. 113, may be permanently annexed to two professorships of divinity in the said University, and said that it was a subject which well deserved the serious consideration of their Lordships. He could not do better than call their Lordships' attention to the Report of the Commissioners on the Cambridge University. In that Report the Commissioners stated the present inadequate provision of professorships—
  "There are only three Professors of Divinity in the University, a number which is altogether inadequate either to teach or to represent this most important department of human knowledge. Of this number the first in our list is much occupied with various extraneous duties, and the efficiency of the third is diminished by the condition of his

  979
  deed of foundation, which requires him to interpolate readings with his lectures."
  They then stated the consequences of this inadequacy—
  "It is almost a necessary consequence of these defective arrangements, as well as of the want of a sufficient lecturing force, that no proper school for professional instruction in theology has been hitherto formed in the University."
  They then suggested the remedy for these evils—
  "There appears to be only one method by which evils of this nature could be effectually guarded against, which is, to increase considerably the number of theological teachers, and to give them such a share in conducting examinations as would secure a just influence to their teaching."
  But it appeared that the University had no funds by which to support these new professorships and teachers. There happened, however, to be two vacancies at this moment in the canonries of the Cathedral of Ely, and the object of the petitioners was, that the revenues of those canonries should be appropriated to the foundation of two theological professorships in the University of Cambridge. The Commissioners strongly recommended the appointment of additional theological teachers. They stated—
  "The critical exposition of the New Testament and the wide province of ecclesiastical history, which are not at present undertaken by any of the three existing professors, would alone require the addition of two new theological chairs. … We are satisfied that the best interests of the Church are closely allied with those of the University in effecting an adequate augmentation of the staff of teachers in theology. If the permanent residence of a body of learned theologians could be secured, whether engaged in the prosecution of their own studies or directing and encouraging the studies of the great body of young men who are preparing for the Church, there would be no place where professional theological education could be more effectually carried on, or where students would be less liable to that danger of having peculiar and somewhat personal views impressed upon them, to which those who resort to smaller theological institutions are sometimes exposed. The University would thus in reality become the nursing mother of the Church."
  Such was the recommendation of the Commissioners, and the petition of the University was founded entirely on that recommendation. He would avail himself of the present opportunity of calling the attention of the noble Earl to a Motion adopted in the other House of Parliament in respect to the constitution of the governing and legislative body of the University of Oxford. The vote of the other House had sanctioned the principle which upwards of a year ago was adopted by the Cambridge
  980
  University as the foundation of the constitution of their governing and legislative body. This had been approved of in the strongest manner by the Commissioners to whom he had referred. The Commissioners stated in their Report—
  "We cannot hesitate to express our pleasure to find such a proposal emanating from the University itself. It has evidently been framed with careful deliberation, and with an especial view as well to preserve a balance of power among the several colleges as also to prevent the excitements and rivalries of a more popular and unlimited mode of appointment. The suggested scheme has received the unanimous approval of the Syndicate; and we hope it may in due time receive the sanction of the Senate."
  It had since received the unanimous approval of the Senate; and he hoped that this circumstance, together with the various reforms which had taken place in Cambridge, and which were still being carried on, would lead the noble Earl and the Government to be of opinion that it would be better to place in the hands of the University the power of making reforms rather than to hand the University over to any extraneous body—adding only such powers, legislative or otherwise, as might be best adapted to enable them to carry those reforms into effect. His noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) had told them that no Bill relating to the University was in contemplation; and he hoped to find that the more the subject was considered, the more his noble Friend and the Government would be convinced of the prudence and propriety of the course he recommended.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he did not know that it was necessary for him at present to give any definite answer to the prayer of the petition presented by the noble and learned Lord. He was far from denying that the object of the petition was most important and desirable; but, at the same time, he must observe that the purpose for which these canonries had been suppressed would not altogether be accomplished by the proposal of the petitioners. The endowment of theological professorships might, no doubt, be of great use, but that was not the direct object for which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were empowered to employ the revenues of the canonries. He did not mean to say anything against the establishment of such professorships, but it might be a question whether the augmentation of poor livings and the accomplishment of other purposes under the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners

  981
  would not outweigh the advantages to be derived from the professorships. He must say that the appropriation of the two canonries already suspended and applied to professorships at Cambridge had not been altogether such as to contribute greatly to the progress of theological learning, inasmuch as one was appropriated to the professorship of Hebrew, and the other to the professorship of Greek, the most eminent professor of Greek they had ever known having been a layman. Of course, the object which the noble and learned Lord would have in view would be one directly tending to the increase and improvement of theological learning in the University, and the subject, recommended as it was in the Report, to which the noble and learned Lord had referred, very well deserved the attention of Parliament. Without giving any positive declaration on the point that evening, he assured the noble and learned Lord that the recommendations of the Commissioners, supported as they were by the noble and learned Lord and by the University, should receive the best attention.
  Petition ordered to lie on the table.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC REGU LATION BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in consequence of the absence of the Lord Chief Justice, moved, That the House be put into Committee on the said Bill on Tuesday next.
  LORD LYNDHURSTrecommended that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the proper time for discussing that question was not upon a mere Motion for postponing the Bill.
  EARL GREYthought it would be greatly to the advantage of the House to send the Bill to a Select Committee. The more he looked at the measure the more he was satisfied that it was imperfect, and would require more detailed consideration than it was likely to receive in a Committee of the whole House. He called it imperfect, because some of the most important topics connected with railway management had been deliberately excluded from it by the Government, and the House was totally ignorant of the intentions of the Government in regard to them. The subject of accidents was inti-
  982
  mately mixed up with the general management of railways, yet that had been entirely omitted from the Bill. It was impossible, in fact, to consider any one question satisfactorily without having before them the whole scheme. So, also, with regard to the Post Office arrangements. On both these points the House ought to know what the intentions of the Government were before they proceeded to dispose of the present Bill. But that was not all. He thought the Bill was defective also in not providing all that was necesary for the security and convenience of the public, and in not making arrangements on other points, in regard to which railways were greatly interested. He should be sorry to be supposed as speaking in a spirit hostile to railways. On the contrary, he was persuaded that the well-understood interests of railway companies and the public were the same. He complained particularly of the Bill, because it did nothing relative to the great question of amalgamation. When his noble Friend moved the second reading on a former evening, he did not disclose anything of the intentions of the Government upon that subject. Originally, hopes were held out, in the place of amalgamation, of some arrangement for giving railways certain districts for specified periods. In this matter railway companies had been hardly dealt with. Both during this and the last Session a great variety of amalgamation Bills had been brought forward by railway companies, but had all been either indefinitely postponed or rejected, on the ground that the whole question would be considered by the Government. He was of opinion that railway amalgamation, with due security for the public, would be very useful. It was quite clear that two railways could, by an united management, carry on their business with greater economy and efficiency than they could do with separate staffs and establishments. He thought that a certain amount of amalgamation was required; but care should be taken that in every instance advantage accrued to the public, and that due security was given against the abuse of the increased power obtained by companies. It was quite apparent that, under the existing system, competition did not answer either as regarded the companies or the public. These were only some of the points which ought to be carefully considered by the Government, and the longer they were postponed the more

  983
  difficult they would be of settlement. He entirely approved of the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, to send the Bill to a Select Committee.
  LORD LYNDHURSTwould move that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He quite agreed with the noble Earl, that the interests of the railway companies and the public, though apparently at variance, were not really so, and might be reconciled by a careful investigation before a Select Committee. Such an investigation could not, however, be entered upon in a Committee of the whole House. One question which required very careful consideration was as to the tribunal which was to decide what was a "reasonable condition" to be affixed by the railway companies to the conveyance of traffic. The Bill proposed to intrust this power to the fifteen common law and six equity Judges, each of whom might be called upon separately to pronounce an opinion upon questions not of law, so vague and so incapable of being reduced to fixed rules, that it was impossible conflicting decisions should not be given. Another result would be, that as the common law Judges were absent on circuit from London twice a year for a considerable period, the investigation of these matters would principally devolve upon the equity Judges, who were stationary. Now even at the present moment the Judges in these courts were barely able to despatch the business before them, and he was informed that when the vacation arrived, there would be a considerable arrear of business to be disposed of at a future period. The business before them would be still further increased by the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill; and if to that they added the business that would arise under this Bill, it was quite evident that all the benefits which it had been attempted to secure to the public by the late reforms in the Court of Chancery would be lost, and that the delays and arrears of business in that court would soon be as bad as ever. He thought that, in order to ensure uniformity of decisions, questions of this kind should be dealt with by one tribunal; and he would suggest that the Court of Common Pleas—the Judges of which had ample time—should be the court for that purpose as far as England was concerned. It would still remain for consideration to what tribunals in Ireland and Scotland they should intrust the decision of these
  984
  questions. Another point to which he wished to draw their attention was the desire on the part of railway companies to free themselves from the consequences of their negligence by setting up special contracts. It was for the House to decide whether they should put some restraints upon these contracts, and, on the other hand, whether in favour of the companies they would not somewhat limit their liability. He had understood, also, that the railway companies disputed their liability to carry horses and cattle under the word "traffic." He could not see why the words "horses and cattle" were not used instead of the word "traffic," which had no definite meaning whatever. These and other similar questions, which could not be dealt with in a confused debate in the whole House, might be very well considered by a Select Committee, and he should, therefore, press his Motion for referring the Bill to such a body.
  Amendment moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhoped the noble and learned Lord would not press his Amendment. The Bill was on Friday last fixed for that evening, on the express understanding that, if the Lord Chief Justice—who desired to consult the Judges with respect to some of its provisions—desired a further postponement, it should not then come on. He had received a note from the Lord Chief Justice, expressing his desire that the Bill should be further postponed; and, under these circumstances, he trusted that their Lordships would not, in the absence of the Lord Chief Justice, enter upon a discussion of the general merits of the measure, or entertain any proposition for referring it a Select Committee. He must confess that he had as yet heard no reasons which convinced him of the necessity of such a step, nor could he see why the various points that had been mentioned could not be discussed perfectly well in a Committee of the whole House. With respect to the word "traffic," it was perfectly well understood in connection with railways; and if the noble and learned Lord referred to the interpretation clause, he would find its meaning fully defined. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) near him had complained that several subjects, and particularly that of accidents, were not embraced in this measure. This Bill, however, only professed to deal with the regulations as to traffic. It was complete

  985
  as far as it went; and with respect to the subject of accidents, a distinct Bill was already prepared, and would be placed on the table of the other House in the course of a few days.
  LORD LYNDHURSTobjected to the use of an insensible word, and then attempting to attach to it a sensible meaning by a definition in the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEheld it to be highly important that the Bill should pass without delay. That something might be done to make it more perfect he would not deny, but it proposed to remedy many deficiencies now existing in railways. A number of other Bills were really dependent on the passing of this; a number of companies whose traffic was now impeded were waiting in the hope of surmounting the obstacles in their way when the Bill should be passed, and he should therefore deprecate anything which should delay its progress. As to the proposed reference to a Select Committee, he entertained no decided objection one way or the other; if the Committee would go on vigorously, and without loss of time, he would not object to the reference; but if, on the other hand, the Committee, not confining themselves to the Bill alone, should enter into all matters connected with railway traffic, he should give the proposal of the noble and learned Lord his decided opposition.
  THE EARL OF DERBYcertainly thought there was very considerable force in what had been said by the noble Lord who had just sat down as to the desirableness of passing the Bill at an early period. The proposed reference to a Select Committee was not for the purpose of considering the Bill itself, but for that which his noble Friend most deprecated, namely, for entering into extensive considerations with a view to framing a more efficient Bill, which would occupy the greater portion of this Session of Parliament. If that were the case, as he believed it to be, he would urge upon his noble and learned Friend to reconsider, or at all events not to press, the question of a reference at the present time. Before sitting down, he wished to ask the noble Lord opposite, who had the charge of the Bill, whether he had considered the particular point, which had been the subject of observation by various noble Lords as well as by himself, with regard to the liability and great responsibility of railway companies, and the possibility of their avoiding that responsibility by a simple notice; and whether he were
  986
  prepared to introduce, on the part of the Government, a provision to prevent that avoidance?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the case had been most fully considered, and he was informed that railway companies were subject to precisely the same liabilities as common carriers. There was, therefore, no necessity for introducing a special provision on the question; it would only be necessary to enforce the laws at present existing.
  EARL GREYsaid, that railway practice abounded in cases of injustice and oppression, which were not heard of in connection with the profession of a common carrier. If this Bill was not to be referred to a Select Committee, and if Her Majesty's Government should not propose any more effectual measure, he did trust that some of their Lordships would move for a Select Committee on the general subject, with a view to ascertaining whether some further legislation were not necessary. The Bill, as it stood, was a most insufficient attempt to deal with a subject of very great and urgent importance.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that by the common law, carriers were obliged to receive all goods given to them to carry. They had attempted, however, to get rid of their liability on account of the goods by putting up notices limiting their liability. As, however, the goods were not always delivered at places where those notices were posted, it was decided that they were of no effect. They next affixed a notice limiting their liability to the receipt which they gave for the goods, and this would have been effectual in the then state of the law. Parliament, however, then stepped in, and by the 11th Geo. IV. declared that they would not allow their liability to be limited by these notices, but it was at the same time provided that this Act should not prevent parties entering into any special contract. Taking advantage of that the railway companies had by a special notice made it part of the contract on which goods were received, that they would not be liable for loss or injury from whatever cause it might arise. Now, this was not in accordance with the spirit of the Act of George IV. It was an evasion of it; a species of fraud which should be prevented by this Bill.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the Lord Chief Justice had expressly declared that these notices were so much waste paper; and that if the railway

  987
  company refused to take cattle or horses or other goods, except upon the terms of such a special contract, it was perfectly competent to any one to bring an action for damages against them in a court of law. The remedy was precisely the same against a railway company as against a common carrier who refused to take goods except on special contract.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice had exclusive reference to the non-effect of notices issued by railway companies in defeating the operation of the Act introduced by himself for giving damages for personal injuries. It was all very well saying that an action would lie against a railway company if they refused to take goods; but how unequal was the contest between an individual and a powerful company?
  EARL GREYcould not at all agree that those notices were mere waste paper, for he knew of a case in which the Court of Common Pleas, setting aside the verdict of a county court, held that, by the publication of such a notice, the Newcastle and Berwick Railway Company had freed themselves from a liability which would otherwise have attached to them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas afraid that this inequality was inherent in the nature of things, and that it would still operate whatever might be the nature of the remedy provided. He thought the subject of the liability of railway companies was not yet fully understood by the House. Every common carrier was bound to take goods which were tendered to him, and he believed that railway companies were equally subject to this liability. In former times, no doubt, carriers—on account of the nature of their conveyances—were not required to carry cattle. But now, when they—at least railway companies—had the means of doing this, they were, he had no doubt, just as much bound to receive cattle and horses, if tendered to them, as any common carrier was to take a parcel which was put into his hands. Nor could they refuse to take such horses and cattle except on the terms of a special contract, although, no doubt, if a party did enter into such a contract with them, he would be bound by its terms.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwished to know whether the Government would have any objection to insert in the present Bill a clause precisely in the words of that of the 11 Geo. IV., the Act relating to carriers, declaring that the tickets issued
  988
  by railway companies should not affect their liability as common carriers, except in cases where a special contract was properly constituted, and where the parties sending the goods had the option of entering into or of refusing such contract.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that if it were the opinion of the noble Earl and of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) that such a clause was necessary, he should have no objection to insert it in the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEpointed out that the 6th clause provided that, when any proceedings should be taken for any contravention of the Act, an order should be issued by the court, imposing a penalty upon the company only if such a thing should be done in future. The complainant was, therefore, not to have any damages himself, and no private party would complain upon these terms. The clause ought to be altered, and the party enabled to bring his action for damages and his action to have the company restricted at one and the same time.
  EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, the noble Lord had objected to sending the Bill to a Select Committee, seemingly because he had wished to make their Lordships' House a Select Committee. Undoubtedly there existed a strong objection to a Select Committee at this period of the Session; but if the noble and learned Lord let slip the present opportunity, he would get no other this year of bringing under the consideration of Parliament, Her Majesty's Ministers, and the House of Commons, those matters which had been improperly omitted in the Bill. Such a Committee would not be exclusively confined to the questions contained in the Bill, but would take the opportunity of duly deliberating on all those questions which they might think worthy of being introduced into it. It was upon that very ground that he (Earl Fitzwilliam) had come to the opinion that the appointment of such a Committee would be most desirable. If the subject were not fully gone into, their Lordships would not have credit given them for wishing to legislate satisfactorily upon this important question.
  LORD BEAUMONThad no objection whatever to go into Committee on this Bill; but before he agreed to that Motion he should like to understand whether it was proposed that a Select Committee should sit on this Bill or on the general subject of railways. If it was merely pro-

  989
  posed that a Select Committee should sit on this Bill, as the Bill was a very short one, and omitted nearly all the matters concerning railways, and contained only one or two clauses on the outside, the Committee might confine themselves to that subject, and in the course of a single day make the necessary alterations. If, however, on the other side, they were now to do what it was their duty at some time to do, namely, to go into the whole of the question of railways, and were to select the occasion of this Bill for fulfilling that intention, then he would say that he must object to the Motion; for although they were bound to consider the question, he thought it would be injudicious to take the opportunity of this Bill to appoint a Select Committee for the purpose. He thought so, not so much because of the delay as on other grounds. He believed the whole of the legislation on the subject of railways must be matter of compromise, because, in consequence of the power which the railway interest had in another place, they could not expect to carry a complete measure; and he was not quite certain whether the Government had not been wise to divide the subject into various Bills, in the hope of getting some of these Bills through, and of obtaining some good, which they certainly would have failed to obtain if they had put all that was desirable into one Bill. He agreed that the Bill was imperfect as a matter of legislation, and that most important matters were omitted; but he was fully convinced that a more perfect measure would not have succeeded in another place, and he would rather get the little they could get than by attempting more to lose all. The objection raised by his noble Friend opposite was one that particularly struck him the other day. It was proposed to take away the power of recovering damages by the party aggrieved, though they gave to the public at large a power of procedure by which the aggrieved party could obtain an injunction from a court of justice to prevent the repetition of the wrongdoing; and it struck him that that was one of the compromises which had been effected in another place. He thought the matter would be much better discussed in a Committee upstairs; and on the condition that this Bill alone should be the matter for consideration, he would have no objection whatever to agree to the proposition of the noble and learned Lord opposite.
  LORD ST. LEONARDStrusted that
  990
  the Government would take into consideration the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend, that the questions arising under the operation of this Bill should be referred only for adjudication to the Court of Common Pleas.
  LORD BROUGHAMthought there was every reason why those questions should be disposed of in one court. It would not only increase the facilities and experience of that court in the disposition of such questions, but preserve a uniformity of decision, and the Court of Common Pleas, to which alone it was proposed by his noble and learned Friend to refer them, was anything but over-worked.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn. Then the said Motion was, on Question, agreed to; and House to he put into Committee on the said Bill on Tuesday next.

  LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill read 3a according to order.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: In rising to move the omission of the 37th clause from the Bill to which you have just given a third reading, I beg to assure your Lordships that I have no desire to impede legislation upon the important subject which gives the title to the Bill—far from it. I am, on the contrary, most desirous that the measure you are about to send down to the other House should be in all respects so framed as to commend itself to the acceptance of the representatives of the people, and to the approval of the country—that it should be commended as well by the soundness of its principle as by the beneficial tendency and practical usefulness of its enactments—not as a one-sided and partial measure, serving one party and not serving another, still less as serving or pretending to serve one party at the expense of another, but as a measure improving and simplifying in matters of detail the very important relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland. Some, I am aware, are of opinion that legislation is not desirable; that, agitation having passed away, and landlords and tenants drawing well together, the cultivation of the land every day improving, it would be better to leave things to take their course; but although the fact is happily so, and the argument has therefore considerable force, I am of opinion, nevertheless, that legislation on the subject may with advantage, and ought now, to take place. The attention of the public has now for the

  991
  last ten years been directed to the subject, and successive Cabinets have, by the introduction of Landlord and Tenant Bills. and by the declarations and pledges of leading statesmen, raised an expectation which the contents of these Bills in a great measure warrant that greater facilities and encouragement than at present exist can be and will be given for a beneficial occupation of the land in Ireland. It is undeniable that great labour and learning have been given to the subject by men of the highest legal eminence, and that the fruits of their, labours have, from time to time, been brought under the consideration of Parliament and of the public in a manner that, while it has tended to a better understanding of the question, has produced agreement upon many important matters relative to the future tenure of land; and I think that credit should not be withheld from those to whose labours we are indebted for the simplified form in which we are now enabled to deal with the subject. Such acknowledgment I consider to be especially due to my right hon. and learned Friend Mr. Napier. To him I think it is greatly due that the crude and wild legislation of the Tenant League has been made to give way to the consideration of measures more in harmony with the rights of property, and promising of more practical advantage to the community. To that learned Gentleman was assigned, when agitation was at its height, the task—one of no small delicacy and difficulty—of drawing up those Bills which are now in substance under your consideration. Although I could not concur in all that he proposed, neither can I overlook the fact that the opinions that then prevailed both in and out of Parliament, and that had been countenanced by the leading statesmen of both parties, in favour of retrospective legislation in the matter of tenant compensation, rendered it almost necessary, in order to a full consideration of the subject, that the question of retrospective legislation should be included. I regret that it was so, and hope that sounder views now prevail; but be that as it may, the whole subject has been dealt with by the learned Gentleman in a manner that acquired for him the highest commendations, including that of the noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor of England (Lord St. Leonards); the confidence of both the late and present Government; and, lastly, the acknowledgment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) of the valuable services he had rendered to the
  992
  Select Committee, in the consideration of the Bills that are now before the House. Seeing, then, my Lords, that much real attention has been given to the subject, and that many valuable and well-considered enactments are embodied in those Bills, I trust they will become law. But while I desire to see enacted all that may be for the public advantage, all that the Committee has concurred in recommending as really desirable, I must call upon your Lordships to withhold your consent from that part of the Bill, the 37th clause, which involves a violation of a fundamental principle of property, by arbitrarily transferring, by a retrospective enactment, from landlord to tenant that which is at present the landlord's property, if he chooses to take possession of it. I do not say that it is not competent for the Legislature to interfere with private rights, if some great public object, not otherwise obtainable, should render such a step necessary; for it accords with the fullest respect for the rights of property to say, that the laws by which they are secured and upheld were framed, not for the advantage of individuals or of classes, but the benefit of the community. But the clause to which I object does not come recommended by any compensating advantage whatsoever, public or private. Now, although there are in this House many noble Lords of great learning and legal authority, I trust I may, without undervaluing their opinions, quote in support of my argument from the writings of Judge Blackstone, no mean authority on the principles of the law. He says in the chapter "On the absolute rights of individuals"—
  "So great is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorise the least violation of it—no, not even for the general good of the whole community..… The public good is in nothing more essentially interested than in the protection of every individual's private rights as modelled by the municipal law. In this and similar cases the Legislature alone can, and indeed frequently does interpose, and compel the individual to acquiesce. But how does it interpose and compel? Not by absolutely stripping the subject of his property in an arbitrary manner, but by giving him a full indemnification and equivalent for the injury thereby sustained."—Blackstone, vol. i. p. 139.
  The authority of Judge Blackstone, I think your Lordships must admit, is clearly opposed to the 37th clause of this Bill. Further, my Lords, the clause is not in any way necessary to it, but rather calculated to create dissatisfaction with its other provisions. It purports to confer a boon

  993
  upon tenants in occupation by giving them a property in that which at present by law is the property of the landlord. The tenantry will naturally inquire, as I think the landlords have a right to demand, the reason of this arbitrary transfer of one man's rights to another; and the very fact that no reason has been, or can be given for it, will necessarily awaken suspicion in the minds of the tenantry, that the Bill must elsewhere contain provisions adverse to their interests to compensate for the injustice done to the landlord. Besides, the clause has been termed "a compromise," which would seem clearly to imply that there was a kind of bargain of mutual concession. But if the other clauses of the Bill be examined, I think it will be admitted that they have no partial action; certainly none in any degree adverse to the tenant's interests, but that the common advantage has alone been consulted. Why then damage the character of this Act by a wanton violation of rights! Has the Select Committee, in submitting this Bill for your consideration, pointed out any necessity for this objectionable clause? In the absence of any special Report in favour of a principle of legislation so much at variance with the principles which usually govern the councils of this House, your Lordships should, if you do not at once expunge the clause, at least inquire what are the opinions of individual Members of the Select Committee upon it. I do not think that you will find in their opinions, as far as we can judge of them, anything to warrant its retention in the Bill. The noble Duke who brought up the Report, while he explained the general character of the measure, and adverted in particular to this clause, appeared to me to guard himself against becoming in any degree the advocate of the principle it involved. He explained how, during the period of the late famine in Ireland, when so many had to give up their lands, they lost the benefit of the fixtures they had created upon them; he showed the propriety of the change that was made in the relations of landlord and tenant in 1851, with regard to fixtures, but made out no case to call for retrospective legislation upon the subject. The general tenor of his observations was altogether opposed to interference with existing rights; he would yield nothing to agitation, and would rest the mutual engagements of landlord and tenant upon the principle of contract. My noble Friend the late Postmaster General
  994
  (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was the next that delivered his sentiments, and certainly his opinion was not in favour of the clause. Language could not have been used stronger than that in which he expressed his reprobation of it. His opinion was echoed by my noble Friend the late Under Secretary for the Colonial Department (the Earl of Desalt), by the noble Baron opposite (Lord Beaumont), and by the noble Marquess on this side of the House (the Marquess of Bath), who moved, but afterwards withdrew, his Motion for expunging the clause. Then, my Lords, the sentiments of the two noble and learned Lords, who served upon the Committee, and in whose wisdom, learning, and discretion the House so much confided, for advising upon this landlord and tenant code, were given to your Lordships. The noble and learned Lord Chief Justice not only expressed his entire disapprobation of the principle of the clause, but declared his conviction that it would be unproductive of any good, and would rather produce division and strife between parties who are now drawing well together, and yet, with strange inconsistency, he declared that he should not oppose its adoption. The other learned Lord, the late Lord Chancellor, expressed his disapproval of the clause in language not less forcible, and of peculiar weight as coming from one of such high authority, but with like inconsistency recommended your Lordships to adopt it as "a compromise." Such a proposition, coming from such a quarter, I certainly heard with no little surprise, and with the greater regret as it appeared to have influenced the noble Earl opposite, the late Colonial Secretary (Earl Grey), whose disapproval of the principle of the clause was otherwise quite as decidedly expressed as that of any Member of the Committee. The noble Lord on the back bench opposite (Lord Dufferin), who, on the first introduction of these Bills to the notice of your Lordships, so ably explained the nature and evils of the tenant right system of the north, and who was, moreover, the proposer of one of the tenant compensation Bills which the Committee felt it necessary to reject, acquiesced in, but did not approve of, the clause in its details. And the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Wicklow), although equally dissatisfied with its details, gave the clause his support, as a concession to popular demand, regretting only that the Bills last year sent up from the other

  995
  House had not been adopted in their integrity. These two noble Lords, but these only, of the Members of the Committee I have noticed, must undoubtedly be regarded as the advocates of the retrospective legislation now proposed. Of the other Members of the Committee, as none addressed the House since the Report was brought up, we have not the advantage of knowing what exactly are their opinions on this clause; but of one we may with some certainty believe that he is opposed to it—I speak of my noble Friend on the cross-bench, formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Monteagle), as he in the strongest manner denounced it, on the original introduction of the Bills; and if he had changed his mind, he would not have failed of explaining his altered views. Thus, my Lords, as far as the individual opinions of Members of the Committee can be inferred, from what they have addressed to the House, they are as nine to two against the principle of retrospective legislation; and yet the proposition is submitted to your Lordships' acceptance. The Committee, no doubt, thought that in discarding six out of the eight Bills referred to them, including the Bills under the specious titles of Tenant Compensation Bills, they had done much, and desired that the House should take its share of responsibility by dealing with the 37th clause of this Bill. It may be in your Lordships' recollection that I objected to the original constitution of the Select Committee, as including an undue proportion of English Peers, to the exclusion of the representative Peers of Ireland. I was answered that, although the Bills were exclusively Irish, the great object of maintaining the principles of private property in harmony in all parts of the United Kingdom, rendered it important that the Committee should be composed, in large proportion, of English Peers. Now, I would ask, are we to take it as the recommendation of this Committee or not, that we should interfere with vested rights? If such is the Committee's recommendation, I think, although unhappily we do not number any law Lords among the Irish Peers, that an exclusively Irish Committee might have dealt with the subject quite as successfully. But I find that, in noticing the opinions of the individual Members of the Committee, I have omitted that expressed by my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Donoughmore). He certainly stood up for the clause, and must be re-
  996
  garded as its most strenuous advocate; and if I could believe, with him, that it was to be defended upon the ground of justice, I should not object to it; that would be reason enough for its enactment. But where is the justice of it? Is there a wrong to be remedied? If so, your remedy is worse than the wrong, for, besides violating a principle, you inflict a wrong upon the landlord, and, in reality, confer no benefit whatever upon the tenant. What is the wrong for which this clause is proposed as a remedy? A tenant who has made improvements upon the land, without the consent of his landlord, has no legal right to recover his outlay if dispossessed. Well, he knew that before he made them. He, therefore, probably improved his farm, in full confidence in the equity and liberality, or in the good sense of his landlord, that he would not dispossess an improving tenant, or that, if he did so, he would compensate him for his outlay. If the landlord had not been confided in, the improvements probably would not have been made without the security of a lease, or the consideration of some abatement of rent, or other advantage. What wrong, then, is there done to any one by leaving the fulfilment of that covenant to take place as heretofore? Your interference is a wrong done to the landlord, and would not better the position of the tenant. It can only promise the harmony and mutual confidence, and good-will that subsisted between the parties; and the dispossessed tenant, instead of being freely compensated by the landlord for whatever improvement he may have made, will, by preferring his legal claim under this enactment, be left to his legal remedy, namely, of carrying away the stone, mortar, and timber, of which his house or other fixtures may have been constructed. Is not this a most unsubstantial boon to confer upon the tenant class; and will it not be regarded as a mere delusion by those whom you hope to satisfy with it? But, my Lords, there is a class of very humble occupiers by whom the operation of this clause will be severely felt—I allude to the very small farmers, the occupants of from four to sixteen acre farms, to be found for the most part in great poverty upon the encumbered and generally mismanaged estates that are being daily disposed of to English and Scotch speculators in land. With these new purchasers it is a very common practice to get up the possession of the lands, for the purpose of

  997
  creating large farms. Hitherto it has been the practice, when so doing, to make the outgoing tenant very full compensation for the value of the miserable dwelling that is to be taken down; but, under that clause of your Bill, the landlord who is thus desirous of clearing his lands will be enabled, if he pleases—and you should not afford him a legislative sanction for so doing—to tell the outgoing tenant that, by the tenant compensation clause of this Bill he is entitled, and at perfect liberty, to carry away the materials of his dwelling, but that he has no further claim. My Lords, for the tenants as well as for the landlords I would say that this clause ought to be omitted; and I would beg to remind my noble Friend that the clause he is defending is not part of his own Bill, which I considered in many respects, and especially with reference to the fixture clause, a much better one than this, but it is a clause exclusively retrospective in its action, and of no importance whatever to the working of the remainder of the Bill. I cannot but view it, my Lords, as a remnant of the worst fruits of the Tenant-League agitation—it is a compromise for popularity. But the popularity of this House can only be founded upon the respect with which your proceedings are regarded, upon your faithful guardianship of the great principles of our laws, and not upon any sacrifice of those principles. The House of Commons may be excused if, under the influence and pressure of popular constituencies, they propose concessions which sound judgment may not always justify; but you are not at liberty to do so. True, there were in the last Session Bills sent up to you, and to which your assent was asked, involving concessions to popular clamour that would have been in violation of private right, but that will not justify you in assenting to such concession. Popularity so earned is for you forbidden fruit. Adam was not excused when he said, "She gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Your Lordships should also remember that this is not a Government but a House of Lords measure. The Bill is not from the Cabinet, but from a Select Committee of this House. Let it not, then, go down to the other House with any unsound matter in it calculated in any degree to abate the respect with which the conservative character of your proceedings is commonly regarded. Let the obnoxious clause be struck out, and if the House of Commons is enamoured of retrospective
  998
  legislation where it is unnecessary, let it rest with them, and not with this House, to propose it. Hitherto improvements have been carried on by the mutual accord of landlord and tenant; it has, doubtless, not been a sufficient stimulus for improvement; but let not what has been done be interfered with, and let your legislation confine itself to a better provision for the future. I regret that it has not devolved upon some other noble Lord to advocate what I have endeavoured to recommend to your Lordships; but I trust your Lordships will, notwithstanding that they come front so uninfluential an individual, weigh the arguments I have taken the liberty of urging, in support of my Motion for omitting the 37th clause from the Bill to which you have just given a third reading.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the 37th clause.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, the Bill undoubtedly had many provisions —those particularly in relation to distress—which were highly favourable to the tenant; but neither could it be denied that it was a Bill also highly favourable to the landlords. He was not an advocate for compensation to the extent agitated by the Tenant-right League; but the tenant had by the existing law a right to protection; and, therefore, though in point of law the tenant had no relief, in point of fact he was protected in such a way that it was often worth the landlord's while to compensate him. The Bill placed the laws upon a fair basis in that respect. The present system inevitably led to great fraud; and it was only justice that something should be done to protect the tenant. If the clause were rejected, then the Bill would be regarded by the House of Commons as purely a landlord's Bill; as such it would certainly be rejected; and by that means the many valuable provisions which it contained would be lost for the present Session. He admitted there might be difference of opinion among the Members of the Select Committee; but their Report was the foundation of the measure.
  THE EARL OF DESARTsaid, he certainly could not support the Amendment, though he was opposed to giving retrospective rights over any man's property without his consent. Having, however, witnessed the divisions, and listened to the deliberations of the Select Committee on the construction of the Bill, and having seen that the object of the Committee and the House was to arrive at a just and

  999
  equilable settlement of a question, which was considered, though erroneously, he believed, as agitating all Ireland, he was of opinion that they had conscientiously adopted the measure as being the best suited for that object. At the same time, however, the Committee had not neglected its duty; and in considering the 37th clause, which involved, most certainly, the dangerous principle of the Bill, they had fenced that principle round with safeguards which he hoped would be sufficient to obviate any evil results of a serious nature. He could not, therefore, support the Amendment, though he was bound to state that less agitation on the subject existed in Ireland than was supposed. In the southern and western districts the agitation on this question, notwithstanding the vigour with which it had been promoted and the auspices under which it had been conducted, had fallen flat upon the minds of the people, who felt that their interests were safer in the hands of their natural protectors than in those of agitators, in whom they could not place the same reliance. He hoped that if the safeguards with which the Committee of that House had felt it their duty to fence the clause should be diminished by the House of Commons, any Amendments with such an object would not receive the sanction or support of Her Majesty's Government. As regarded the north, he trusted that he concessions now made would have the effect of quieting the agitation in that part of the country, and that they would be received in the spirit of conciliation in which they were offered—with gratitude.
  Their Lordships divided:—Content 10; Not Content 41: Majority 31.
  Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  PROTEST
  Against the Third Reading of the Irish Landlord and Tenant Bill.
  "DISSENTIENT,—1. Because we consider it to be of the highest importance that the law in England and in Ireland should rest on the same fundamental principles, and that any deviation from such rule should only be sanctioned by Parliament where a difference of circumstances between the two countries can be clearly proved to exist, and should then be limited strictly to such difference of circumstances.
  "2. Because in the present instant no such difference of circumstances has been established as can justify some of the enactments contained in this Bill.
  "3. Because it is our opinion that in all cases of contract, but more especially in those between
  1000
  landlord and tenant, the prosperity of both classes will best be promoted by leaving them free to enter into such covenants as shall be mutually agreed to, securing, as far as is practicable, the inviolability of these covenants when made, and affording equal and effectual remedies for maintaining and enforcing the rights of both parties.
  "4. Because the experience of two centuries has fully confirmed the judgment of Sir John Davies, whose experience as a statesman and a lawyer led him to the conviction that "the application of the English law of tenure to Ireland was essential to the well-being of the latter country."
  "5. Because the section 37 of the present Bill, in its ex post facto operation, is framed on a principle opposed to the rights of property, making a gratuitous transfer to one class of that which now belongs to another, and, in order to mitigate this act of injustice, introducing exceptions and limitations which cannot fail to lead to confusion and litigation, to be supported by doubtful and questionable evidence.
  "6. Because this provision is utterly repugnant to the faith of Parliament as pledged to the purchasers of Irish landed property under the Encumbered Estates Act—parties to whom a Parliamentary title declared good against all claims whatsoever being under this Bill made responsible for new obligations to which they have not consented, and to pecuniary burdens created by an ex post facto law.
  "7. Because we agree in the opinion of the statesman under whose authority the Devon Commission was issued, that "it is a grievous error on the part of the Legislature to interfere with the rights of property, the maintenance of which is the great characteristic of a state of social improvement, and any interference with which constitutes the greatest blow that can be given to industry and the accumulation of wealth."
  "8. Because, while we desire that an improvement should be effected in the dwellings of the cottier class, we apprehend that the provisions of this Bill, and more especially the 106th section, will fail to produce this desirable result. The future recovery of rent of cottiers' holdings being made dependent upon the proof of two allegations of fact, each of which may be made matters of litigation and controversy, the consequence will be an indisposition to invest capital in property thus rendered uncertain and unproductive; the number of dwellings for small occupiers is therefore likely to be diminished, and a new pressure cast on the very class whom it is intended to benefit.
  "9. Because we are indisposed to rely on ingenious contrivances attempted to be carried out by compulsory enactment as the true source of national improvement, rejoicing to think that the force of sound public opinion, the just appreciation of duty, and even the motives of enlarged private interest, are leading on both the proprietors and occupiers of land in Ireland in a course of judicious progress, and we therefore prefer to place our reliance upon the development of natural causes rather than to risk counteracting those causes by an unwise, though well-meant, system of legislation.

  "MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON.

  "CLANBRASSILL,

  "SOMERHILL.

  "CLONCURRY.

  "GRINSTEAD.

  "CASTLEMAINE.

  "BATH.

  "MAYO."

  "CLANCARTY.

  POWERS OF LEASING (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill read 3a, according to order.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) having called attention to the construction of the fourth section of the third clause of this Bill, and objected that it would have the effect of enabling persons having merely a life interest in an estate to grant leases extending long beyond their own terms, and calculated injuriously to affect the interest of the landlord, he had therefore consulted with those who had charge of the Bill in the other House, and the result was that he would now move the insertion of certain words to limit the operation of the clause so as to obviate the noble Earl's objection. The noble Duke then proposed a formal Amendment accordingly, to insert the words "not being subject to rent for the occupation of the land."
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that his object in drawing attention to that part of the Bill on a former night was to prevent a mere lessee for lives or a term of years from being entitled to dispose of the property of the head landlord for a considerable term after the lease had expired. He understood that the Amendment proposed had been made to meet that objection; but he thought that it went too far, as it might comprehend the case of tenants for leases of lives renewable for ever, on account of their paying a chief rent. What he desired was to exclude from the operation of the Bill tenants for leases of lives or for a term of years, and not tenants for leases of lives renewable for ever.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLexplained. The Amendments applied to persons paying rent for the land. The Amendment was prepared by Mr. Fergusson, the draughtsman of the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought the Bill gave too great power to tenants for life of an estate with regard to building leases. They might shut out the enjoyment of the mansion by granting leases for building over a beautiful prospect for ninety-nine years; and they might lease the right of shooting over the estate up to the hall door. He thought this power ought to be restricted; and he was of opinion that granting building leases in the immediate vicinity of the mansion should not be permitted. He thought that residence was the thing most desirable for the improvement of Ireland, and
  1002
  that, therefore, nothing should be done to discourage it, but on the contrary.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, unless the provisions of the Bill were adopted, a serious bar would be placed to the improvement of Ireland. There was nothing in Scotland to prevent letting for nineteen and twenty-one years. As regarded the building powers, he could assure the House that the Irish Act was far more liberal than the Bill. By the 10 Geo. I., a power was given to lease for three lives, or forty-one years, the only restriction being that the land should have been previously in cultivation; and by the 11 & 12 Geo. III. c. 21, tenants for life were seised with the power to make leases for sixty-one years of the whole estate, if they thought fit. The powers in the Bill were a great restriction on the old Irish Act. One of its advantages would be to enable landlords to grant leases, though the estate might be mortgaged. Surely their Lordships would not refuse to extend to Irish landlords such reasonable powers as were already enjoyed by landlords in England and Scotland.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he would undertake to say, without fear of contradiction, that the manner in which the supporters of this Bill were reasoning was wholly at variance with the results of the experience which every noble Lord present connected with Ireland could adduce. The ground on which they seemed to proceed was the supposition that it was owing to the shortness of leases that the little improvement of land in Ireland was to be attributed; whereas the very reverse was the fact. He saw in the House many noble Lords who were connected with Ireland, and he would put it to them whether it was not the fact that the worst-improved estates in their respective vicinities were not those, the leases granted upon which were of the longest duration? The worst cases were those in which an almost perpetual interest had been created by the improvidence of former owners. In all the more ancient settlements the general leasing power was for thirty one years and three lives, or thirty-one years or three lives, and he had seen numerous settle ments of that kind; but what did they find was the increasing practice in all parts? Why, that with a view to promote the interests of both landlord and tenants the thirty-one years' power had been abandoned, and, a twenty-one years' power

  1003
  taken; and he asked whether their Lordships could doubt that, for all agricultural purposes, a twenty-one years' lease was not preferable. If the question was considered in an analogical point of view with respect to England and Scotland, he asked whether the ordinary nineteen years' lease in the latter, and twenty-one years' in the former, had not been found beneficial agricultural leases? But there was one argument which he thought conclusive, and which must strike every one who had been accustomed to the management of an Irish estate; and that was, if they granted a twenty-one years' lease to a tenant who was an improving and a deserving man, and who was selected with a view to his age as well as his character, they might confidently put the land into his possession with the prospect of its falling in hand during his life; but if that period were extended to thirty-one years, in nine cases out of ten the land would devolve on his child or representative. There might be cases of dispute with respect to wills or intestacies, and the landlord would consequently not have the security he ought to have with regard to the improvement of the land; therefore he really thought, as a matter of common sense and discretion, they ought to import into the Bill in respect of agricultural leases that period which had been found best adapted for the interest of agriculture, both in England and Scotland, and, above all, which would be found the best adapted for the improved circumstances of Ireland. He believed that period to be twenty-one years, and was of opinion that it would satisfy every reasonable tenant. On those grounds he should certainly urge upon their Lordships the propriety of its substitution for that now in the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was well aware that the great evil of Ireland had been, on the one hand, too long leases, and, on the other, no leases at all. Every motive for exertion on the part of the tenant had been taken away. The object of the Bill was to repeal all the laws which contemplated too long leases, and on the other hand to provide such a period as would enable the tenant, by a proper exertion, as in Scotland and England, to remunerate himself for his outlay. There was no doubt that a vast majority of the settlements in Ireland contemplated a twenty-one years' lease and a life. The introduction of an element of uncertainty
  1004
  was considered to be disadvantageous, and therefore the term of thirty-one years had been named.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwas desirous that such a term should be adopted as would enable the tenant to repay himself his outlay of capital and labour. It was true that in former times thirty-one years and three lives would be the ordinary term; but at present he believed the practice in Ireland was to grant no lease at all, and where agricultural leases were granted, so far as his experience went, he had never heard of a tenant applying for a thirty-one years' lease. He himself had never granted a lease for lives, and further, he never would do so—that was to say, for an ordinary agricultural tenure. In his opinion twenty-one years was a quite sufficient term for an ordinary agricultural lease in England; and hoping to see practical agriculture in the one country assimilated to that in the other, he must say that a twenty-one years' lease afforded ample motive to improvement to an enterprising and intelligent tenant. On the other hand, he considered that they ought to reduce the powers of the tenant for life to the smallest extent that would be compatible with improvement. If his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) pressed his Motion for inserting twenty-one years instead of thirty-one, he should certainly vote in favour of the shorter term.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, the only question for the consideration of the House was, which term was best for agricultural purposes? He agreed with his noble Friend on the cross-benches (Lord Monteagle) that the old leases were the worst portion of the property of an Irish estate, as, when the lease was nearly at an end, the tenant took care not to cultivate the land in such a manner as to confer an additional value upon it when it was taken up; but both that noble Lord and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had stated that they considered twenty-one years would be the best lease. He could assure their Lordships that in the part of the country with which he was acquainted that would be considered by no means a satisfactory lease. The usual practice in his part of the country was to grant twenty-one years and a life, and the thirty-one years was considered an equivalent to that lease. Anything less than that he considered would be a discouragement to the tenantry. They had heard a great many objections to the addition of a life; but, if,

  1005
  as formerly; the life was necessary to give the tenant a vote, he doubted whether objections of such a kind would have been raised.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas in favour of adopting the shorter term proposed by the noble Lord on the cross-benches (Lord Monteagle). Wherever in this country agriculture was good, there the lease for twenty-one years was prevalent; and why should a different system be adopted in Ireland? The fault he found with regard to the measure before their Lordships was, that it was not brought in upon the responsibility of the Government or any other party. These Bills had not, in fact, been framed by the Cabinet, nor by any one in Ireland; and any noble Lord who imagined that they would satisfy the Tenant-right League must be very ignorant of the proceedings of that body at their late meetings. In fact the Bill had its origin in nothing else than the pledges which had then been given upon the hustings at election contests in Ireland; and for the sake of affording to persons deeply pledged an escape from their pledges, the House was now asked to adopt legislation, which was not proposed as the result of any deliberation of the Cabinet. He should have thought that the events of this very Session, and even of the past week, would have convinced any statesman of the serious danger to the general government of the country of bringing forward measures that were not founded upon any responsibility, and might, therefore, not be carried through that House. He mentioned this now, because he considered that there ought to be an understanding on the part of their Lordships as to what were the Bills which they would, and what they would not, pass upon the subject. He thought there was great danger in attempting to please an extreme party by passing these Bills into law; for they knew well that if the pleasure of that extreme party was to be consulted in the other House of Parliament, these Bills would be essentially, totally, and dangerously altered; and if they were to come back to this House on the last days of the Session, as was the case last year, without Government or any other party being responsible for them, they would be in danger of inflicting an injury on Ireland which they might never be able to retrieve. At the proper time he should move that the last clause of the Bill be expunged, which would make it extend to Great Britain; and he did
  1006
  hope that those among their Lordships who properly appreciated and venerated the settlements in virtue of which their properties and estates had descended to them, would recollect, when he should make that Motion, that if they intended those settlements to be continued to their posterity, they must bring them into unison and harmony with the progress and custom of the times.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he entirely disavowed, on the part of the Government, any disposition whatever to please any extreme party in Ireland by these Bills. So far as the Government had had a hand in these Bills, no such object had existed. It had undoubtedly been sought to allay any irritation which might exist on the part of any of the people of Ireland, in consequence of injustice which they might feel had been inflicted upon them; but the object of the Bills had been simply to amend the law relating to landlord and tenant, as much for the benefit of the landlord as for that of the tenant, and to satisfy those moderate men who wished the interests of both to be consulted—and not any extreme party whatever, whether of landlords or tenants. The noble Marquess, and also the noble Earl who moved the first Amendment, had complained that these Bills had been introduced without any one being responsible for them. Now, though he (the Duke of Newcastle) had introduced these Bills in the exact form in which they were last Session received from the House of Commons, in order that they might be referred to a Select Committee, to be moulded into a form for submission to the House, yet the Government—one of its Members having presided over that Committee, and having most carefully superintended the examination of these Bills, and been a party to the Amendments which were made—the Government was not prepared to throw upon that House, or upon any other person, the responsibility of these Bills. The Government accepted the responsibility of them exactly as if they had been framed under its direction, and had been introduced in the shape in which Government Bills were generally introduced. If the noble Marquess meant to deduce from his argument that the Government intended to shift upon the House the responsibility of accepting these Bills, in whatever form they might come from the House of Commons, he could assure the noble Marquess that there was no such intention; but the

  1007
  Government was not prepared to offer to the House of Commons the insult of saying that they would reject any Amendments which might be introduced into the Bills in that House. As regarded these Bills, as regarding others going from this House, the Government accepted the responsibility of them in the shape in which, they were sent down to them by their Committee, and they would judge how far the principles involved in the Bills, as they now stood, were affected by any alterations which might be made in another place, and by their honest conviction as to the condition in which they came up they would be guided in the course which they should take. Upon the point immediately under discussion—the length of the leases—he thought it would be a misfortune if the House determined to make the term twenty-one years instead of thirty-one, as proposed.
  THE EARL OF RODENsaid, that any one who had lived much in Ireland must know the great evils and the want of improvement which had been caused, and would be caused, by leases for thirty-one years. Irishmen were often told that it was necessary to legislate for Ireland in the same manner as for England, but the present Bill was a departure from that principle. He lamented the course taken by the Government on this question, and trusted that his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) would persevere in his Motion.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the Bill utterly rode over all possibility of any person making such a settlement as would prevent injury being done to his property. In fact, it did away with all restrictions by which property was preserved for the enjoyment of its owner. He thought it was but reasonable that some restrictions should be inserted in regard to the erection of buildings. He should therefore move an insertion in one of the clauses of the Bill, providing that a lease of ninety-nine years for building purposes should not be granted in regard to any land within half a mile of a mansion-house.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that this evil might be prevented, by a settlement which could be made by the owner of the fee simple.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the power of making a settlement which should have such an effect would be taken away by this Bill.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWhad no idea that the Bill would have such an effect, and be expressed a wish that his noble Friend
  1008
  on the woolsack (the Lord Chancellor) should state to the House whether such would really be the effect of its enactments.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwished the Lord Chancellor would explain what effect this Bill would have upon future settlements.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the intention of the Bill was that tenants for life in Ireland should be placed exactly on the same footing on which tenants in tail were placed in England by the Statute of Henry VIII.—that was, to enable them to grant leases.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, his noble Friend appeared to have much satisfaction from the fact that it contained a clause that would have a retrospective operation. He would beg to propose that a clause should be inserted proposing that it would have no future effect.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, these discussions were wholly irrelevant. When their Lordships passed the Scottish Entail Bill they intended to prevent any proprietor from tying up his estate in future; and in like manner what this Bill proposed to prevent was the tying up of estates, and to prevent landlords from giving any but moderate leases.
  On Amendment, to insert twenty-one years instead of thirty-one, their Lordships divided:—Content 20; Not Content 17: Majority 3.
  Amendment moved by Lord Redesdale put, and negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEhoped that those noble Lords who supported this measure for Ireland would agree to have it applied also to England. If the Bill was so useful in that country, it ought to be equally useful in the other. He moved that the Bill should apply to England as well as to Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORErose in perfectly good faith to second the Motion; so highly did he think of the advantages of this measure, that if he had an estate in England he would be glad to have this Bill applied to it.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  MANNING THE NAVY BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that in compliance with a suggestion that had been made to him, he would, with their Lordships' permission, proceed with

  1009
  this Bill before the Navy Pay Bill, although properly that pleasure should have the precedence. This alteration in the order of the two Bills was made solely from considerations of convenience. As it had been thought more convenient to allow the second reading of the Bill to pass without debate, and that any objections that might be taken to its provisions should be discussed before going into Committee, he wished, before proceeding to state the main contents of the Bill, to be allowed to refer to a misapprehension that existed out of doors as to the title of the Bill. It had been supposed that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty (Sir J. Graham) intended to adopt some new method of increasing the strength of our naval force. But the Bill was, in fact, only a prize Bill; the title "Manning the Navy," was the old one, which had been adopted on all occasions, and which it had not been thought advisable now to alter. It had always been customary at the commencement of a war to pass a measure regulating the proceedings with reference to prizes taken in the course of that war. The last Act passed on this subject was the 55 Geo. III., c. 160, which became law three or four weeks after the battle of Waterloo. It was unnecessary to state to their Lordships that without an Act of Parliament, or rather without the preliminary permission of the Sovereign, all prizes belong to the Crown, by whomsoever taken. It had been customary, however, of late years, that those prizes should be ceded to the captors of the prizes rather than carried to the public account. For this purpose a proclamation was issued by Her Majesty, at the commencement of the war, and the present Bill was now before their Lord-ships for the same purpose as that of all the prize Acts that had heretofore been passed—namely, to regulate the proceedings which might take place in the adjudication of prizes, and the distribution of the proceeds of the capture. An Act of Parliament had, invariably, been passed with reference to the prizes taken by the Navy, and the distribution of the prize money; but their Lordships were aware, no doubt, that the practice as regards the Army was different. With regard to the Army, an Order in Council was sufficient. It would be now necessary that a new Order in Council should be passed with reference to prizes taken by the Army, and he had been in communication with the Paymaster
  1010
  General of the Forces on the subject. He hoped, as soon as this Bill had become law, to be enabled to lay before Her Majesty some measure for assimilating to a greater extent the laws of the two services. Up to the present time the greatest discrepancies had existed relative to the distribution of prize money in the Army, and it was very desirable that the practice should be placed on a footing more uniform and satisfactory. With reward to the measure for the Navy, it had always been the practice to vary the Bill according to the circumstances of the war in which the country was engaged; but all the prize Acts that ever had passed had been in their character and main particulars similar, differing only according to the circumstances. On the present occasion there were circumstances which differed from any former wars in which we had been engaged, and which required that in this measure some alterations should be made from previous measures. In the first place this was the first war in which we had been engaged in which at its commencement we engage we had been in such intimate relation with an ally as we were at the present moment with France. That would make some difference in the Bills now before their Lordships, as compared with previous measures for the regulation of prize money. That morning a paper had been circulated and laid upon their Lordships' table, containing a copy of the convention which had been effected between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French upon the subject; and by that and by the Bill now under consideration it was proposed to carry out the proposals which had been made on behalf of the two Governments. Another fault which had been found under the operation of preceding prize Acts, and which was now sought to be obviated, was the great delay which had taken place in the distribution of money, the proceeds of the sale of prizes. That also would cause a difference. Another complaint which had been made—and made with great justice—had reference to the enormous waste which had been allowed on former occasions, and more especially in the last war, in many parts of the world, although more especially in the colonies of this country than on the coasts of the British Islands. A further alteration in the present Bill, which was one of omission, had reference to privateering. Their Lordships were aware that at the commencement of the war a

  1011
  proclamation had been issued, stating that no privateers would be allowed; and, therefore, many of the provisions of previous prize Acts which applied to privateering were unnecessary and had been omitted. With the exception of these few points, the provisions of the present Bill were substantially the same as those which had been passed at the commencement of previous wars. The Bill contained the usual provision as regarded bounties; but to give effect to that clause, the further intervention of Parliament would be necessary, inasmuch as it had been the practice of Parliament to vote sums of money for the service after the termination of the war. These were the principal provisions of the Bill, which he had gone over as rapidly as possible, as he wished to reserve himself to answer any objection that might be made to the measure. The first clause of the Bill to which he expected some opposition would be made was the 15th. The provisions of that clause were new in substance as well as in form. The alteration which had been made in the present measure was in consequence of the enormous loss and waste which had occurred in the course of the last war, the enormous waste of prize money, which, in many instances, had not found its way to its rightful owners. He was afraid that some of those highly respectable gentlemen, the Navy agents of London, might feel that some stigma was meant to be cast upon them by the provisions of this 15th clause. Undoubtedly, whenever an alteration of this kind took place, and when parties who had hitherto enjoyed the exercise of certain rights and duties were deprived of them, there might be some appearance of stigma cast upon them. However, he might safely say, that no such intention had existed on the part of the Legislature, and certainly there was none on the part of the Government. Undoubtedly the Government had felt that the position of the Navy agents, in respect of the duties which devolved upon them in the late war, were anomalous and improper. The Navy agents were in reality bankers and accountants, and were charged with duties which could only be properly performed by gentlemen exercising the profession of shipkeepers. It was proposed that, instead of devolving upon those agents the duties which they undertook on former occasions—and they not only undertook the duties of bankers and accountants, but prizes, when taken, were handed over to them, sold by them, and
  1012
  the proceeds, after deducting their own expenses, paid by them into the hands of those entitled to them—it was proposed now that those duties, the delivery of the vessels seized, and the sale of them, should devolve on public officers, either on the Admiralty Marshal at home, or in the colonies, the collector of Customs acting as his substitute. He had already said that no stigma was meant to be cast on the Navy agents of this country as a class; but the Government were, of course, aware that among all classes of men there were some who were not as respectable and as solvent as they ought to be. Undoubtedly that had been the case, and great hardships had been inflicted upon the captors in former instances by failures that took place among Navy agents, by which failures those who were entitled to large sums of money had been deprived of them. During the late war, in the West Indies alone, the loss in this manner had been calculated at the enormous sum of two millions of money. Now, surely, when they were placed on the eve of a war, the duration of which it was impossible to calculate, it was very improper that our sailors should be subjected to those enormous losses of advantages which it was the intention of Parliament to confer upon them. He thought their Lordships would be more ready to acquiesce in the alteration now proposed, because it would be a great boon more to the men than to the officers. In the late war it was the practice for the Navy agents to make considerable advances to the officers; in many instances very nearly equal to the amount to which they were ultimately declared entitled, so that they had no further interest to expedite the sale. But the men stood in a totally different position; no advances were ever made to them; and, while they were always condemned to a considerable loss by the delay in the payment of the money due to them, they sometimes also totally lost, through these failures, all that they had become entitled to. To obviate this serious inconvenience, it was proposed, as he had already stated, that responsible public officers should undertake the duties formerly devolving on Navy agents. A further provision was also introduced, providing that sales of prizes should in future be all by public auction. The object of that provision would be at once recognised. It removed all individual and private interest. He believed it was an established and recognised fact as regarded ships in

  1013
  particular, that, when sold under a decree of the Admiralty, they fetched a much higher price when sold by auction publicly than when privately disposed of. He believed, therefore, that in framing that provision, while they provided for a larger sum to be eventually distributed, they provided also greater security as regarded the eventual payment of that sum, and less delay in its distribution than had heretofore been experienced. It was also to be considered that the guarantee of the public purse was given in this case, and yet no danger to the public purse was incurred by the responsibility undertaken by the Paymaster General. He had reason to believe, from a note that he had received from one of those gentlemen, that the Navy agents thought they were being deprived of all remuneration for their services. That was entirely an error on their part. A careful consideration was given to this point before the Bill was introduced. By the 2 Geo. IV. c. 20, s. 29, 2½ per cent was allotted as the Commission to Navy agents upon payment of all sums to those entitled to receive them. That Act had in no way been departed from; for, by the present measure, precisely as they were entitled at the present moment, so would they be entitled if the Bill passed. They were entitled to 2½, and no more; he referred, of course, to all officers except to a captain, for from that officer, on account of the much larger share that he received, the Navy agent was entitled to 5½ per cent. There was another Act of Parliament, the 4 Geo. III. c. 93, by which the captain of a vessel and his crew were, by a majority, enabled to appoint a Navy agent. A noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) had apprehended that after the passing of this Bill that power in a captain and his crew would cease to exist; but that was an error, for this Bill did not in any way alter either the 2 or the 4 Geo. III. By the 24th and 26th clauses of the Bill, a sale by public auction was provided, and the proceeds of the sale would be paid into the hands of the Paymaster General. By clause 33 an appeal is given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council instead of to Commissioners of Appeal, as was the case during the last war. A second objection raised by the noble and learned Lord was, that the Bill had a retrospective effect. He (the Duke of Newcastle) had yet to learn that that was the case; but even if it were, he believed it would be productive of no serious damage, as it could
  1014
  only apply to one or two cases of salvage. The noble Duke concluded by moving "That the House be now put into Committee on the said Bill."
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that important as it certainly was to devise a good mode of keeping and dividing the prizes when captured, and however desirable it might be to propose new regulations, he confessed that there was in his mind a consideration more important still—to whom these prizes ought to belong. With regard to the Navy agents, all he would say was that formerly they had not only their commission of 2½ per cent, but they derived still further advantages from the keeping of the money for so long a time in their own hands. As that advantage was now to be taken from them, while their trouble was not to be lessened, he thought it was but just and fair that their commission of 2½ per cent should be increased. But the more important question was who should have the prize. With regard to the Bill itself, he was sorry that their Lordships had dispensed with discussion of the Bill on the stage of the second reading, for suggestions might have been made which would have led Her Majesty's Government to prepare Amendments for the Committee. That was now too late; and he was afraid the Bill would become an Act of Parliament in a very imperfect state, and likely to inflict great injury; for nothing could be more injurious than that at the commencement of a war Parliament should so legislate with respect to prizes, as to run the risk of creating misunderstandings and heartburnings between the two services—the Army and the Navy—which should have every inducement to act together. It must be remembered that this war—more especially in the Black Sea, which was the great theatre of operations—would be carried on by the Army and Navy in conjunction, and therefore all regulations with respect to prizes should be adapted to the new state of things which must necessarily arise. But what was the state of the case? They had seen arrangements entered into between the English and French Governments; but then that only concerned the co-operation of the fleets of the two countries, and no mention was made of an arrangement between the armies and the fleets. It was most strange, too, that although provision was made for a division in the case of the co-operation of the allied fleets, none was made for the co-operation of the allied

  1015
  armies, or even for the co-operation of our own Army. Suppose the case of a combined operation of the allied fleets and armies for the purpose of taking up a position in respect to the port of Sebastopol, by which the Russian fleet were either destroyed or compelled to go out to meet the blockading ships—could it be said that the Army, winch had co-operated in this result, should have no share in the capture or destruction of the enemy's fleet? Yet no provision was made for giving prize to the Army which should have so co-operated. The next clause related to the capture by Her Majesty's ships of a fortress—and so careful had the gentleman who drew the Bill been, in order to be precise, that he actually provided that it should be "a fortress upon land." The whole property was to belong to the captors. Here, again, there was no provision for the allied fleets, for the allied army, or for our own Army. The Bill certainly contained a clause which provided for conjoint operations of the Navy and Army; but that clause had reference only to our own Army, and not to the allied army. Indeed, in these respects, he must say that he did not recollect to have ever seen a Bill of so important a character drawn so carelessly. He must also draw attention to the provisions in the 6th clause. It provided that the officers and crew of any of Her Majesty's ships who took any fortress upon land, or any vessel in any river or creek belonging to or defended by such fortress, should have prize. He wished these conditions to be noticed. The river in which ships were taken must be defended by a fortress, and the fortress must be taken. No provision was made for the case where the fortress was not taken, but where the ship was cut out; and in order to make the ship a prize, she must be in a river or creek belonging to or defended by a fortress. So that the safest place for enemies' ships to go into would be an undefended river or creek, because there would be no inducements for our seamen to follow them, except public duty, inasmuch as they would not be prizes except they were taken in a river or creek belonging to or defended by a fortress. The next clause, the 7th, supposed a conjoint operation of Her Majesty's Army with the Navy, not merely against a fortress, but against a possession; and here a different rule applied. All these were matters of great importance, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would take
  1016
  them into serious consideration. The rule which had prevailed in the Navy with respect to prize was entirely different from that prevailing in the Army; but he apprehended that no attempt would be made to alter it as far as concerned the Army. In the Army, all the forces participated in the prize whose position could be understood to have contributed to the capture, however distant they might be from the place where the capture was effected. It was so held in the Deccan, in Scinde, in Spain, and at Waterloo, and, in fact, in was the general law of the Army. But in the proclamation, which he believed was framed in conformity with the ancient practice, it was declared that—
  "Ships or vessels being in sight of the prize, as also of tile captor, under circumstances to cause intimidation to the enemy and encouragement to the captor, shall be alone entitled to share as joint captors."
  It was much to be regretted that no attempt had been made to render the rule clear, in order that suits might be avoided. To this end two points ought to be considered—the matter of fact and the matter of opinion. The matter of fact was, whether the ship was seen, at the time of the capture, by the captor, and by the vessel taken; the matter of opinion was, she was seen under circumstances which tended to intimidate the vessel taken and to encourage the captor. There was no security whatever in any case, except where the ship was actually near, that the question I might not have to be submitted to a judicial tribunal. Now, it was most undesirable that brother officers should thus be compelled, as it were, to resort to court of law with each other in order to settle their claims; and in order to avoid this evil some clear rule ought to be established. Suppose the principle of distribution of prize which prevailed in the Army was established, and there was a combined operation of the Army and the Navy to get possession of a place or fortress. If the place were captured by the Army whilst the naval part of the force were not in sight of the fortress at the time of capture, that naval force would not, under the provisions of the existing proclamation, share with the military in the advantages derived from the capture. Now, it was most impolitic to permit the existence of such a state of things. Again, if a ship were taken, head money was allowed at the rate of 5l. a man. It was more difficult to take a fortress than a ship; but if a fortress were

  1017
  taken no head money was allowed; although a fortress might be taken by the well-sharpened cutlasses of Her Majesty's seamen. Such were some of the omissions in the Bill. Of course, their Lordships had not the power to supply them; but he hoped the Government would adopt the same rule in both cases—that where a fortress was taken the rule should be exactly the same as where a ship was taken. But he must add that it was certainly a subject of great doubt whether, in a war so peculiar as the present, it was advisable to adhere strictly to the old naval principle in respect to the right of prize. In the Baltic and in the Black Sea the enemy's fleet was confined to port. The port was blockaded by the line-of-battle ships, which blockade enabled all the smaller vessels, without any risk or danger to themselves, to take prizes. The smaller vessels then got the prizes; but the men serving in the line-of-battle ships blockading the ports, and who had the hardest work, would get nothing, unless the enemy's fleet should happen to venture out. In that case, in the event of victory proving on our side, which he could not doubt, they would obtain prize money. But the hardship of the case was that the smaller vessels would also share in the prize, although they might not assist in the battle. This was an anomaly which ought to come under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and he suggested that, considering the peculiarity of the war, the strictness of the rule ought to be modified. The Bill was a Bill for "the more effectual manning of Her Majesty's Navy;" and the object was to get men to man the large ships. But it said to the men who were asked to man these ships, "Prize money you shall have none; the prize money shall all belong to the smaller ships, because they alone will have the opportunity of obtaining it." In the last war there was danger in attempting to take prize, here there was none at all, for the smaller vessels took it, while the line-of-battle ships did the real work. Of this, however, he was sure, that as combined operations of the Army and Navy were contemplated, it was most desirable that in respect to all combined operations, there should be only one rule—that the naval man should not feel that he was fighting by the side of the soldier, and exposed to equal risk, without the chance of getting anything, while the soldier was to share in the prize. Such a state of things was contrary to equity, and
  1018
  it could not be allowed to exist. In conclusion, he expressed his conviction that material alterations were required in the Bill, in order to give satisfaction to the two services, and for the purpose of avoiding misunderstandings among the men engaged in the war.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he was not going to advocate the cause of the Navy or prize agents, but the cause of the officers and seamen of Her Majesty's Navy; being extremely apprehensive that under the system which the Bill before them proposed to establish, the distribution of prize money would not be so carefully watched over or so quickly paid as under the operation of the system which had hitherto prevailed. It was right that the House should understand what that system was, because there had been a mixing up of the two subjects, the prize agency in the Navy and the prize agency of individual officers. Under the old Act of Parliament, the mode in which prizes had been dealt with upon reaching this country was as follows:—They were received by men who had been appointed under the Act of Parliament, termed prize agents, who dealt with the captured property, after a decision passed in the Court of Admiralty, by sale, and divided the proceeds of that sale in conformity with the provisions of the law. The mode in which those agents were appointed was somewhat peculiar. They were chosen by the captain and officers of each ship, in conjunction with the majority on board, in whom the authority to make the selection was properly vested. That system enabled the officers and the ship's company to have in existence in England an agent who represented their wishes and desires in this country with respect to the disposition of their property. Now, he would ask whether it was not a matter of the greatest importance to the captors that in their absence there should be certain parties in those ports at Which the prizes might arrive in whose ability to serve them, and to dispose of their property to advantage,they might implicitly rely? Yet the Bill under their Lordships' consideration altogether ignored persons of that description, and proposed at once to deal with the captured vessel, by handing her over to the Admiralty Court and placing her in the hands of the Queen's proctor, who was to carry on the whole process connected with the matter—both for the Crown upon the one side and the captor upon the other. He had

  1019
  been informed that there was a case now pending in which the captor of a vessel which had been taken in the Baltic, and which had been put into the port of Hartlepool, had been offered 500 l. for the ship. He was, however, unable to sell her, inasmuch as no decision had at the time been come to with regard to her by the Admiralty, and the consequence had been that the vessel was now about to be sold for 200 l., and the loss of the remaining 300 l. might be attributed to the fact that the captor had no agent to take charge of ins interests. The noble Duke said, that Under the present Bill prize agents would still be enabled to act; but that was entirely a fallacious statement, for there was in the measure before the House no provision which set up anything whatsoever in the shape of prize agency; and he must be permitted to observe with reference to the imputation made against prize agents, "that there was much delay connected with the system under which they acted"—there existed in reality no greater amount of delay than had been rendered necessary by the operation of the clause of appeal, and the law had been altered even to meet that case. It had also been stated that considerable sums of money had been lost through prize agents. There could be no doubt that in the Colonies, in consequence of the character and position of the gentlemen who had been there employed as prize agents during the war, considerable loss had accrued in many instances to the captors; but he believed that neither in this city nor in the various ports throughout the country in which prize agents had been employed, had there been any instance of similar losses having been incurred. The whole of the agency proceedings was now to be done in the Marshal's office, and, considering the probable length of the war, he doubted whether the present machinery would suffice. He was perfectly sure that the loss to the captors in time and money would be more than a set-off to any advantages which they might gain, and that they would be deprived of many of the comforts and advantages they derived in the way of advances and in other ways under the old system of prize agency. Nothing could be more fallacious than the statement of his noble Friend, that though advances had been made to the officers no advances had been made to the men. His noble Friend was also mistaken in saying that there was nothing of a retrospective character in the Bill. Certain words in the fifth clause evi-
  1020
  dently showed that it would have a retrospective operation, and that it would have a very serious effect as regarded agents. A great number of important cases were at present pending, and if the Bill passed in its present shape the Navy agents would be unable to recover any remuneration. Comparing the advantages of the old system, and the disadvantages of the new system, he must say, that if ever he was again called on for active service afloat, he should infinitely prefer to have the advantages of the old system grounded on Act of Parliament, by which the captors could appoint a trustworthy agent to look after their interests in this country, to any system which would intrust their interests to the hands of a Government officer.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that the principle as regarded prize money in the Navy was very different from that which regulated the distribution of prizes in the Army, and he was firmly of opinion that in joint operations of the naval and land forces only one principle should be acted upon. In the Navy prize money was distributed among those persons only who were present at the capture; but in the Army it was distributed among those who had been instructed to be present. He did not wish on the present occasion to express any opinion as to which of those principles ought to be acted upon in joint operations, for that might form matter for much consideration; but he was firmly convinced that only one principle ought to be acted upon. As to the question as to whether the prize should be delivered to a Government officer or remain in the hands of private agents, he very much concurred in what had fallen from the noble Earl who last addressed their Lordships, that it was much more advantageous to the captors that they should employ private agents. There were two questions which he wished to put to the Government as to the operation of the measure. Under the old system there was a great convenience existing from the power of defraying small sums which might be necessary, and he wished to know if that convenience would continue to exist? It also sometimes became necessary to insure vessels, and that was formerly done by the agents, and he wished to know what would be the course adopted as to effecting insurances under the present system? He also wished to observe, with regard to the suggestion that captors had incurred loss in consequence of the failure of agents, that it had some-

  1021
  times occurred in foreign ports that an agent had become bankrupt, but he did not think that such a thing had ever taken place in London.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEwould as briefly as possible reply to the objections which had been urged by the three noble Lords who had last addressed the House against the measure. With regard to the charge of establishing a public officer in the place of prize agents, it had been suggested that there would be some hardship, inasmuch as the agents would have the same trouble as before, but would not have the same remuneration; but, in point of fact, the agents would not have the same trouble, and they would receive certain commissions, and their whole disbursement and costs would be allowed to them. With regard to the advantages to the captors of having an agent to sell the prizes in the present war, that would not be of any considerable advantage, for the agent would not be on the spot, as a great many prizes would be sold in foreign ports. He thought that in the case referred to by the noble Earl of a prize being sent from Hartlepool to London, and so having suffered a deterioration of 300 l., it was to be considered that it was not by any means certain that 500 l. had been offered for the ship, although it was just possible that some person might have casually remarked that she was worth 500 l., and he thought that the noble Earl would admit that in general, with rare exceptions, vessels bore a higher value in the port of London than in any other port in the kingdom; but even if that were not the case, the Bill contained no provision which prevented a prize being sold in any other port. The main provision of the Bill was, that, prizes should be sold by public auction, instead of, as hitherto, by private sale, and that, he conceived, every one must allow to be a great advantage, for although, undoubtedly, as a body, the Navy agents were a very meritorious class of men, still there were some doubtful characters in every class, and a public sale would be far more effective in preventing anything like jobbing than a private sale; in fact, it would preclude the possibility of it. With regard to the statement of the noble Earl, that no prize agents had failed in this country—[The Earl of HARDWICKE: During the war.] He begged the noble Earl's pardon for having misunderstood him, but another noble Lord (Lord Colchester) had not confined himself to the period of the war, and
  1022
  he could assure him that he was completely mistaken. He could not be expected to mention names, but he could inform the noble Lord that, out of thirteen failures of agents, eight had taken place in London, and two of them as recently as within the last seven years. The noble Lord had asked him two questions, to which he was most happy to give an answer. The noble Lord stated that under the old system a convenience had existed from the agents defraying small necessary expenses, and he wished to know if that would continue under the new system. He could say, in answer to that question, that the agent would be able to take out a power of attorney to defray small necessary expenses; and, with regard to the second question, instructions had been given to the Marshal of the Admiralty to insure all vessels in every case. A noble Earl who had addressed their Lordships had raised an objection of another character to the Bill. He had objected to it on the ground that there was no provision in it to regulate the distribution of prize money in conjoint operations of the naval and land forces. It had been considered by the Government that, until this measure passed into a law, the time had not arrived for undertaking to deal with that question. The provisions of this Bill were based upon former practice, and, although he was ready to admit that there might be inconvenience from the fact of two different principles coming into play in the case of joint operations, still, at the same time, he was of opinion that the disadvantages which would accrue from a change would more than counterbalance any advantage gained by departing from a system which had been found to work sufficiently well in previous wars. A change in the system would, he thought, give rise to numberless questions, and he could not help thinking that, on the whole, the arguments used were rather in favour of adherence to the present system. The course which had been adopted in the present Bill had been adopted after consultation with eminent naval officers, and after the most careful consideration by the Board of Admiralty. Another suggestion had been made, that the payment of head-money should be extended to the cases of capture of fortresses as well as of ships; but he thought the principle was liable to abuse, and it would hardly be safe to give to it any greater extension than it now had. In some such cases particular grants had been made by Par-

  1023
  liament, which secured every object of pecuniary reward in a sounder and more effectual form. It was a mistake to suppose that the Bill would have a retrospective effect. The measure was to come into operation on the 1st of June, and its operation would only date from that period, and have no retroactive effect whatever.
  On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative; House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without Amendment: an Amendment made, and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned to Tuesday next.