Sitting of 26 April 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Parish Constables; Downing Street Public Offices Extension; Woolmer Forest; Personal Estates of Intestates; Grants of Lands.
2o Loan; Income Tax; Customs Duties; Spirit Duties (Scotland and Ireland; Despatch of Business (Court of Chancery).

BURIALS IN VAULTS—QUESTION.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he wished to put the following question to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary:—By a clause in the Burial Act a discretionary power was vested in the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to grant a licence in certain specified cases for interment in vaults. That power, however, was never exercised except on the report of a Government Inspector, but that report could never be obtained in time for use. He would, therefore, beg to ask the secretary of state, whether in any town, where a primâ facie case can be shown that such licence may be granted without detriment to the public health, he would cause an inspection to be at once made of all such vaults as the proprietors may wish to have reported upon?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated the effect of the provision in the Act with perfect accuracy. The discretionary power vested in the Secretary of State was qualified by law. He was to exercise it when it could be done without prejudice to the public health, and of course he
1786
would not feel justified in doing so, except upon the report of a medical inspector. Everything must depend upon the circumstances of the case, and it was necessary that a strong prima facie case should first be made out. The licence was obviously impracticable where a person was dead, because there would not be time to make previous inspection, and the Secretary of State was not justified by law in granting a licence without the report of a medical inspector.

INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS—QUESTION.
MR. W. LOCKHARTsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it was his intention, in dealing with the income tax, to remove the injustice to which the proprietors of lands and houses in Scotland were subjected, in respect that no deductions were allowed to them for rates or taxes, in accordance with the practice in England and Ireland?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the misapprehension that there was a difference in the law of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with regard to deductions allowed to landlords for the income tax. That was not the fact, as the law was precisely the same in a all three countries. An allowance was made in respect of rates charged to the occupier, but none in respect of rates charged to the landlord. Those rates which must be by the law of England charged on the landlord, stood as part of his assessment, and were not deducted from it in England or Scotland more than in Ireland. It was, however, true that there were certain rates which in Scotland fell on the landlord and not on the tenant, but in England fell on the tenant and not on the landlord. In that respect, practically, the landlord in Scotland was under a disadvantage as compared with the landlord in England, but the law was precisely the same in both countries. It was not his intention to propose any change in this respect in the Bill that would be introduced.

THE CAMP AT ALDERSHOT—QUESTION.
COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, he begged to inquire of the First Lord of the Treasury what arrangements had been made as regarded the intended encampment at Aldershot, and whether the force would con-consist of cavalry, yeomanry, artillery, line, and militia regiments?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, arrangements had been made for erecting at Aldershot huts for 10,000 men, the greater part of which were already prepared, and the rest would very speedily be ready. The intention was to have there twenty regiments of militia, some regiments of the line—how many was not exactly determined—three battalions of field artillery, and two or three troops of cavalry. It was not intended to have any yeomanry, as that force was called out only for eight days, and if they were sent to Aldershot, unless their head-quarters were very near, the whole time of training would be lost in marching, and it was not desirable to take the persons composing that force for too long a period from their natural avocations.
COLONEL BOLDERO: If they volunteered for permanent duty?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The permanent duty of the yeomanry is for eight days.

CAVALRY IN THE CRIMEA—QUESTION.
MR. NOELsaid, that in consequence of the casualties of war, our cavalry force in the Crimea had been nearly destroyed, and was at present unable to take the field. It would be most satisfactory to know that reinforcements had been sent out, and he therefore begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War what steps had been taken to increase our cavalry force, and to maintain the effective establishment of the different regiments; and also, whether it was the intention of the Government to forward without delay, in steam transports, large draughts of the different cavalry regiments now in the Crimea?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, the establishment of the cavalry force at the present time, as compared with its amount at the same time last year, was, he believed, just double, both with regard to men and horses. An arrangement had been made that each regiment of cavalry in this country should raise for active service about 120 men and 300 horses. The cavalry force in the Crimea had been increased by bringing from India two cavalry regiments which had passed through Egypt and had now reached their destination. In addition 550 men and double that number of horses were now on their passage from this country to the Crimea; and upwards of 1,100 men and horses had been ordered to proceed to the same destination. One
1788
of the ships which had been taken up for the conveyance of these reinforcements was a steamer; the others, he believed, were sailing vessels. He might further state that it was intended to form at Scutari a reserve of about 150 men and horses for each of the cavalry regiments now in the Crimea.
MR. NOEL: Are those reserves to be forwarded by steam transports?
MR. PEEL: It is very difficult to obtain steam transports at the present time, therefore some sailing vessels must be employed.

TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH BALAKLAVA—QUESTION.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he understood the electric telegraph to Balaklava was to have been opened either yesterday or to-day. He wished to know if any information had been received from the seat of war by its means; and if so, whether the noble Lord had any objection to state what was the nature of that information? Also, whether the telegraph was to be open for the use of the public?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the hon. Gentleman has been correctly informed, the telegraph is open, and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty received a message to-day and one yesterday; but it did not contain any news from the Crimea—it simply announced that the telegraph was open. I am not able to answer my hon. Friend's other question, as to whether any arrangements will be made for opening the use of the telegraph to others than the Government. I will give him an answer to that another day.
MR. LAYARD: Then there is no information whether the bombardment of Sebastopol has been successful or not?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The telegraphic message did not bear upon that.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, perhaps he might be permitted to state that he yesterday received by the telegraph a message from Sir Edmund Lyons, dated the day before, acknowledging the receipt of a communication from the Admiralty; and to-day another message from the consul at Bucharest, stating that he had no news to communicate.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he begged to inquire if he rightly understood the First Lord of the Admiralty to say that the telegraph was entirely open from this country to Balaklava? If so, how long would the

1789
transmission of a message between the two points occupy?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, it was not open the whole of the way to Balaklava. The submarine telegraph was laid down from the Crimea to Varna; but there was no telegraph between Varna and Cape Kaliega. As soon as the wire could be laid down along that distance the communication by electric telegraph would be complete. The message received yesterday, the 25th, from Sir Edmund Lyons, was dated the 24th.
MR. ROEBUCK: Then in twenty-four hours we could communicate with Balaklava. Under these circumstances would the noble Lord at the head of the Government think it within the scope of his duty, seeing the natural anxiety of the public upon the subject, to communicate without loss of time whatever might happen there?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I may state to the House that it is my intention to request my noble Friend at the head of the War Department to urge upon the commander of the forces to let us have every day some information of what is passing at the seat of war.

SPIRIT DUTIES (SCOTLAND AND IRE- LAND) BILL.
MR. FAGANsaid, he begged to ask if it was intended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to amend the schedule of this Bill, so as to remove the objections made to it by the compounders, rectifiers and dealers in Spirits in Scotland and Ireland, on the ground that it subjected their stock in hand to the increased rate of duty?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the effect of an augmentation of the duty on spirits, on former occasions, had been to charge spirits, whether in bond or duty paid, in the hands of distillers, but not to charge spirits which were in the hands of wholesale dealers. It appeared, however, to the Government that there was no difference in principle between spirits in the hands of distillers and spirits in the hands of wholesale dealers, and they accordingly included both classes of persons in the Resolutions they had proposed to the House. In taking that step they were influenced by the information they had received as to the large quantity of spirits which had been taken out for consumption in Scotland and Ireland before the financial statement was made on the part of the Government. In the fortnight ending the 7th of April last the quantity of spirits
1790
upon which duty was paid in the district of South Argyll was 37,594 gallons; in Edinburgh, 36,494 gallons; Glasgow, 87,204 gallons; Linlithgow, 18,366 gallons; and Stirling, 39,182 gallons; while in the fortnight ending the 21st of April the quantity upon which duty was paid was, in the district of South Argyll, 105,462 gallons; in Edinburgh, 146,309 gallons; Glasgow, 376,690 gallons: Linlithgow, 72,593 gallons; and Stirling, 105,800 gallons. He found also with respect to Ireland that the amount of spirits upon which duty was paid in the fortnight ending April 7, 1855, was in Belfast, 77,928 gallons; in Cork, 43,064 gallons; in Dublin, 76,522 gallons; in Drogheda, 28,205 gallons; and in Waterford, 15,835 gallons; while in the fortnight ending the 21st of April, the quantity was in Belfast, 121,440 gallons; in Cork, 99,632 gallons; in Dublin, 145,623 gallons; in Drogheda, 60,660 gallons; and in Waterford, 71,200 gallons. It was clear, therefore, that the dealers, speculating upon some probable increase of the spirit duty, had taken a large quantity of spirits out of bond in the fortnight preceding the announcement of the budget, and this circumstance explained the intention of the Government to apply their Resolution to the wholesale dealers. He fully admitted the importance of precedents in matters of this kind. As they were now imposing a large additional duty upon spirits in Scotland and Ireland, it might perhaps seem somewhat unfair on the part of the Government to depart from the ordinary custom, and possibly when in Committee he might be enabled to modify his original proposition.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he wished to know whether the same answer would apply to other articles on which the duties had been augmented?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, a considerable additional quantity of sugar had been taken out of bond, but only a small quantity of tea.

CONFERENCES AT VIENNA—QUESTION.
MR. BRIGHT: I wish, Sir, to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he is prepared to lay on the table of the House papers that will give full information as to the transactions that have taken place at Vienna, in order that at some early period the whole of this question and the condition of the country with regard to the war may be taken into consideration by the House? I observe that

1791
the Foreign Minister, in giving some information upon the subject in another place, has promised that all the papers connected with it shall be laid upon the table, and I trust that the same course will be followed in this House.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: There is nothing, Sir, more reasonable or more common than that when a correspondence is communicated to one House of Parliament, it is communicated to the other House also; so that when the papers to which my hon. Friend has referred are laid on the table of the House of Lords, they will be laid on the table of the House of Commons likewise. I do not undertake to fix any particular day when the papers will be produced. My noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) has not yet returned home, and, though we have had telegraphic messages up to a particular date, I am not in a position to name the day on which the papers will be laid on the table. I can only say that no unnecessary delay will occur in giving to the House the fullest information.
MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I shall be prepared, if any undue delay takes place, to make a specific Motion on the subject.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he would take that opportunity of asking the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whether the French Ambassador, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, left Vienna at the same time as the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, or if he had left Vienna at all?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I cannot say whether or not M. Drouyn de Lhuys left Vienna at the same time as my noble Friend, but I imagine that he has left by this time.

CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he should not oppose the Bill at that stage, but should do so strongly in Committee, and at every subsequent stage. If it were not abandoned, he considered that it would create discontent all over the country.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to what had fallen from the hon. Secretary to the Treasury on a former occasion, in reference to the imports of sugar from the West Indies. He admitted that there had been an increase in those imports, but the West India interest received more for the smaller quantity eight years ago than they had received for the larger quantity in the pre-
1792
sent year; the difference being, independent of the extra expense of producing a larger quantity 782,000 l. That showed the depressed state of the West India interest, caused by the measures adopted by the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench, and under these circumstances it was not right to lay an increased duty on sugar, which would certainly cause a further loss to the West India interest to the amount, he should think, of 160,000 l. a year at least. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the duty on tea was to be reduced at the end of the war by the action of the present Bill, while no similar provision was made with respect to the duties on coffee and sugar, which were the produce of our colonies, for which, he thought, we ought to feel a greater regard than for the Chinese.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would explain the reasons which determined the Government to make the distinction noticed by the hon. Gentleman between the duty on tea and the duties on sugar and coffee. An Act which received the assent of Parliament at the beginning of the Session suspended the further reduction of the duty on tea, but that suspension was limited in the manner expressed in the present Bill—namely, until a year after the conclusion of the war. It was therefore thought in imposing a further duty on tea, that the same rule should be applied. He had, however, hesitated to extend that rule to the duties on coffee and sugar, inasmuch as such a course might appear too much to interfere with the discretion of Parliament in afterwards dealing with those duties. But he would admit that the matter was open to reconsideration, and if, in Committee on the Bill, it should be the general desire to consider the additional duties on tea and coffee merely as war taxes, he should not be disposed to oppose the proposition.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that with reference to a speech of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury on a former evening, he must say, that the same causes which had recently rendered the cultivation of sugar profitable in the Mauritius had also operated in the West Indies. Twenty years ago, Jamaica alone produced 70,000 tons of sugar per annum; while now it only produced 22,000, and for those the net receipt per ton was only half what it was at the former period, owing to the diminution of price and the

1793
increase in the cost of cultivation. He thought, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman was hardly justified in saying that the condition of Jamaica was one of increasing prosperity. In fact, there were only two West Indian colonies which had obtained a good supply of labour which were otherwise than in a state of the greatest possible depression. Jamaica, in particular, was in a comparative state of ruin.
MR. GREGSONsaid, he very much regretted the absence of reciprocity in our dealings with the Chinese, for while we taxed the commodities imported from them at the rate of 180 per cent, we insisted on their taking ours at a Customs duty of only 6 per cent. He feared that the increase of the duty on tea would materially check our trade with China, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not derive the additional revenue he anticipated either from the increased duty on tea or that on sugar.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, it was a source of considerable regret to him, the selection of articles made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the imposition of additional Customs duties; he would admit, nevertheless, that the Customs duties ought to bear their fair share in the additional taxation demanded by the position of the country. Two of the articles chosen for increased taxation were the productions of our own colonies, which would therefore suffer from any decrease in their consumption. While, owing to an Act of Parliament having been passed only at the commencement of the Session, to arrest the fall of the duty on the third article—tea—those interested in the trade naturally supposed that no further alteration in the duty would take place in the course of the present year, and had sent out their orders under that impression. He thought the fair method of dealing with the Customs duties would have been to have raised the whole 10 per cent, which upon the 20,000,000 l. to which these taxes amounted would have given the Chancellor of the Exchequer all the additional income he desired to raise, from this source. Luxuries would then have paid as much as necessaries, and the measure would not have been open to the objection of selecting for increased taxation only articles of general consumption; and articles which were either the produce of our own colonies, or upon which there was every reason to believe that no increased duties would be levied during this year.
MR. HEYWORTHsaid, if they placed a duty upon articles of general consumption, it was an inevitable effect that their price should be increased, and their consumption diminished. Not only so, but trade in general must be diminished. For these reasons he regarded Customs duties in general as not based on sound financial principles, and believed that we ought to raise the additional revenue required by direct, rather than indirect taxation.
MR. LAINGsaid, he objected so strongly to the Bill, that, if he were supported, he should be ready to divide the House against it. The principle on which it went involved an entire reversal of Sir Robert Peel's commercial and financial policy, which had been carried out during the last ten years with such success, by the cautious and gradual substitution of direct for indirect taxation, and the removal of duties on articles of general consumption. In fiscal matters two and two did not always make four. If, by an addition to the taxation on articles of general consumption a corresponding increase could be obtained in the revenue, no great objection could be urged to such a proposal in a time of war like the present; but all experience showed that it was perfectly possible to go on increasing the taxation on articles of consumption for an indefinite period, without in the end at all benefiting the revenue; nay, it might be with a positive loss. The plan suggested by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) of adding a percentage to the Customs duties had been tried, and had failed. It was on the failure of that policy that Sir Robert Peel resolved to meet the necessities of the State by the imposition of an income tax, and at the same time to reduce the Customs duties. What had been the results? Why, that while in the eleven years from 1842 to 1853 the balance of taxes repealed over taxes imposed was 6,716,000 l., the revenue had actually increased by 6,891,000 l. Nay, more, during that period nearly 9,000,000 l. out of the 21,000,000 l. raised by the Customs duties at its commencement had been repealed, and yet the revenue from this source had not suffered to the extent of more than 1,000,000 l. He contended that nothing could be more impolitic than by this Bill to commence the reversal of a policy which had led to such an expansion of trade and commerce, and had so materially contributed to the prosperity of the working classes. If by this means they permanently crippled the

1795
resources of the country, it would be a poor consolation that for the first year or two of what might be a long war, they had been able to extract a slight increase of Customs duties from the pockets of the people. Besides, the moral and social effects of the adoption of Sir Robert Peel's policy were of even greater importance than its financial and commercial results. The upper classes, and those who lived by labour of head rather than of hand, had shown, by submitting to the income tax, that they were ready not only to bear their fair share of fiscal burdens, but, if necessary, even to make sacrifices in order to lighten their pressure upon the working population; and their free trade measures had done more to remove discontent among the lower classes, than all the political changes they could name. Now, he would ask, was it wise or safe, then, in the midst of a European war, and with the feeling now prevalent against the upper classes for their mismanagement, to reverse a financial policy from which the labouring population had reaped such advantage, and, before we had submitted to as heavy a property tax as our forefathers sustained in the last war, seek to extract from those who could worst afford it, 1,000,000 l. or 2,000,000 l. annually in the shape of increased duties on tea, coffee, and sugar. An augmentation of indirect taxation ought to be resorted to only under extreme necessity; and rather than adopt such a course there were two other alternatives, either of which would be far preferable. One was to raise the additional 1,500,000 l. or 2,000,000 l. that were requisite by a further increase of the income tax—an impost which, however liable to objections, pressed more lightly on the springs of industry and the resources of the country than Customs duties. No doubt there was a practical limit to the imposition of direct taxation; but as it would most probably be necessary next year, should the present state of things continue, to raise the income tax to 10 per cent—the amount levied in the last war—would it not be better to fix it at 8 or 9 per cent now, instead of embarking in a retrograde course, and one fraught with such disastrous consequences? The other alternative open to them, and the one which he should have preferred, would have been to lay on further Customs duties to procure this 1,500,000 l.; let them raise the 16,000,000 l. loan to 18,000,000 l., or even to 20,000,000 l. The country was
1796
yet in a provisional state in regard to the war, and the progress of the summer was likely to throw light on our future position; but it was to be hoped that if the war was to continue, we should not go on throwing away 30,000,000 l. per annum in prosecuting land campaigns against an overwhelming military Power in its own territory. As a naval Power, we should surely apply ourselves to operations by sea, by which our present enormous military expenditure would be reduced. However that might be, in the existing uncertainty as to the probable duration of the war, it would be most injudicious to attack that great system of commercial policy which had been reared by the labours of the last ten years; and he must therefore give his negative to the second reading of this Bill to record his strong disapproval of its principle.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he regretted as much as the hon. Member himself the necessity of raising the duties on commodities which entered so largely into the consumption of the people as tea, coffee, and sugar. But it was not necessarily involved in the adoption of free trade that they should insist that, under all circumstances, the burden of the taxation of the country should be borne by direct taxation, and that there should be no attempt to distribute the burden equally amongst all classes, by placing a portion of it upon the country in the shape of indirect taxes. On the contrary, it was clear that, unless they did so, the pressure of the direct taxation would be intolerable. While, therefore, he trusted that the House would adhere to the policy of late years, he could not regard this Bill as in any degree inconsistent with the principle of free trade. Nor was it true, as had been asserted in the course of the debate, that this was the first occasion on which the indirect taxation of the country had been increased of late years; because only last year an additional duty was imposed on malt. With regard to the other remarks of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, he must say that he thought Parliament would have betrayed its duty had it thrown the whole burden of the war on posterity in the shape of a loan, and not shown that we were ready to bear part of it ourselves by submitting to additional taxes while the war lasted. With respect to the proposition for increasing the income tax to 10 per cent, he (Mr. Labouchere) had a strong feeling that that tax

1797
did not press on the rich alone, but that it fell most severely on a class of persons having small incomes and but little able to bear it, and that it likewise pressed on the springs of industry, not perhaps in a very direct, but in a very perceptible manner. He did not think they ought hastily, and, without the pressure of some great emergency, at once to raise the income tax to the full practicable amount before they had endeavoured to equalise the burden of the war taxation by raising a portion of it from the indirect taxes. With respect to the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he was prepared to give it a general support, believing that it was, with a single exception, based upon sound principles. He must say, however, that he entertained considerable doubts as to that part of it by which it was proposed to pledge this country to raise 1,000,000 l. a year, after the resumption of peace, for the purpose of paying off the debt now proposed to be incurred. He thought that the Legislature ought not to commit itself to a pledge unless there was good reason to believe that it would be kept: but he confessed that he entertained some doubt whether, on the resumption of peace, that fate would attend the one to which he was now referring.
CAPTAIN LAFFANsaid, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill before the House, because the amendment which he wished to see introduced might be made in Committee. He saw no reason why sugar should be taxed in a different manner from wine, or any other article. On wine of all kinds there was a uniform duty of 1s. per gallon; but the duty imposed on high-priced sugars was different from that on low-priced sugars. He thought that the rule which obtained with respect to wine should be applied to sugar. The only reason which he could conceive why it was not applied to sugar was, that we made no wine in England, and, therefore, there was no interest sufficiently represented in that House to cause differential duties to be imposed upon the various qualities of wine; but it was otherwise in the case of sugar, for we had in England a large number of sugar refiners, whose interest it was to cause the duty upon low-priced sugars to be small, and the duties upon high-priced sugars, or those which passed through the greatest number of processes in their manufacture, to be large. Let the House consider what was the effect of these differential duties. He knew several
1798
estates in the colonies upon which large sums had been expended in the improvement of machinery. Upon one estate in the Mauritius with which he was more particularly acquainted, 30,000 l. had recently been expended in machinery. But within the last year orders had been sent from England to the parties managing the estate to let a portion of the valuable machinery lie idle and rust, and to cultivate on the estate, which was capable of producing sugar white as snow, none but low-priced sugars, in order to escape the higher duty imposed upon the best article in this country. He would propose, therefore, that instead of the differential duties now laid before the House there should be a uniform duty upon sugar, and that the amount of that uniform duty should be such as would give an equal return to the Exchequer.
MR. MALINSsaid, he would admit that direct taxation would be the best of all taxation if all men were equal in point of riches; but a large proportion of the people of this country were in such a struggling state, that the sight of the tax-gatherer was positively distressing to them. The House should, therefore, be slow in acceding to the principle of a large increase of direct taxation. He (Mr. Malins) approved generally of the principle of the Budget, and he was not opposed, therefore, to the moderate increase proposed on the amount of the income tax. But he would be prepared to give any large extension of that tax at a future occasion his most strenuous opposition, as he could not consent to an extension of the principle of direct taxation much further. Considering the disturbance caused to trade and commerce by the augmentation of Customs duties, and also considering that the great operation in which the country was engaged might be the means of effecting a peace, he questioned whether it would not have been the better course to have taken the loan for 20,000,000 l. instead of 16,000,000 l. That would give the sum, or nearly the sum, required, and produce no disturbance in the trade and commerce of the country. If the war was to be carried on for years, as it was possible it might, then there should inevitably be some compromise between direct and indirect taxation; but while there was any hope, even the faintest, of peace, he thought it would be the lesser evil of the two to raise 4,000,000 l. or 5,000,000 l., by way of an addition to the loan, than disturb the commercial transactions of the

1799
country, or to increase still more the income tax, which had been doubled last year. At the same time he admitted, that, in his opinion, to put an increased duty on tea, coffee, and sugar, was to proceed on a right principle, and he hoped that it would not be productive of the disturbance anticipated by commercial men in this country. Under these circumstances he gave the Budget his general support.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, he considered that the course pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in proposing an increase of the duties upon tea, coffee, and sugar, was not at variance with the principles of free trade. There was nothing protective in the duties which it was intended to increase. The amount or rate of a duty did not determine its protective quality. Duties were only protective when they were imposed on articles of foreign production at a higher rate than on similar articles of home production; thus giving a bonus to the home producer at the expense of the consumer. He admitted that, theoretically, direct taxation was to be preferred to indirect taxation; but it was impossible—at least impracticable—under the present state of things to confine themselves to direct taxation. During the last twenty years, no less than 25,000,000 l. per annum had been deducted from the indirect taxation of the country, which pressed chiefly upon the humbler classes, while up to last year almost every fresh tax imposed belonged to the system of direct taxation, which was borne to a great extent by the wealthier classes of the community. It was their duty, therefore, in providing for the expenses of the war, not to confine their attention wholly to direct taxation, and so allow those classes to escape who could only be touched by indirect taxation. He, therefore, approved of the Budget, because it increased the indirect taxation of the country as well as the direct. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) that the amount raised by way of loan should have been 20,000,000 l. He believed there were the strongest economical, moral, and social reasons for endeavouring, to the utmost possible extent, to defray the annual expenditure by taxation rather than by loan. Let the nation feel what it was to be at war, and do not lessen the disposition to peace by diminishing the burdens of war.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he could not view without apprehension the beginning of a course of policy opposed to
1800
that of Sir Robert Peel in 1841, which had so effectually restored the finances of the country. This nation, high taxed as it was, had been obliged to compete with low-taxed nations in point of manufactured productions, and it never could have done so had it not been for that policy proposed by Sir Robert Peel. The manufacturers of this country were now in a very different position from that which they had occupied during the last war, for the continental manufacturers were not then able to compete with them. At the present time, however, the capital of the continent was employed in manufactures, and our manufacturers ought not to be placed at a disadvantage, as compared with their rivals. He regretted, therefore, that the 1,500,000 l. increased Customs duties had not been raised by an addition to the income tax; more especially as the duties in question were imposed upon articles, tea, coffee, and sugar, where they would be felt most severely by the poorer classes.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I rise to do an act of justice to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it has been stated by the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), and by other hon. Members, that the House is now about to take a first step in a retrograde course; and hon. Gentlemen have described with justice the mischiefs attendant upon such a course. I am sorry to say, however, that this is not the first step in this direction, because I am the unfortunate person whose duty it was last Session to propose the first step of retrogression, and the first step in the reversal of the great work of the last twelve or fourteen years. It is quite true, as has been stated by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay), that the proposed customs duties do not contain the elements of protection, and that so far as that great and capital feature is concerned, we have not reached the point at which we are compelled to encounter that very serious question. Our work has been a double one. Our first and greatest object has been to eradicate from our laws the bad principle of protection, yet, over and above that capital purpose, Parliament has gradually, cautiously, and successfully endeavoured to diminish the pressure of duties upon the great articles of consumption. Last year we took the first step to undo that policy when we laid an additional duty upon sugar and a large additional duty upon malt. These were very great evils, undoubtedly, and I am bound to say that I do not think we shall stop

1801
there, but that, on the contrary, if it is unfortunately incumbent upon the House of Commons for several successive years to add largely to the taxation of the country for the purposes of the war, we shall, rely upon it, again have to face the question of protection. Proposals will be made, and have been made to-night by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) and others, which, if they were adopted, would let in the thin end of the wedge of protection. Undoubtedly, there are some duties in our tariff which partake in a limited degree of the principle of protection, but the hon. Gentleman gave my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad advice when, instead of selecting the articles best able to bear additional duties, such as tea, coffee, and sugar, he entirely declined to discriminate, and recommended my right hon. Friend to take the wine duty, which is already the scandal of our tariff and prohibits nine-tenths of the wine of Europe, and puts his 10 per cent upon it—when he recommends him, also, to put 10 per cent additional upon tobacco, the duty upon which is so large that with every precaution it is hardly possible to keep down smuggling—and when he recommends him also to lay 10 per cent upon timber, which must bring in again that element of protection. I am sorry to be a prophet of evil, but I am afraid, if this necessity should continue for two or three years—and if this war should last, instead of diminishing it will grow—the Government of the day, whoever may be in office, will probably find itself so hard driven and in such straits for mere money, that it may be obliged to propose to Parliament to raise money by that most extravagant of all means of raising money—the restoration of protective duties; and in some form or other, protective duties may come to be restored about the time when the last Protectionist in the country shall have died. I believe the number of gentlemen holding this opinion has enormously diminished since the minority of fifty-three voted at the end of 1852; that a multitude of those who struggled for protection would not now take it back if you were to give it to them; and that if there ever comes a time when protection in any shape is restored, it will come by a compulsion stronger than ourselves, and due to the necessities of the war. That will be a most unfortunate thing. But there are some who contend that our increased necessities ought to be met by direct taxation. Sir, that view is purely
1802
theoretical and visionary. It is not the abstract qualities and justice of a tax that enables you to raise money from direct taxation. So far as regards justice and equality, there cannot, I think, be a fairer tax than the house tax; yet the house tax is that tax the raising of which is attended with the greatest difficulty in this country, and although any man who will reason upon it would say that a house tax ought to be one of the main resources of our revenue, yet it will be found that it is the source of only a limited and insignificant extent of income. I do not believe that, as it now stands, the house tax supplies more than 1½ per cent of the whole taxation, and yet I doubt whether there is not more dissatisfaction and discontent in raising this tax than in the levying of very much larger sums in other forms. Sir, I cannot disregard these considerations. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer possesses a powerful engine in the income tax, but he must not attempt to strain it too much. I hope he will remember how much difficulty there is in the whole structure of the income tax, how very reluctant the House has been to give its sanction to the income tax in its present form at all, and how impossible it has been to find any man who would undertake the task of altering that form. Some gentlemen say they prefer indirect taxation, others prefer direct taxation, and others say, I should prefer a loan. My right hon. Friend has, unfortunately, as I conceive, provided the means of meeting all these tastes. Those who like indirect taxation have got indirect taxation; those who prefer direct taxation have got direct taxation; and those who like a loan have got a loan. And although there are some gentlemen who are vexed at the smallness of that loan, and who say that my right hon. Friend ought to have asked for a round sum of 20,000,000 l., yet I will venture to remind them that he is not so very far from it, because, although my right hon. Friend only asked for 16,000,000 l. in Consols and terminable annuities, yet there is a little item which has been overlooked of 3,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills, which my right hon. Friend has judiciously asked for, to vote as a supply in reserve, and it would not, I think, be a venturesome prophecy to say that he will have occasion to use it, and that those who are so anxious that 20,000,000 l. should be borrowed will not be very much dissatisfied if they find that the sum will amount to 19,000,000 l. Sir, I feel the

1803
gravity of the steps that have been and are now taken. I feel that we ought to make every effort to diminish the pressure that bears upon the people by the augmentation of indirect taxation; but it is fair to ourselves, and to those whom we represent, that we should fairly realize this truth, that, as in several successive years we have taken off many millions of taxation without loss, so we may now be in a position in which it will be necessary to impose many millions of taxation, without any real gain. In other words, as by the process in which we have been for some years engaged, at a small loss to the revenue we have added greatly to the wealth of the country, so, by the process which we are now commencing, we may, at little gain to the revenue, be about to take much from the wealth of the country and the comforts of the people. No man surely could suppose that we could undertake a war of such gigantic dimensions without anticipating these evils, and I hope we shall not attempt to escape the necessities of the war by falling back upon the miserable expedient of trusting exclusively to loans. This House, I feel convinced, will not commit any treason to its constituents so gross as to evade the difficulty by resorting to the unlimited use of the funding system, an invention which has been a misfortune and a curse to mankind, and which although in particular countries it has been of some use and benefit, yet, when we look at the state into which it has brought the national finances of most of the States throughout the world, when we consider the permanent mortgages which it has created upon the industry of all countries, and, above all, when we consider the miserable, unjust, pernicious, and unjustifiable wars in which this expedient has enabled countries to embark, I look upon this as the source from which more misfortunes have flowed forth upon mankind than, perhaps, from any other. I thought it was only fair to my right hon. Friend to attempt to relieve him from the censure which has been thus cast on him. I think in whatever way we may attempt to deal with the difficulties of our position, the very worst course we can take is to shut our eyes and adopt expedients, which will tend to mislead the public mind, and prevent it from fully appreciating the gravity of those difficulties.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, had the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the income tax to 10 per cent it would have been unnecessary to
1804
add taxes on tea and sugar, or to raise a sum by Exchequer bills. There ought to have been a graduated income tax, taking in all classes. The working people had petitioned to be included in those classes which contributed through the income tax to defray the burdens of the war, because they had sense enough to see that, if duties were laid on tobacco and tea and sugar, they would have to pay the largest share of the amount. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) have the boldness to ask Government to add 10 per cent to the duties on necessary articles of consumption. His principle of finance was to lay the burden where it could best be borne, and to make all pay in proportion to their means. He was prepared to admit the difficulties in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was placed, and he was not disposed to offer any obstruction to the proposed measures.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, he thought it would have been better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the second year of the war, to have borrowed 2,000,000 l. more, rather than to have disturbed the trades in tea, sugar, and other articles, which were to be subjected to higher duties. He wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the classification of the duties on sugar, which had been found to operate very injuriously. He believed the Bill under discussion was the great blot upon the Budget.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, that in reference to what had been stated respecting the operation of direct and indirect taxation, he considered that direct taxation affected all classes subject to the impost equally; but that indirect taxation touched very lightly the rich, while it pressed very heavily indeed on the poorer classes. One objection to the income tax was stated to be its inequality; but it could not be compared with the inequality of the tax on sugar, tea, and coffee, Look at the proportion which the outlay on those articles formed in the expenditure of the operatives and the proportion which it formed in the expenditure of those who had large establishments! No doubt the income tax fell heavily upon persons of small incomes, but if the Customs duties were removed from articles of consumption the saving to those persons would outweigh the income tax. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had said that if the war should continue the course of events would inevitably drive us again to a system of protection. This

1805
should operate as a warning against their going any further than was absolutely necessary in a course of taxation that would lead to such a result. If there should be a necessity for increasing indirect taxation, every effort should be made to stave it off as long as possible, and if the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) divided on the question he should feel bound to support him. In taking that course he would not be actuated by any principle opposed to the most liberal grants of public money for the prosecution of the war; but he felt bound to protest against the main burden of the war being thrown upon the poorer portion of the community.
MR. EWARTsaid, he should have preferred a small extension of the system of loans to a mode of taxation which was in reality sinning against the principle of sound political economy. He wished to speak as the advocate of the poorer classes, because he was convinced that in these indirect taxes they paid in greater proportion than those above them.
Bill read 2o

SPIRIT DUTIES (SCOTLAND AND IRE- LAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
LORD NAASsaid, that the experience of past times was not satisfactory with regard to an increase in the spirit duties; and he wished to know if Government had the intention or the power to take any additional steps for the suppression of illicit distillation in Ireland. He believed that any increase in that practice would be attended with the most pernicious effects. He also wished to know if Government had any intention to equalise the duties on spirits throughout the United Kingdom, for he was convinced that such a plan was not only possible, but that it would be attended with a great increase to the revenue. It would also remove many great anomalies, and have the best possible effect in many other respects.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord, as far as the pernicious effects of illicit distillation were concerned; but the experience of the measure of last year, in consequence of the improved social condition of that portion of the United Kingdom, was very favourable. If it was necessary for the purpose of collecting the additional duty, the provisions of the last Act would be regularly enforced.
Bill read 2o

TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. MALINSsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He trusted that the House would not consider that he wished to perpetuate any abuse in these courts, or in any matter connected with the administration of justice. He would yield to no man in his desire to improve that administration, but there was a great difference between improving and abolishing. If his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General) had, instead of abolishing these courts, confined himself to making their practice as perfect as possible, he and those who acted with him would have lent the hon. and learned Gentleman their best assistance to effect his object. But Government refused to take warning by what had occurred last year, and this year had brought forward a measure which, though differing considerably in some of its details, was essentially the same as the Bill of last year. Government, it appeared, had deliberately made up their minds last year to a particular course, but this year they had departed, to a certain extent, from that course, and this was a good reason why Government was not entitled to call upon Parliament to sanction the Bill before the House. The question was one of great difficulty, and involved a subject which of necessity could be but little known to Members of that House. He would briefly state what was the object of Government by this Bill, and what was the object that, in his opinion, ought to be kept in view. The object of the Bill was to totally abolish the existing Testamentary Courts and the Ecclesiastical Courts of the country, and to transfer their business to the Court of Chancery. Now, this business was the testamentary business of England, involving the right to the whole of the personal property in the country, and it was proposed to include also all real property. This must, sooner or later, affect every person possessing property to the amount of 20 l., at which sum it was proposed to fix the obligation for taking out probates. What was the present law? When property was left by will no executor could act until the will was proved; and when this was done the Court issued the probate by which the executor was empowered to take possession, and to admi-

1807
nister the whole of the property of the testator. In case no will existed, and the widow did not take out letters of administration, the Court usually granted letters to the next of kin. Now, the number of wills proved in 1852 was 18,703, and 7,068 letters of administration were taken out, making a total, in round numbers, of upwards of 25,000 testamentary grants in one year. The probate duty paid in that year amounted to nearly 1,000,000 l. sterling. Three Commissions had reported on this subject, and they all concurred in one principle—with which he and those who acted with him also agreed—that the time was come when it was necessary to abolish the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of these courts. The Judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury was appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Judge of the Prerogative Court of York by the Archbishop of York; but the business of those courts was of a temporal character, and, therefore, the courts themselves ought to be temporal and not ecclesiastical. This Bill proposed that the courts should no longer be ecclesiastical; that the Archbishops should no longer have the appointment of the Judges, and that the business of these courts should be transferred to the Court of Chancery. But upon what principle, for what reason should the transfer take place? Wills must be proved in some court or other, but why should that court be the Court of Chancery? The hon. and learned Solicitor General told them the probate of a will and the construction of a will were so much mixed up together, that the authority to deal with such a matter ought to be in the hands of one court, but he (Mr. Malins) thought he could satisfy the House that proving a will and determining its construction were totally different things. Questions of the greatest nicety and delicacy often arose as to who should take possession of a man's property immediately after his death. If the House would consider the great opportunities that existed for fraud with respect to the management of a deceased person's property he felt satisfied they would be slow to make an alteration which would have the effect of sweeping away the existing system and an existing order of men, whose experience in the business was a great security against the commission of fraud. The number of probates granted in one year was about 25,000; but questions as to the construction of wills did not exceed two per cent of that number.
1808
A Return which he had, showed that the whole bills filed in the Court of Chancery from October, 1853, to October, 1854, amounted to 2,900; and from October last to April, 1,200 to 1,300. If the House would reflect that bills filed in Chancery had relation to every kind of engagement between man and man, they would admit—the whole of those bills not exceeding 2,900 in one year—that one-sixth was a moderate estimate for the suits with regard to wills. There was, therefore, only one in fifty of the wills subject to probate with regard to which any litigation took place. If he were right, what became of the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the probate of wills and questions as to the construction of wills should come before the same court. But to revert to the position assumed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, he must contend that the probate of a will and the construction were not inseparable; on the contrary, they were two distinct things: and even suppose they agreed to send the two matters to the same court. the practical working of such a plan would still be as it was at present. The will would have to be proved in the first instance, and then, if there was any dispute about its construction, the parties would have to begin de novo, as it were, and set forth all that had been done in the preliminary pleadings. Practically speaking, therefore, there would be two courts in operation under this Bill; at one period of the day the court would be a court of probate, at another a court of construction; and since it could not be maintained that the act of proving a will was inseparably connected with the act of construction, he was at a loss to discover the advantage to be obtained under the change proposed by this Bill. Another point which the hon. and learned Solicitor General urged in support of his plan for placing the two things in the hands of one court was this—he said it was highly desirable that the court to whom such matters were referred, should have the power of dealing with the estate during the period that a will was under contest. Now, was that a sufficient reason for a sweeping change in the law? Was the House aware of the number of wills contested in the course of a year? Why, in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, out of 12,000 wills proved in a year, on an average not more than forty were contested, and, except in rare cases, such as that of Mr. Dyce Som-

1809
bre, where the points involved were of a peculiar and unusual nature, the contests were mostly brought to a termination within the space of two or three months. The fact was, the Ecclesiastical Courts had become unpopular with the country from circumstances beyond their own control; abuses had crept into them in connection with the patronage which they gave to the archbishops; but those abuses he certainly did not consider were a sufficient ground for abolishing the courts themselves. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, in introducing the measure, dwelt at some length upon the great abuses which had occurred, such as the appointments of Mr. Moore, of Mr. Manners Sutton, of the son of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, and of the grandson of the present Archbishop of Canterbury. But there was not a proctor or practitioner in that court who did not lament that such a state of things had existed, and was not as anxious to prevent their recurrence as his hon. and learned Friend. These cases had, however, nothing to do with the practice in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and it might just as well be said that because three or four years ago great abuses had existed in connection with the Court of Chancery that court ought to be abolished, as to say that the Ecclesiastical Courts ought to be done away with because certain abuses had been permitted with regard to them. There certainly were abuses, but they were capable of an easy remedy, and nothing could be more unjustifiable than to attempt to abolish the existing state of things, unless the necessity for doing so was shown to be of an overwhelming nature. As his hon. and learned Friend had stated, various Committees and Commissions had been appointed to inquire into the subject of the proceedings and practice of the Court of Chancery, and the result of their inquiries showed that it was principally the machinery which was defective and required remodelling. A Commission was issued by the Government of Lord John Russell in 1851, who made their Report in 1853, and the changes that were introduced in consequence of the Report of that Commission made the Court of Chancery as effective as any which existed in this country. In 1851 the Government of Lord Derby issued a Commission to a learned body of men to inquire into the system and practice of pleading in the Courts of Chancery, and the law and jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical and other Courts in relation to matters
1810
testamentary. In that Commission were to be found the names of Sir John Romilly, Lord Justice Turner, Vice-Chancellor Kindersley, Sir William Page Wood, Sir John Dodson, Dr. Lushington, the Queen's Advocate, Mr. Justice Crampton, the Solicitor General, the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and Messrs. J. Rolt and W. James, of the Chancery bar, all men distinguished for learning and ability, and of various parties in politics, so that the Commission could not be charged with any political bias. That Commission came to the conclusion that it was not expedient to transfer the jurisdiction of matters testamentary to the Court of Chancery. At page 16 of that Report, after giving their reasons, and very fully, they expressed the following as the deliberate conclusion at which they had arrived:—
"We think, therefore, that the interests of the public would not be consulted by the transfer to the Court of Chancery of the uncontested testamentary business. It could not, we think, safely be so transferred as part of the general business of that court; and if transferred to a separate department (which for all substantial purposes would be a separate court), the transfer would be attended with all the inconveniences without any of the advantages incident to the constitution of a distinct court."
He wanted to know of what utility it was to issue Commissions and obtain the opinion of the most learned men, if the Government of the day were to set that opinion at nought, and bring in a measure diametrically opposed to their advice, especially upon such a matter as this, which was one affecting the property of every individual in the community? Now, he would ask the attention of the House to the evidence given before the Commission. The bar at Doctors' Commons consisted of an exclusive body of practitioners, advocates, and proctors. No one but a proctor could prove a will, and no one but an advocate could be heard in the courts at Doctors' Commons. The Commissioners, however, called before them some eminent members of the profession—solicitors who were now excluded from practice in these courts, but upon whom the present Bill proposed to confer the right to practise in them. The evidence of these gentlemen was, in his opinion, entitled to peculiar weight, and he thought the House would also attach considerable importance to the petition he had presented that evening, signed by 163 of the most eminent soli-

1811
citors in London, and 111 of the first firms of Bankers and Merchants, who expressed their opinion that the exclusive body in Doctors' Commons should be maintained as a protection to the public, and who repudiated the boon which the hon. and learned Solicitor General proposed to confer upon them by the Bill now under discussion. The first witness to whose evidence he would refer was Mr. Lavie, of the firm of Oliverson, Lavie, and Peachey, a distinguished commercial lawyer, who was examined at considerable length. Mr. Lavie, when asked his opinion as to the expediency of opening the business of probate to solicitors generally, instead of restricting it to proctors, said he entertained a very strong impression that it was most undesirable; that it would be very prejudicial to the public and very much regretted hereafter, if such business were thrown open to attorneys; and he proceeded to state that, according to his experience, the business, particularly with respect to probates, was extremely well done in Doctors' Commons, and that he did not know that it could be better transacted in any other place, although there were some details with respect to which improvements might be introduced. Mr. Lavie added, that he thought the check with regard to the respectability of practitioners in the courts of Doctors' Commons was a material safeguard to the public, and that the admission of attorneys, who resided in distant parts of the country, to prove wills, would be attended with very dangerous and mischievous results. This Bill, however, not only proposed that attorneys in any part of the country might prove wills, but that they might send up wills by post for proof, without attending themselves at all. Mr. Lavie further stated, that in a case where fraudulent wills had been presented to the Bank of England the perpetrator of the fraud had had the greatest difficulty in obtaining the assistance of respectable proctors, and had never gone a second time to the same proctor; while, if he could have resorted to any attorney in a remote part of the country, he would have been enabled to carry out his designs with much greater ease. The charges, Mr. Lavie said, seemed to him to be particularly moderate, but he stated that he regarded the safety of the public as the most important consideration; and that he did not think it would be preserved if all attorneys were allowed to prove wills. Mr. Lavie further added, that he considered it very expedient
1812
to leave Doctors' Commons much as it was, making such improvements as might easily be effected. He (Mr. Malins) would also ask hon. Members to refer at their leisure to the evidence of Mr. Young, of the firm of Desborough and Young, who was one of the most important witnesses examined upon the subject. Mr. Freshfield, the solicitor to the Bank of England, was also examined, and he wished to remind the House that the Bank had taken a very decided view against the Bill. Mr. Fresh-field, in reply to a question as to whether he thought it would be desirable to throw the courts open to solicitors, said it appeared to him, confining his attention to the question of probate in London, that it would be attended with no advantage to open the courts to attorneys, but the contrary; that he did not think such a course would add any facilities whatever to the public; that he did not think it would diminish the expense; and that he did not think the business would be so well done. He also said that he thought it would be much better to entrust the business to a small body of practitioners, that body being under the control of the court. He went on to state that the question was not one of excluding attorneys, but admitting them for the first time; and that the control exercised by the court over its officers could not be so well exercised over a large body; that his impression was, that the present system was one which attained accuracy in a very high degree. He further said that the Bank of England had under its notice about 4,200 probates and letters of administration per annum, one-sixth of the number being letters of administration, and he could not speak too highly of the accuracy with which they were prepared. That was remarkably strong testimony in favour of the mode in which business was transacted in Doctors' Commons; and the 163 gentlemen whose petition he had presented to the House also expressed their satisfaction on that point. In 1832 the father of Mr. Freshfield gave equally emphatic evidence in favour of the system pursued at Doctors' Commons. A proposition was, however, now made for the entire abolition of that system, for the purpose of throwing the business into the Court of Chancery. The court was to be transferred he knew not where, nor did, he believed, the Solicitor General. The wills were to be deposited he knew not where, nor did either the Solicitor General or the Lord Chancellor. This system, which gave

1813
so much satisfaction, was to be abolished, as it appeared to him, merely for the sake of change; and the effect of that change would be to throw a great number of persons upon the world, and put the country to the expense of something like 100,000 l. a year for compensation to gentlemen for not performing their duties when they were perfectly competent and willing to perform them with satisfaction to the public. Amendment was, as he had previously said, required; but the hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfied with nothing less than destruction, and now proposed to abolish, at one fell swoop, a system which had been conducted for six centuries, and adapted itself to the requirements of the times, and to begin the world anew with a system which it would take a century to get in order. Where was the business to be conducted? The Government were not prepared with any plan for building new courts in places which would be the most convenient for the practitioners. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works had told them that he was not aware of any place that would be fit for the purpose. There could not be a greater advantage to the administration of the law than to place the Judge in the centre of his business, and he might mention one fact in illustration of this assertion. Four years ago the Court of Chancery always sat at Westminster Hall in term time, and at Lincoln's Inn during the vacation. The business was so much better conducted during the vacation that an application was made to Lord Cottenham to sit at Lincoln's Inn in term time. His Lordship agreed to do so for two terms out of the four, and the change had worked so well that the present Lord Chancellor had acceded to a similar application, and the Court of Chancery now sat entirely at Lincoln's Inn. The gentlemen at the common law bar who resided in the Temple were exposed to great inconvenience in consequence of the distance of the Courts at Westminster and Guildhall. Now, the Court of Probate was in the centre of Doctors' Commons, amidst the offices of the advocates and proctors, and every facility was thus afforded for the transaction of business. It was not in law alone that the advantages he had alluded to were recognised. The underwriters of Lloyd's and the bankers of Lombard-street clustered round their respective centres of business. Now, supposing these Courts to be abo-
1814
lished, what substitute was to be provided for them? His hon. and learned Friend proposed to transfer them all to the Court of Chancery. But the transfer would be a transfer merely in name, for there was no accommodation in the immediate vicinity of the Court of Chancery. Under such circumstances, he asked why should the present state of things be disturbed? Now, with respect to the question of putting the proctors on half-pay. Such a proposition did not meet the justice of the case. Perhaps an old practitioner whose income was very large might be ready to retire on half-pay, but a man whose whole income was only just sufficient to live upon would find himself in a somewhat awkward position under such an arrangement. But to the junior members of the Court the Bill would afford no compensation at all, and great injury would be inflicted upon those clerks whose present position had cost them 800 l. or 900 l. And all this was to take place without any saving being effected to the public, because the stamp duties on probates were to be increased in order to provide what was called a compensation fund. Seeing that there was a great concurrence in the general principles of the Report he had referred to, he regretted that the Solicitor General had not taken a less extreme course. The hon. and learned Gentleman might have turned the Ecclesiastical Court into a temporal court, the judge to be appointed by the Crown instead of by the archbishop, and he might have made certain improvements with respect to which all would agree; but there was no excuse for the entire abolition of a system under which the business was well conducted, and at a moderate expense. It was a true saying, that if they gave a dog a bad name they might as well hang him, and so it was with the Ecclesiastical Courts. Certain persons took up a cry against them without knowing why, and Doctors' Commons was styled a terrible sink of iniquity. Well, then, his reply was, if a popular cry of that kind was to be taken as the measure of whether a thing was right or wrong, what would they say with respect to the Court of Chancery, improved and improving as he hoped it was? if a sink of iniquity was to be abolished, had they a better chance, in the public estimation, of finding a purer place by going to the Court of Chancery? It was said that the Lord Chancellor would make an order respecting the sitting of the Court. Now he (Mr. Malins) would

1815
venture to predict that if the Bill should pass in its present state, and the Court should continue to sit where it now sits, until an order to the contrary should be made by the Lord Chancellor, it would remain sitting there during the life of the last surviving practitioner in the Ecclesiastical Courts. He submitted to his hon. and learned Friend that it would have been far better if he had acted upon the recommendation of the Commissioners for removing the existing evils of the Court, and improving its practice. There was no more pretence for abolishing these courts than for abolishing the Court of Chancery. The Chancery system had been amended, and was working satisfactorily, and the system now under consideration ought to have been dealt with in a similar manner. Why, as he had just said, could not the Ecclesiastical Court have been converted into a Temporal Court, leaving the appointment of the Judge to the Crown, instead of the archbishop, and retaining the old practitioners, instead of throwing the Court open to the profession at large. Now, with regard to the common form business. As the law at present stood, when a will related to real estate, the question of the validity or invalidity of the will was submitted to a jury. Up to last year, when the will related to personal estate, even vivâ voce evidence could not be taken on the subject. The Commissioners recommended that the Court of Probate should have the power of submitting all wills to the decision of a jury. He perfectly concurred in that recommendation. He thought there could be no two opinions as to the desirability of probate being granted over the whole country, for it was most preposterous that a probate granted in York should not apply to Canterbury, and vice versâ. It was this state of things, the pension of Mr. Moore, and other abuses of that sort, which had really brought these Ecclesiastical Courts into disrepute. What he wished to accomplish by his Motion was to induce his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General so far to modify his Bill, as to remove from it those portions which proposed to transfer the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts to the Court of Chancery. The petitions which he had that evening presented from a large body of the merchants, bankers, and traders of the City of London, headed by the Lord Mayor, and from 163 solicitors of the highest respectability practising in the Court of Chancery, against the Bill, showed that
1816
the change was not desired by the public or by the profession. Several of the eminent persons who had sat on the Commission had assured him personally that they were satisfied that this business could nowhere be better conducted than in Doctors' Commons, and that the transfer would be detrimental to the public. What justification, then, could his hon. and learned Friend have for bringing forward and persisting in this measure? Had the noble Lord at the head of the Government given the Bill his minute and deliberate consideration? for a heavy responsibility would rest on him if he allowed it to have the sanction of his position without a due examination of it. Had the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, under whose more particular cognisance these matters came, and who, having himself for some time practised in the Court of Chancery, might be presumed to understand the subject, given it his careful attention? In short, was this the Bill of the Lord Chancellor and the Solicitor General only, or had it been considered and sanctioned by the whole Cabinet? He appealed to his hon. and learned Friend to try the principle of amendment instead of that of abolition. Why not turn the Court from an Ecclesiastical into a Temporal Court, vest the appointment of the Judge in the Crown, and improve its mode of procedure instead of abolishing it altogether? If his hon. and learned Friend would consent so to modify his Bill, he could assure him that from that side of the House he would receive every assistance in passing it with all speed, and in making it as perfect and efficient a measure as possible.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. COLLIERsaid, he should support the second reading of the Bill not because he believed it the best possible measure, but a great improvement on the existing state of things. He should support it, because it was founded on the principle not of reforming, but of abolishing the Ecclesiastical Courts, these Gattons and Old Sarums of our judicial system. When his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General entered on the contest in which he is engaged with these courts, he did not seem aware of the extraordinary tenacity of life possessed by his foe. Twice,

1817
during two successive Sessions, did he enter the lists with Doctors' Commons, twice did Doctors' Commons apparently succumb to rise with renewed vigour, and this was the third assault of his hon. and learned Friend. The contest put him in mind of that of Evander with Herilus:—
"Nascenti cui tres animas Feronia mater (Horrendum dictu) dederat, terna arma movenda Ter leto sternendus erat."
It would be indeed a proud day for his hon. Friend when he should be able to say,
"Cui tamen omnes
Abstulit hæe animas dextra et totidem exuit armis."
Having no wish to defer that day, he should abstain from taking any course which might endanger the Bill, at the sonic time he took this opportunity of stating his views as to the best possible mode of dealing with the subject. He held that there was no necessity for any separate Court of Probate at all. He thought the business of probate could be performed by the existing tribunals without the creation of a new court, or a new Judge, or any additional expense to the country. He held that there was nothing in a will by which a man disposed of his property after his death which made it more difficult to be dealt with than an instrument by which he disposed of his property during his life. In no other country was there a separate court to deal with wills. In Scotland they were dealt with by the Sheriffs Court and the Court of Session, and in America they were dealt with by the ordinary Courts and the County Courts; and even in this country, in former times, the County Courts had jurisdiction over wills until the jurisdiction was usurped by the Ecclesiastical Courts. The manifesto of the proctors pretended that the validity of a will was surrounded with so many technicalities and legal difficulties which none but a proctorial intellect could unravel them; but these legal difficulties were in reality no greater than those which arose with reference to deeds, leases, mercantile, and other contracts which were daily disposed of by the Courts of Law: nay, no greater than those sometimes disposed of at Quarter Sessions with reference to the settlement of a pauper. In his opinion no new or separate tribunal was called for, but the ordinary existing tribunals were sufficient. Let the County Courts be used for the purpose. Those courts were established for the local administration of jus-
1818
tice; their districts were marked out with reference to population, roads, railways, and other tests of public convenience. Why not use them for this as well as other branches of the administration of justice? Let them have jurisdiction in all cases of Probate in the common form. Let the County Court be the place where the poor man might take his will for probate, and let the original be sent to the central registrar's office, and let copies be kept in the County Court. That was enough for all uncontested cases. With regard to the contested cases, when the property was small, and if it was under 500 l., it was not worth while to go into Chancery, or into any central court. When the amount was small, and a will was opposed, the question should be tried on the spot in the County Court; and the estate be administered on the spot. At present, however, justice was denied to a poor man in contested cases. Where the property was small the member of the family who happened to occupy it kept possession: the rightful owner submitted to exclusion as a less evil than a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, and so things remained unless some active-minded attorney happened to interfere, which interference commonly resulted in the property being absorbed in costs, and the family fraternizing in prison. In his opinion, all these questions should be dealt with by the County Courts, and in that he did not differ from the hon. and learned Solicitor General, who said on a former occasion that he fully recognised the County Courts, and who, he believed, was not averse to this jurisdiction being conferred upon them. The next question was, what was to be done when the property in dispute was considerable. All such questions might be settled in the common law courts without the addition of another Judge. The courts of common law decided whether a man was sane or insane when real property was devised by will, nor would the country ever be satisfied unless such questions were tried by a jury. How did the law now stand? A jury might decide that a man was sane with reference to the disposition of real property; and the Ecclesiastical Courts might decide that he was insane with regard to his personal property. He would say, let questions of real and personal property under wills be decided by the same tribunals. Such were his views as to the best mode of dealing with this subject. The questions to be decided in the case of a

1819
disputed will were, the sanity of a testator, whether the will was forged, whether or not undue influence was exercised over him, and so forth, questions which ought to be tried by a jury whether they related to real or personal property: some other questions which occasionally arose more of law than of fact, such as what papers constituted the will? whether it was regularly attested? and so forth, might well be determined by the Common Law Judges, some of whom, as members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, were in the habit of deciding these very questions on appeal from the Ecclesiastical Courts. Holding these opinions, however, he knew that if he were to insist upon them, the effect might be to throw out this Bill; and he was unwilling to do so, for he regarded it as a vast improvement on the present system. If the principle of establishing a separate court were admitted, it seemed to him that the court now proposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General was as good a court as could be devised. He intended, nevertheless, to propose in Committee some clauses, engrafting a jurisdiction of the County Courts upon the system set forth in this Bill; and he should also propose that, in all disputed cases, parties should have a right to claim trial by jury. He also should feel it his duty, probably to take the sense of the House upon some of the provisions relative to compensation. The proposed compensation to the proctors seemed to him extravagant. If such claims of compensation were admitted, others would arise. The common-law bar had been deprived of a large income by the institution of the County Courts; and if a law were passed to simplify titles, conveyancing attorneys would be deprived of some of their profits; and were they also to be entitled to compensation? He (Mr. Collier) should support the Bill, subject to the modifications which he desired to introduce in it.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, he could not help expressing his surprise at the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier); for after having distinctly stated that he objected to every part of the Bill, he concluded by saying, as it was better than nothing, he should vote for the second reading, with a view of introducing some modifications of his own in Committee. Notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. and learned Member, he (Sir F.
1820
Thesiger) asserted that, with the exception of some part of the criminal jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, which had of late years been gradually withdrawn, to the testamentary jurisdiction of these Courts there had never been made any well-grounded objection; and, so far from their having been subjected to general and universal censure, whenever a strong opinion had been expressed it had always been in favour of them. He was only anxious to have the best possible jurisdiction on this subject, as it was one of vital importance, and concerned the whole of the personal property of the kingdom. His feelings were very strong with respect to the course taken by the Solicitor General. They had, from 1832 to 1854, appointed Commissions for the purpose of deciding what it would be best to do with the jurisdiction of these Courts; and these Commissions had, with one solitary exception, reported in favour of their continuance. The hon. and learned Solicitor General was a Member of one of those Commissions, and he being in a minority of three to nine was perfectly aware that the Commissioners had recommended that the jurisdiction of these Courts should not be transferred to the Court of Chancery. The Commissioners said, that in their opinion, the interests of the public would not be consulted by a transfer of the uncontested testamentary jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, and that such a transfer would be attended with all the inconveniences, without any of the advantages, incident to the constitution of a distinct court. The conclusion, therefore, at which they arrived was, that the testamentary jurisdiction ought not to be transferred to the Court of Chancery. What was the use of appointing Commissions to report their opinions upon important subjects, if, without any reason being assigned for such a course, measures were afterwards introduced utterly at variance with those opinions? Notwithstanding this Report, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General proposed to create a fourth Vice Chancellor, to give him the powers possessed by the other Equity Judges to apply to his Court all the orders and regulations applicable to the Court of Chancery, and to allow an appeal from his decision to the Lord Chancellor—a proposition which was an entire violation both of the spirit and of the letter of the Report of the Commissioners. If the Ecclesiastical Courts had been so universally condemned

1821
as was asserted by their opponents, there must be some strong principle of vitality in them, or they could not have lived so long. Their existence had been threatened as long ago as 1641, and a humourist of the day had on that occasion drawn up a will for Doctors' Commons, of which he would read a small portion to the House, because he thought his hon. and learned Friend must have taken it as the model of the present Bill. It was to this effect:—
"I, Doctors' Commons, in the parish of St. Benedict, Paul's-wharf, London, being very aged, and finding by general computation that my time draws to au end, and being much shaken, both in body and mind, with a Westminster ague, yet of perfect mind and memory, to avoid all suits and controversies that hereafter may arise concerning my estate or any part or parcel thereof and to the intent and purpose that my contentious days may be consummated and ended in peace, do constitute, &c., this my last will and testament. For my personal estate (having never been possessed of any lands) I willingly bequeath my reverend judges, vicars-general, chancellors, commissaries, archdeacons, deans and chapters, and their surrogates, and also all high commissioners, judges, delegates, and legum doctores quoscunque to the High Court of Parliament, there to be cherished according to their merits and deservings. Then I bequeath all my registrars, deputy-registrars, proctors, examiners, and public notaries to the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, to be admitted attorneys (if no prohibition be posted to the contrary). He then bequeathed his incontinent articles to Bloomsbury, Longacre, and other like places of good-fellowship; his libels of defamation to prudential scolds; his decrees to the Court of Chancery, in case they wanted any; and all the rest of his writings, rescripts, manuscripts, and superfluous papers whatsoever, to cooks, bakers, grocers, and chandlers."
He believed he had accidentally brought to light the source from whence his hon. and learned Friend had derived his Bill. The testamentary jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts consisted of two perfectly distinct parts—the common form business and the contentious business—and there was not the slightest ground for an imputation upon the manner in which either portion of that jurisdiction was exercised. There was no foundation for maintaining that that Court was so bad and corrupt as to be incapable of reformation, and must consequently be utterly abolished. The duties of proctors in transacting the common form business were of immense importance, no less than 18,000 wills having been admitted to probate last year, involving property to the amount, he believed, of more than 50,000,000 l., and he would state what was the opinion of the Commissioners with regard to the proposed abolition of that body. They said the
1822
evidence they had taken had fully satisfied their minds that this business had been carefully and efficiently transacted by the proctors, and they thought that to throw it open to attorneys and solicitors would be attended with no advantage, but on the contrary, with considerable detriment to the public. The most eminent attorneys, whose interest it would be to obtain a share of the business, had expressed a similar opinion, and his hon. and learned Friend the Member fur Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had presented a petition from the principle firms in London in favour of the continuance of the present system. If attorneys were admitted indiscriminately, the persons who would have to prove the wills would be the very persons who had made them, whereas it was part of the duty of proctors, who were not only agents of the parties, but also recognised officers of the Court, to point out to the Court any objections that might be raised to the wills before they were admitted to probate. If the Attorney were admitted to prove the will no such objection could be made. But it was proposed to admit 10,000 persons to deal with personal property to an enormous amount, and, although the attorneys were a highly honourable body of men, yet in so large a body there must be men of a different character; and let the House see the opportunity for fraud which would be furnished. An attorney had only to prove the will; he could then go to the bank and draw the money and get possession of all the funds. By this rash and dangerous experiment the Solicitor General proposed to trust to unknown hands, and to many who were possibly likely to abuse it, the duties which had been faithfully performed by the proctors. With regard to contentious jurisdiction, there were strong reasons for alleging that nothing could be more satisfactorily conducted than the business of the Court under the present system. The Judges of those Courts had been men of the highest intelligence and character, and whose judgments were studies for legal minds. What complaints were ever heard of the judgments of the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts on testamentary matters? Some of the counsel practising in these Courts were among the most learned and deeply read members of the profession, and at the present moment that learning was of the greatest importance, because connected as the Admiralty Court had been with the Ecclesi-

1823
astical Court, great advantages had arisen from the intimate acquaintance with international law possessed by the bar of these Courts. But his hon. and learned Friend proposed by his Bill utterly to destroy that advantage of having a skilled body of men qualified to discuss questions of such vital importance. He would beg to call the attention of the House to a passage in the Report of 1832. The Commissioners and Chief Justice Tindal in that report agreed in declaring that the connection between the Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Courts had been most useful, and that it was most desirable that the civil law should be well understood, especially in time of war. He had heard in the course of the debate the odious word "monopolists" applied to the profession practising at Doctors' Commons; but he would remind the House that the Common Law bar and the Chancery bar were practically divided, and that to the great advantage of the public and the credit of the profession. What reason had his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for coming forward with such a measure? Had it been called for by the public or recommended by any authority on which the House could rely? Why did his hon. and learned Friend depart from the recommendations of the Commissioners, who had given their attention to the subject? He regarded the present measure as a rash and untried experiment, for which the country would have to pay a most enormous price in the way of compensation. They had a Judge presiding with great credit in a Court of testamentary jurisdiction, and yet his hon. and learned Friend had resolved that he should not remain there, although he was to continue to receive his entire salary as compensation for his removal from office. Compensation was also to be given to proctors and other persons, and they were called upon to pay this sum for an experiment which they had no reason to think would be satisfactory; even where the Court was to sit was to be matter for future consideration; and he would submit that when they were called upon to abolish the present Court, they should receive information that would enable them to adopt a safe course in making a change in the present system. The safe course, in his opinion, would be to adhere to the old foundation. It was true that it was not adapted in some respects to the present time, but instead of abolishing it they should attach to the present foundation the changes which the process
1824
of time had rendered necessary. He and those who acted with him had no desire to continue the local jurisdictions that had been condemned. The Ecclesiastical Court was a name which it was not desirable to retain, but let the Perogative Court and the Arches Court be blended in one Court, to be called according to the recommendation of a high authority, the Queen's Court of Probate. Then the Court would be built upon such a foundation as would adapt itself to the circumstances of the times. The whole of the machinery was already in existence for such a court, and it would give more satisfaction than the Court of Chancery. Anything more unsatisfactory, anything more extravagantly expensive than the course of examination in the Court of Chancery was hardly possible to be imagined. Yet, when this testamentary jurisdiction should be transferred to that Court, then immediately all the rules, orders, and practices of that Court were to be applied to it, and among the rest, the very cumbersome and expensive mode of taking evidence. With regard to written evidence, his belief was, that in a great number of cases where the evidence was of a complicated and conflicting character, the Judge would be better able to consider and contrast the evidence when written than when given vivâ voce, though in some instances it might be advantageous to have a vivâ voce examination. There could be no difficulty in having a jury in the Probate Court. It was in vain that his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Collier), who objected to every clause in the Bill, was willing to allow it to go into Committee, in the hope that the jurisdiction would be transferred to the County Courts. Let not the House deceive itself by any such notion. They were there to decide upon the principle of the Bill. Were they prepared to abandon what had been so long established? Would they sweep away the Ecclesiastical Courts which, with regard to testamentary jurisdiction, were as free from reproach as any court in the kingdom? Would they introduce, for the sake of experiment and trial, a new jurisdiction utterly disregarding the opinion of those Commissioners to whom they had intrusted this important question, and who had stated that all the existing machinery ought to be continued, and who had declared it to be their opinion that the present Ecclesiastical Courts might be reformed and adapted to the requirements of existing circumstances; or would they, contrary to the advice of those Commis-

1825
sioners, adopt the principle of the Solicitor General, one of the small minority of those Commissioners, and abolish those courts which had so long stood, not only for the advantage of themselves, but for the benefit of the public at large?
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill, but certainly not because he was in any degree disposed to disparage the opinion of the majority of the Commissioners of 1832. With regard to the proctors, he admitted that they had ably discharged their duties, but it did not at all follow that because the gentlemen whose duty it was to administer an existing system had done it with advantage to the public, that, therefore, the system itself was one which ought to be supported. The question really was, whether this was a proper subject for law reform; and, if so, whether the reform proposed was one deserving the approval of the House of Commons? There had been an opinion long existing in the country that this was a proper subject for reform; and he thought that very good reasons had been assigned, for the opinion that the present testamentary jurisdiction was altogether in a state unworthy of those improvements which had taken place in other branches of the law. It was absurd to suppose that they could deal with this subject upon the notion that the existing system was a good system and was working well and satisfactorily in the country. The fact was, that they must recast the whole system, and the question that naturally arose was, how it was to be done? One great evil which would be remedied by the principle of the Bill was that division of jurisdiction that at present existed in a matter which was unity in itself, and which required to be consolidated. Why should it be necessary, in the nature of things, that you should have one court to decide what constituted a will and another court to construe the purport of that will? There was no ground whatever for such a distinction in principle. It appeared to him to be absurd to say that the Court of Chancery, after having determined how an estate should be distributed, should have no power of determining the instruments for its distribution. In cases of wills made by married women under special powers, and of instruments which were sometimes executed to avoid some Statute, such as wills made in the form of a deed to avoid the law relating to legacy or mortmain, the present system appeared to him to re-
1826
quire alteration, for even in cases of bequests fraudulently obtained, the Ecclesiastical Courts could not deal with the subject beyond the question of testamentary intention. The subject of real estate was only dealt with to a partial extent by the present Bill, but yet the way in which it was dealt with was a great step towards a consolidation of the whole subject of testamentary jurisdiction. The present system gave rise to great absurdities; for instance, in a case of litigation with regard to the validity of a will, first, there was a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, then at the same time a Bill was filed in Chancery to manage the estate and take possession, and then there was another suit about the real estate sent to be tried by law upon an issue directed by the Court of Chancery. Such a state of things was a disgrace to the jurisprudence of the country, and he should support the second reading of the present Bill because he thought that it tended to establish the consolidation of all testamentary jurisdiction. The Bill appeared to him to be a much nearer approach to the recommendations of the Commissioners and to that which hon. Members opposite appeared to him to wish for than any one would imagine who had heard the strong language which had been applied to it in the course of the discussion. In all points but one it did, or enabled to be done, what the Commissioners recommended; and as to common form business, it appeared to him to give the power of adopting all that was useful in the present system, the working of which was so much praised by hon. Members opposite. Perhaps it might be said that his reason for taking the course he proposed to adopt was that he was a Chancery lawyer, but he thought himself entitled to take that course when he considered how much of the business of the Court of Chancery referred to testamentary matters, and that, in fact, that Court had for centuries exercised the entire administration of property under wills. If consolidation was aimed at, therefore, he thought this testamentary business must be transferred to the Court of Chancery. As to the question raised about proctors and attorneys, he did not believe there was any weight in the argument that there would be greater liability to frauds in the concoction of wills under the new than under the old system, for the attorney had now just as great opportunity for malpractices as he would have then. But that assurance which the

1827
integrity of the proctors gave would still not be lost to the public. There would be a staff of officers of the Court selected from the very quarter in which these proctors practised—from among the proctors themselves—who would bring into he new Court all that experience, caution, and character which was obtained under the present system. Again, with regard to the advocates and the peculiar learning they possessed, it would undoubtedly be much to be regretted if that branch of learning should become extinct in consequence of the change contemplated; but, as long as you had in this country important branches of law to be administered upon the principles of that learning, he could not doubt that there would be persons who would find it their interest to qualify themselves in it. Altogether, it appeared to him that the objections made to this Bill were founded upon misapprehension of its nature, and that although the subject was difficult, and although reasons of very considerable force had been given, and might be given, in favour of a different arrangement, yet the plan now proposed recommended itself to his mind as an approximation to, or at least the first step towards, that consolidation of the whole testamentary law under one jurisdiction which, as it appeared to him, ought to be the object of their legislation. For these reasons he should give his support to the second reading of the Bill.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he was quite unprejudiced in this matter, for he belonged neither to the Court of Chancery, nor to the Ecclesiastical Courts, and he thought their lot hard when they had to choose between the two. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General was naturally of opinion that there was nothing like leather; in other words, that there was nothing like Chancery. Now, the House would recollect that the Bill introduced last year came before them in four shapes; and that after all the alterations and amendments introduced in it the measure was withdrawn, when it was found that the House would not support it. Everybody owned then, as they did now, that the Ecclesiastical Courts ought to be reformed, the only question being how these reforms should be accomplished, and bearing upon this point there was one important question and reply in the evidence taken before the Commission, which seemed to him of the greatest importance. One of the witnesses was asked—"Does
1828
one will in 100 of those admitted to probate come into Court for administration or construction?" The answer was, "I believe not." From this, then, it appeared that where one will was the matter of dispute, ninety-nine were not disputed, and his own experience went to show that in such cases there was no Court in the kingdom the business of which was so cheaply, so well, and so rapidly transacted as the Ecclesiastical Court. The recommendation of the Commissioners involved a cheaper, quicker, and better plan than that which was proposed by the Bill, and he saw no reason why it should not be adopted in preference to the measure before the House. Every proctor who practised in the present Court was known to the Court, and he believed that of late years there was scarcely ever a case in which a forged will had passed Doctors' Commons. No frauds were practised under the present system. The Bank of England, private bankers, and professional men generally approved of it, and the only persons who objected to it were practitioners in the Court of Chancery. Reform, properly speaking, meant amelioration and improvement; but to change when nothing was to be gained was not to reform. He objected to the proposed measure because it did not reform, and because there was not an evil in the existing law which it would really remedy. He therefore asked the House to adopt the Bill recommended by the Commissioners, which would remove every abuse, and settle every difficulty, and which had been strongly advocated by the Bank of England. He trusted that they would not yield to ignorant clamour against the Ecclesiastical Courts, and send the whole of this business to the Court of Chancery, which it had taken upwards of forty years to reform. The safe and prudent course would be to reform the Ecclesiastical Courts, which would be infinitely preferable to transferring the whole jurisdiction of those Courts to the Court of Chancery.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that the people of this country had much reason to complain of the course adopted with respect to these courts, both by the Government and the Legislature. It was now more than thirty years since the propriety of reforming these courts was first mooted, and during that time changes had been introduced into all the other courts of the realm and into many of its institutions, but all attempts to reform the Ecclesiasti-

1829
cal Courts had been uniformly rejected. And he could not help feeling that this Bill appeared very likely to meet the fate of its predecessors; for, although he was inclined to vote for its second reading, he could not deny that it was open to serious objections, for there were many evils that would result from its adoption. The one which pressed most upon him was as to the manner in which it would affect the poor people. The greater number of wills brought in for probate related to sums under 100 l., and the proof of wills, could not, like other legal matters, be avoided. Now, he felt that this measure must necessarily increase the cost and difficulty of proving wills, by compelling all wills to be proved at a central office. They were now proved by the Registrar in the nearest county town, without the intervention of an attorney or a proctor, at a cost of 2l. or 3l. But if this Bill were passed the will must pass through the hands of a country solicitor and his town agent. There would be fees to both, and probably a correspondence between them, which would, of course, accumulate costs, besides the fees of the court itself. Then there was another thing. The rules of the new court must be very stringent in order to prevent causes of fraud occurring. But if so there must be numerous checks entailing heavy expense, and preventing any person passing his will without professional assistance. Now, the necessity of these forms was now dispensed with, since the person coming to prove a will was in all probability known to the Registrar, and was not, therefore, likely to attempt to practise a fraud upon him. Besides, there could be no doubt that there must be a very large staff of officers in the new court to perform the duties now discharged by the proctors, and if so, of course the fees for their payment must necessarily be heavy. He would not at this time allude to the necessarily large amount that would be required for compensation. He thought they had not yet considered fairly what were the wants of the people of the country on this subject. The first great evil in connection with these courts was one which was rather a matter of feeling. There ought to be nothing of an ecclesiastical character about courts having jurisdiction of a testamentary character. The Judges ought to be appointed by the Queen, and all connection between them and the ecclesiastical organisation and the ecclesiastical divisions of the country cease. If this evil were removed, and some defects
1830
in the method of procedure were removed, he believed there would be no difficulty in establishing district courts which would give general satisfaction, and would attain the objects sought for both inexpensively and efficiently. Under the present Bill they were about, at an enormous expense to the country, to establish what he would call a non-effective establishment; and he for one should cordially give his vote against the measure.
MR. R. PHILLIMOREmoved the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned till Monday next.

PUBLIC OFFICES—DOWNING STREET EXTENSION BILL.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to enable the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works to provide additional offices for the public service, in or near Downing Street. The object of the Bill was to provide for the rebuilding of the Government offices in Downing Street, which were at present in a very dilapidated condition.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it was desirable that some plans or report should be laid before the House, which would afford them information as to the alterations contemplated by the Bill.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee, before whom a general plan of the intended alterations and an estimate of their expense would be laid. The Bill would then come down again to the House, and hon. Members would have an opportunity of considering the plans and the report of the Committee.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he wished to know whether the expenditure for the proposed buildings would render any local taxation necessary?
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH,in reply, said, that the offices to which the Bill referred were required for the service of the Government, and the sum necessary for their erection must, therefore, be provided by Parliament.
In reply to Mr. HADFIELD,
MR. WILSONsaid, that the agreement for a renewal of the lease of the house occupied by the Duke of Buccleuch had been entered into by the Government of Lord Derby, and was confirmed by the Government of Lord Aberdeen.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he begged to inquire whether any measures had been taken, in conformity with a re-

1831
commendation of Sir Charles Barry, to connect the public offices with the Houses of Parliament?
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, a plan bad been submitted to his consideration by Sir Charles Barry for building public offices in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament, and he had laid that proposal before the Treasury, but the object of this Bill was chiefly to provide for the rebuilding of the public offices in Downing Street, which were at present in a most dilapidated condition. The Foreign-office and the Colonial-office, especially, were in such a state of dilapidation that they required to be propped up on all sides. They were also in a very unhealthy condition. Indeed, they were perfect nuisances, and any change must be for the better.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONhoped, when such a necessity existed for providing public offices, that the vacant space near Downing Street, which had remained unoccupied for so many years, would be rendered available.
Motion agreed to. Leave given.
Bill to be brought in by Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH and Mr. HAYTER.
Bill read 1o
The House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLIS.—1a Affirmations (Scotland).
ROYAL ASSENT.—Convention with Sardinia; Purchasers Protection against Judgments; Lunacy Regulation Act, 1853, Amendment; Commons kolosure; Dean Forest, &c.

TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION BE TWEEN BALAKLAVA AND LONDON.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKErose to put a question to the Government which had reference to a subject of great public importance. It had been reported that the telegraphic communication was so nearly completed between Balaklava and London that the Government had had some opportunity of knowing what had occurred even within the last twenty-four hours. He, therefore, ventured to ask if such were the fact; and, if so, whether the Government could communicate anything material to their Lordships from the seat of war?
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that the First Lord of the Admiralty had received a telegraph from Balaklava within a space of less than twenty-four hours. However, it merely announced the opening of the communication, and conveyed no intelligence with respect to the siege.

EXPORT OF HORSES.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government had any means of supplying a return of the number of horses exported from this country within a certain period to be specified? because, if so, he should move for a return on the subject. He was induced to ask this question as the subject had a not unimportant bearing on the war now going on in the East. It had come to his knowledge that within the last six months an immense number of horses had been exported from this country to France, and that during the last three weeks 1,000 horses had been exported from Folkstone alone to that country. It was Well known that one of the most im-
1782
portant elements in the service was the supply of horses, and so large an exportation must prove extremely detrimental to the supply of our cavalry, which was already more than deficient; and he wished to ask the Government whether, under the circumstances in which the country was now placed, they thought it wise that an unlimited export of horses from this country should be allowed to take place? He should not object to the export of stallions to France; but, under present circumstances, he thought we should, as much as possible, keep brood mares and young horses in this country. He believed that the price of horses had risen as much as 10 and 15 per cent, and surely nothing could be so absurd as that the French Government should be bidding against us for the horses which were wanted for the service in which the two countries were engaged. It was like a man and his commissioner going into an auction room, and bidding against each other. He should, therefore, like to know whether the information he required could be furnished, as in that case he would move for returns.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYreplied, that there would be no objection to the return desired by the noble Earl. The attention of the Government had been called to the fact, but he was not aware that a larger number of horses than usual had been exported except to France. He was not prepared to say that the Government had any intention of limiting the exportation of horses at present.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that some years ago, when he was Attorney General, there was a great exportation of horses, and the question then arose whether or not the Government could prevent the exportation; it was his duty to examine into the law on the subject, and he found that there had formerly such a power been given by ancient statutes; but that such statutes had been repealed, and the Government had now no power to prevent the exportation.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that when Secretary of State for War his attention had been drawn to this subject, and he had procured a return from the Custom House, showing the number of horses exported during the first nine months of last year. He did not find, however, that that number, though considerable, was much greater than during the corresponding portion of 1853. Of course he could not state what had been the case during the last three or four months.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYimagined, after what had been stated, that there could be no objection to his moving for a return of the number of horses exported from this country from the 1st of January, 1854, to the present time. The number exported in time of peace had no bearing upon the number exported now, when the price for cavalry horses had risen 20 per cent, and there was considerable danger of a scarcity. He reminded their Lordships, also, that the disasters with our army in the East had experienced last year might be traced mainly to the inefficiency of the land transport.
EARL GREYpresumed that the Government would consent to the Motion; but, at the same time, he could not help expressing his great satisfaction at hearing from his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice, that the Government had no power to prohibit the exportation of horses without passing a law for that purpose, and he hoped that no law would be introduced which would throw any impediment in the way of the due profits of exportation. That was a course which he hoped Parliament would not be induced to adopt; for it was impossible to conceive a more short-sighted policy than that of attempting to throw difficulties in the way of owners of horses turning them to the best advantage. The supply which the noble Earl desired would best arise from that very rise of price of which he now complained. Indeed, he believed that such a course would tend to increase the scarcity, for their Lordships would remember that this was not the only country in want of horses, and, probably, if the Government restricted their exportation, other nations would follow their example, and we should have great difficulty in procuring such a supply of horses and mules as was absolutely necessary, for it must not be forgotten that we were purchasing horses and mules in other countries.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYdid not wish in the least to interfere with the freedom of trade in the exportation of horses, but he did not conceive that keeping brood mares in the country would have any other effect than to encourage the breed of horses. He very much doubted whether horses in any number were imported into this country; but in order to ascertain the fact he would also move for a return of the number imported as well as exported within the period he had mentioned. He believed that while the number exported would be found
1784
to be very large, the return of the number imported would be nil. With respect to free trade, he had opposed it, but he had no wish to interfere with it again. The question was settled, and there was an end of it.
EARL GREYobserved, in explanation, that he did not mean that horses were purchased in large numbers for this country, but for the use of the army in the East.
LORD VIVIANreminded the House that the extra price given by the Government for horses was to be accounted for by the fact, that whereas before the war, they purchased animals of three and even two years, they now bought only those that were from five to eight years old.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he had as little wish as his noble Friend could have to interfere with free trade; but it was important to consider whether it would not be carrying free trade too far to permit the exportation of horses at a moment when this country was at war. What did France do? France would not permit horses to be exported from her shores. Throughout Europe and the whole world it was found that the animal was not produced in sufficient quantities to enable the purchasers of horse flesh to obtain it at a moderate price. We were notoriously the first breeders of horses, and we had the best blood of horses; and all his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) said was, that we should so far preserve our brood mares as to maintain our improved breed of horses. Although a good free trader, he could not see in what way the restriction, so far as his noble friend proposed, would interfere with its beneficial operation.
Returns ordered.

THE CONFERENCES AT VIENNA.
LORD LYNDHURST,in the absence of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, begged to ask the noble Marquess the President of the Council (meaning the Marquess of Lansdowne) a question which he and every Member of the Cabinet must be competent to answer. The noble Marquess was aware that by the treaty of the 2nd of December the parties to that treaty were bound to each other, in the event of peace not being concluded on the basis mentioned in the first article—that the Allied Powers would, without delay, deliberate on such measures as would be necessary to give effect to the principles agreed upon; and the question

1785
he had to ask was, whether this deliberation had been entered into at present? And, if so, whether this deliberation was entered into during the residence in Vienna of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, and if such deliberation had been brought to any result?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: When the noble and learned Lord calls on me to answer, as the organ of the Government in this House, and as President of the Council, he invokes a departed spirit. In the absence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I am not able to answer, nor do I think that he would, if present, be able to state till the arrival of Lord John Russell, which will be in a few days, what has taken place in Vienna—if, indeed, anything has taken place.
The House adjourned till To-morrow.