Sitting of 4 July 1856

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Calne, v. the Earl of Shelburne, Steward of Hempholme.
PUBLIC BILL.—1° Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.
2° Incumbered Estates (Ireland); Revenue (Transfer of Charges).
3° Church Building Commission; Parochial Schools (Scotland); Militia Ballots Suspension; Deeds (Scotland); Procedure before Justices (Scotland).

LIABILITY OF CAB PROPRIETORS— QUESTION.
MR. D. WADDINGTONsaid, he wished to inquire of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention had been called to a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench by which cab proprietors were held to be liable in respect of luggage lost in their cabs, and whether he intended to take any measure to relieve the cab proprietors from that liability?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the effect of a recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench was to fix an unlimited liability in respect of goods conveyed by railway companies, and that the subject was then under the consideration of Government; but he was not at that moment prepared with any measure which would have the effect of affording relief to those companies.

COUNTY COURT JUDGES' SALARIES— QUESTION.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had a question to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A Bill now stood for Monday, to regulate the salaries of the County Court Judges. That Bill placed the salaries to the charge of the Consolidated Fund. He therefore desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would be able to lay on the table of the House an estimate of the amount which would be placed to the charge of the Consolidated Fund by the provisions of the Bill?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he had no objection to lay on the table the best estimate the Government were able to form as to the charge on the Consolidated Fund of those salaries. The Bill would not be taken till Friday next, and before that time he would endeavour to lay the estimate on the table.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he hoped that the estimate would show the distinction between the amount paid by the Consolidated Fund and the amount paid by fees.

TROOPS IN THE WEST INDIES— QUESTION.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Under-Secretary for

321
War whether the three regiments—the 36th, 67th, and 69th, which have now been about five years stationed in the West India islands—were shortly to be relieved? The usual time for such service was only three years.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the delay had been caused by the necessity of concentrating the troops in the Crimea. The Government had no wish to detain those troops in the West Indies beyond their time. They were at present on their way to this country. It was impossible at present to say what would be their destination.

SALARY OF THE BISHOP OF NEW ZEA LAND.
On the Motion that the House at its rising should adjourn until Monday,
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON SIR JOHN PAKINGTON rose, and said that he could not allow the Session to close without putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies with respect to the subject to which he had already called the attention of the House on more than one occasion, namely, the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand. His object in putting the question was to ascertain what was the intention of the Government with regard to a state of things which they must allow was not on the whole a creditable one, and which to them, as it was to him, must, he was sure, be matter of great regret. In former discussions that had taken place upon the subject, blame had been thrown upon him in consequence of some words which fell from his lips in moving the Colonial Estimates in the year 1852; but he had never acknowledged the justice of that blame, and even supposing that in the first three weeks of his holding office, during which it was natural that his mind should have been much occupied by matters of varied interest, and whilst moving the Colonial Estimates, he had used expressions which applied to the Bishop of New Zealand, nevertheless, he had subsequently, over and over again, declared that it was not his intention to convey the meaning that had been subsequently put upon them. The facts of the case were these:—The Bishop of New Zealand was appointed by the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) when the noble Lord was Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1839 or 1841, with the distinct intimation that his salary was to be £600 per annum. No promise was made, however, that that
322
income should be for life, though, according to all precedent, it might surely with fairness be understood to be for life. But within the last two years the income had been wholly stopped, and the bishop left without the means of support in his episcopal capacity. Reference was made by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Grey), when at the Colonial Office, to the colony itself, but the colony refused to act upon it; and, if he remembered rightly, their refusal was given about the time that the new constitution for New Zealand came into operation, and the Government of the colony could hardly be considered in a settled state. How far that circumstance gave better hope of the result of any fresh reference to the colony he could not say but he would submit to the Government whether it was creditable to the Church or honourable to the country that in consequence of a misunderstanding of the nature he had described a bishop should be deprived of the income he had a right to expect at the time of his appointment, and left without any means of supporting his position in the colony. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) could not hold out any prospect of the salary of the bishop being renewed, he (Sir J. Pakington) should certainly bring forward a Motion upon the subject early in the next Session. In conclusion, he wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to make any arrangement for restoring to the Bishop of New Zealand the moderate and necessary income of £600 per annum, which was provided for him when he first accepted the position he has so well filled, and was continued till the last two years?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he could not avoid confessing that the subject brought forward by the right hon. Member for Droitwich was one which he always approached with pain and concern, because he readily admitted that the Bishop of New Zealand had been hardly treated. But he was also quite sure that it was not the result of design on the part of any one who had had to do with the transaction, though that result was equally certain as if it had been; and he must repeat that it was impossible to review the proceedings without coming to the conclusion that, so far as the Bishop was concerned, he had been somewhat harshly treated. He must also confess that the pain he felt was aggravated by the circumstance that nothing could have been more disinterested or high-minded than the conduct of the Bishop

323
himself with regard to the whole matter. When applied to, and asked if he considered he had a right to the money on account of the manner in which he had been appointed, he answered, in writing, in these terms:—
"I admit the correctness of the statement which is reported to have been made by Lord John Russell, in the House of Commons, that no stipulation or agreement was made by me in 1841 respecting the amount or continuance of the salary; for I did not then, nor do I now, consider it to be a part of my office to make any such stipulation or agreement, either with the home or the colonial Government; and I must leave with Her Majesty's Government the responsibility of interfering with previous arrangements without making any provision for me."
Than such language nothing could be more becoming or suitable to the sacred station which the Bishop of New Zealand held, or more in consonance with the whole character and conduct of that right rev. person; and he (Mr. Labouchere) could assure the House that if he himself had come to the conclusion that he ought not again to put upon the Colonial Estimates the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand, which had now been omitted for three years, it was from no disrespect to the Bishop, nor any insensibility to the manner in which he had filled his sacred office during the time he had been in New Zealand, or the benefits which the community there had received at his hands; but he must remind the House of what were the real facts of the case. It was in 1841 that the bishopric of New Zealand was founded, and placed upon the Estimates with a salary of £600 a year. But it could not be said that any right to that salary was created by what then took place, although he was willing to admit that the Bishop had every reasonable expectation that it would be continued. In point of fact, the salary was continued until 1852, but from that period it was omitted from the Estimates. At that time the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) filled the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies; and in referring to what he then stated it was not his (Mr. Labouchere's) intention to offer any personal taunt to the right hon. Gentleman, but to call the attention of the House to the fact that a distinct pledge was then given by the right hon. Gentleman that the salary should not again appear in the Votes. In a matter of that kind he did think that when the House was asked to agree to an Estimate with the distinct understanding that it should not be repeated, it was a
324
pledge to the House of Commons which ought not to be broken without the strongest and most justifiable reasons for doing so. Well, now, what was the language of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Estimates in 1852? There was a sum of £10,000 proposed to be voted that year for New Zealand, and he found the hon. Member for Lambeth addressing the following inquiry to the right hon. Gentleman:—
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said, he was glad to observe that there was a reduction in this Vote as compared with previous years, and he hoped that they might look forward to a further and a considerable reduction next year. The charge of £600 for the Bishop of New Zealand, and £590 for chaplains and schools, he must, however, object to, on the ground that the people of this country ought not to be taxed for providing Bishops and clergy for New Zealand, or any other colony, and added, that unless a pledge were given that these items should not appear again, he should divide the Committee against them."—[3 Hansard, cxxii. 106.]
The House would observe that the special, and, indeed, only ground upon which his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth objected to the Vote was that a certain portion of ecclesiastical expenditure was included in the amount:—
"Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said, he was decidedly averse to giving any distinct pledge; but seeing the reduction already made in the Vote, and that next year it would be further reduced, it was, hoped, to £5,000, and that after that time probably no grant at all would be required on account of New Zealand, he would suggest that it would be hardly reasonable to divide against the amount now proposed."
Upon that—
"Mr. W. WILLIAMS said, that after the gratifying statement of the right hon. Gentleman, considering that the Vote was now reduced to £10,000, and would be only £5,000, after which no grant would be required, he would not press his Amendment."—[3 Hansard, cxxii. 106.]
After such observations as the above he could hardly conceive a more distinct pledge to the House of Commons, that the whole of the expenditure for New Zealand should in future be defrayed by the colony itself, and that the House of Commons should not, be called upon to meet it out of the revenues of the mother country. He must also confess that, finding such a pledge had been given to the House of Commons by the Secretary for the Colonies three years ago, and that that pledge had ever since been acted upon, he assuredly should not feel himself at liberty to propose such a grant to the House of Commons, except for the strongest reasons—unless, indeed, it were a gross and palpable breach of

325
faith to do otherwise. In previous discussions on the subject, allusion had been made to the case of North American Bishops; but he did not consider that they stood at all on the same footing as the Bishop of New Zealand. The whole of the Vote for New Zealand to which he had alluded was made on temporary grounds; and the House was told that New Zealand would be a self-supporting colony, and no charge to this country; whereas the ecclesiastical establishments in America had always been defrayed out of the revenues of the mother country. Every effort had been made by the Government to induce the Legislature of New Zealand to continue the salary during the lifetime of the existing Bishop; but whilst the Legislature spoke in the most respectful terms of that right reverend person, and expressed a high sense of his merits and services, they stated that as a matter of principle they did not feel that they ought to support the Bishop of one religious denomination to the exclusion of another. He had now stated the reasons why he was afraid he must return a negative reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman; but he could not sit down without observing that he should be astonished indeed if the Bishop of New Zealand were in any way a sufferer by the refusal of that House to continue his salary. For what was going on in the colony at the present moment? By the spontaneous efforts of Churchmen in New Zealand they were absolutely founding new bishoprics. It was only the other day that he himself advised the Crown to assent to the establishment of a new bishopric in the district of Canterbury, for which an endowment of £500 a year had already been secured from private sources alone; and there was now a proposal before him for constituting another see for the district of Wellington, where the endowment was equally liberal and secure. He could not imagine, therefore, that Churchmen in New Zealand would be guilty of the inconsistency and injustice of providing for New Bishops before they had made provision for the old; and he should hope there was no fear of that excellent prelate, Dr. Selwyn, suffering in pecuniary circumstances from the state of things which had arisen; but with regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) having stated the particulars of the case, he could only say, and he said it with the deepest regret, that he could not hold out any expectation of his
326
advising that the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand should again be placed on the Estimates.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the manner in which his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had spoken of Dr. Selwyn was as worthy of the object of his commendation as of his own character and station; but he had not a word of objection to urge against the course taken by Her Majesty's Government up to that period; because he himself was responsible for having concurred in the propriety of that course. Undoubtedly it was the case, and there should be no mistake about it, that the difficulty in which the Government of Lord Aberdeen was placed in reference to the subject arose entirely and exclusively out of the effect of the words which were understood to be used by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) at the time he was Secretary of State for the Colonies. They construed the words used by the right hon. Baronet—whether intended by him or not was obviously not the question—as constituting a distinct pledge to the House of Commons that the Vote for the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand should not be renewed, and it certainly appeared to them that they would not be justified in departing from that pledge. If the Government had at the period he (Mr. Gladstone) was in office as Chancellor of the Exchequer placed a Vote upon the Estimates, and had used their influence as a Government to procure the assent of the House of Commons in the ordinary manner to that Vote, then he thought that while they might have been doing what was most desirable in regard to the Bishop of New Zealand, they would have given fair ground of complaint to the House of Commons on account of the manner in which the pledge—the involuntary pledge, perhaps—of the right hon. Gentleman would in that case have been violated. He did not see, then, though there was something to regret, that there was anything to find fault with on the part of the Government; because he held this sound parliamentary doctrine, that there were no words of higher authority than words used by a Minister of the Crown when giving answers, in his place, to Members of the House of Commons. The House of Commons was accustomed to repose the most implicit reliance in such verbal assurances; and cases occurred every year in which the Votes of that House were determined by the simple effect, of those verbal assurances,

327
given at that moment. Therefore they ought to be considered as of the highest authority, and the pledge they involved ought to be strictly believed. But how stood the case? Grant that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich was not, at the moment, fully aware of the breadth of the engagement which his words might be supposed to imply—grant that the Government which succeeded that of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member were bound to refrain from using their authority to procure the continuance of the Bishop's salary, did the case stand in a position that was satisfactory to the Members of the House of Commons? Both the right hon. Gentleman and himself now spoke in the capacity of independent Members of that House; but the testimony on both sides of the House was the same. The right hon. Gentleman said that the state in which the question now stood was not altogether honourable to the House of Commons, whilst his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, in following him, commenced his remarks with an emphatic assertion that the Bishop of New Zealand had been "harshly treated." Now, without determining where the blame might rest, he fully felt the pressure of those declarations that between them all the Bishop of New Zealand had been harshly treated. Let it be granted that Dr. Selwyn left this country without any agreement or stipulation. Well, so he did; but, as his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary had observed, he had a fair title to expect the continuance of his salary. Now, what was the rule upon which Parliament acted with regard to the recipients of public money? It did not inquire whether they had a written covenant or a positive legal right; but wherever there was a moral claim there Parliament invariably discharged it in the fullest and most liberal manner. The question was, then, whether the House of Commons, not being under the influence of a Government, or of pledges of any sort, but as a collection of English Gentlemen sitting there to discharge their duties, could, or could not, with respect to those declarations and to the general rules of administration, refute and contradict what had been observed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington)—namely, that the present state of things was not honourable to the House of Commons: besides that, what had been said by his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary?—why, that the Bishop
328
of New Zealand had been harshly treated. Now, with regard to the provision which the Colonial Secretary thought the Churchmen of New Zealand ought to have made for the Bishop, he was afraid that that provision did not exist, but he must say that it weighed upon his conscience, as a Member of the House of Commons, that the subject under consideration remained in the position in which it now did. It seemed that no remedy could be applied to it without the general assent of that House. Speaking, therefore, in his individual capacity, he would say that it would be more satisfactory, and at the same time more consonant with the principles of justice, and in accordance with the rule upon which Parliament usually acted, if they encouraged the Government by their general assent to propose a renewal of the grant, than by holding the Government down to the letter of the pledge, which was apparently unconsciously given in the first instance, and since reluctantly acknowledged, they permitted the existing state of things to continue, and left the Bishop of New Zealand entirely dependent on private and voluntary contributions for his support.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that it had been stated that Bishop Selwyn would rather labour with his own hands to obtain a living than apply to the House of Commons. If he did so, he would only do what better men than himself—what the apostles themselves had done before him. They, too, had laboured with their hands. He could not see why the people of New Zealand should not support their own Bishop. The colony had always been understood to be a self-supporting one. It was founded at a considerable expense to this country. That expense had not been thrown away, and the colony was now in a most prosperous condition, and was certainly in a condition to support its own ministers. He hoped that House would never be called upon to support so unchristian a proposition as that for making the people of England pay for a Bishop of New Zealand.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that he did not consider that the present moment was a convenient one to enter into any discussion of the principles on which the Colonial Church was formed or how it should be supported, and he should not, therefore, touch upon that subject. With regard to the incident in question, however, he looked upon it as a case which ought to be considered

329
entirely in reference to the claim of the individual. His impression was—though he had not then the opportunity of consulting the documents, as they were in the Secretary of State's office—that the post of Bishop of New Zealand had been accepted by the eminent divine who held it on the clear understanding that a decent provision was to be made for the support of the Church in the colony. He would ask, therefore, assuming that to be the case, whether the House of Commons had not entered into an engagement on the subject? and that being the case, he could not help thinking that whatever might be the opinion of hon. Members on the general question of Church endowment, if such an engagement was entered into, involving as it did such a peculiar responsibility, it ought to be fulfilled. The only real obstacle to a large and liberal interpretation of the question was, it appeared, a pledge which it was alleged had been given by his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich when he held office. Now, he (Mr. Disraeli) had, however, no recollection of any words which fell from his right hon. Friend that would bear such an interpretation. He was much surprised, therefore, to hear it alleged as such against his right hon. Friend. He found, however, on the contrary, in the only authentic record of the proceedings of that House which was to be had, that his right hon. Friend had said, at the very outset of his remarks, "that he was averse to giving any distinct pledge on the subject." His right hon. Friend, therefore, could not be held as having given a distinct pledge when he professed his aversion to it at the very outset. He was therefore surprised to hear the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) speak of a "distinct pledge." But his right hon. Friend, in his subsequent observations, stated that "probably, after the next year, no further grant would be required." Now "probably" is one of the most vague expressions in the language, and certainly could not by any process be converted into a distinct pledge. Therefore he (Mr. Disraeli) could not but think that, as regarded his right hon. Friend's observations, it was a most severe and erroneous interpretation to charge him with having made a distinct pledge to Parliament on the subject. Still he (Mr. Disraeli) thought that even if his right hon. Friend had given the pledge, it ought to be no obstacle to a large and
330
generous dealing with the Bishop of New Zealand. It was, as he had stated, a case which should be considered in the light of an engagement as between Parliament and the individual in question. That being so, he must protest against the introduction into its settlement of questions of politics or of Ecclesiastical Government. In his opinion Her Majesty's Government should consider it in that spirit; and he therefore contended that the observations of his right hon. Friend in 1852, even if they were made as alleged, should be construed into a distinct pledge as against the arrangement.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had no desire to oppose the consideration of any well-founded claim which the Bishop of New Zealand might have; but he must correct the misapprehension of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) that the only obstacle to the renewal of the grant was a casual expression dropped in debate, without sufficient consideration, by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington). When he (Sir G. Grey) became Colonial Secretary, his attention was called to the Estimates which were prepared in the Colonial Office in the year 1852, when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Baronet was Secretary for the Colonies, and which were signed by Lord Desart as Under Secretary. The Estimate for New Zealand amounted to £10,000 made up of several items, one of which was £600 for the salary of the Bishop. To that Estimate there was appended a note which was in exact accordance with what the right hon. Baronet was reported to have afterwards stated in that House, and which had been added in the Colonial Office by the directions of the right hon. Baronet, transmitted to the Treasury, and by the Treasury submitted to Parliament with the Estimates, in order to induce Parliament more readily to agree to the Vote. That note was in these terms, "This Estimate is less by £10,000 than that of last year. The Governor represents that this reduced amount is required for the present year, but it is proposed that it should be reduced to £5,000 next year, after which it is hoped no further aid will be needed." He (Sir G. Grey) was willing to admit that the expression of a hope did not amount to a distinct pledge, but there was no exception made with regard to the salary of the bishop, and the expectation was held out.

331
that if the revenue of New Zealand were sufficient, none of the sums included in the Vote would, in future, be asked for from Parliament. In according with that distinct, he would not say pledge, but intimation, the succeeding Government thought it its duty not to place the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand upon the Estimates, because, by doing so, it would have broken faith with Parliament.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, several speakers had observed, that it was dishonourable in the House of Commons to do as they had done. Now let them see who it was that was bound to pay the money. The person who appointed the Bishop was the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), and then he came down to the House and asked the House to pay the salary, and the House acceded to it for one year. It appeared to him, therefore, that the person who appointed the Bishop was the person really responsible, and, consequently, he would call upon the noble Lord the Member for London to pay hereafter the salary of the Bishop. But the question went much further. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) said, he did not want the question of the Colonial Church to be discussed with the question now under consideration, but he (Mr. Roebuck) apprehended that they were obliged to discuss it. The Colonial Church was increased in this way: there were certain persons in this country who wanted to see the English Church spread over the globe, and they would effect that if they could by making the Colonies pay; but if the Colonies would not pay, this country must. The Colonies, it appeared, would not pay, and this country would not pay either. He was glad to hear that the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich had been acted upon by successive Governments. It was to be presumed that the Minister in his place endeavouring to induce the House of Commons to pass an Estimate knew the words which he was employing, and he did not think any Member of that House would put the interpretation upon the words of the right hon. Member for Droitwich that had been put upon them by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). The right hon. Gentleman thought that the colony of New Zealand would pay, but he was mistaken, and because a Minister of the Crown chose to appoint a Bishop of New Zealand, it was assumed that the
332
House of Commons would vote his salary out of the taxes of the country.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he rose to make a suggestion which, if acted upon, might prevent any practical injustice being done to the Bishop of New Zealand. That individual was one of the first scholars that the University of Cambridge had produced, he was a most excellent divine, and possessed every virtue which ought to adorn a Christian prelate. It was scarcely to be expected that the colony of New Zealand should have the means of rewarding so eminent a person in a manner suitable to his deserts, but England could well afford to do so; and though there might be some difficulty in continuing to him the salary originally granted, it was to be hoped that the Government would bear his claims in mind, and not neglect to requite them when the opportunity arose.
Subject dropped.

UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH— QUESTION.
MR. COWANsaid, he wished to inquire what was the intention of the Government with regard to the professorship of military surgery in the University of Edinburgh? The office had become vacant upwards of six mouths ago, through the lamented death of Sir John Ballingall, and no steps had been taken as yet towards the appointment of a successor. The chair left vacant by the death of Sir William Hamilton, he understood, was to be filled up in about a fortnight. He would take that opportunity also of bearing testimony to the devoted heroism of Dr. Mackenzie, who perished in the Crimea after the battle of the Alma. He hoped the condition of the University of Edinburgh, justly prizing, as it did, its medical school, would be considered by the Government.
MR. FREDERICK PEELreplied, that the chair of Military Surgery would be retained, and the authorities of the University had made provision for a course of lectures pending the appointment of a new professor.

IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS COMMIS SIONERS—QUESTION.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he wished to ask a question of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury to the following effect:—A sum of £5,000 had been applied for by the town council of Alnwick for the improvement of lands belonging to

333
the corporation, and the improvement was commenced accordingly. But the town council found it impossible to get the money from the Treasury, because the Commissioners would not certify, though a year and a half had elapsed. The result was, that proceedings had been taken against twenty-three members of the town council.
MR. WILSONsaid, that in so far as certain improvements referred to in a petition from the freemen of the town of Alnwick came within the terms of the Act which authorised advances for purposes of drainage, the Drainage Commissioners would be prepared to lend money to the amount of £5,000, but this transaction was limited to arable lands, and did not extend to pastures.

PAYMASTERS OF THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
MR. SERJEANT O'BRIENsaid, he now rose to call the attention of the House to the case of the late paymasters of constabulary in Ireland, and to the compensation allowed to them on the abolition of their office. The office had been created in 1836, when eighteen paymasters were appointed at salaries of £200 a year each, and a considerable expense was incurred by the gentlemen appointed, as the regulations required they should reside in the respective counties to which they were appointed. Their offices were, however, abolished in 1851, by which means a considerable saving was effected to the public revenue; but as they had been led to expect that their situations would be permanent, and as, moreover, they were removed for reasons wholly irrespective of their own conduct or fitness, it was obvious that they were entitled to liberal treatment at the hands of the Government. In 1850, when the abolition of these offices was in contemplation, a correspondence on the subject of the claims of their occupants passed between the Irish Government, the Lords of the Treasury, and Lord Clarendon, then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and that noble Lord had recommended that they should be liberally dealt with. Sir Duncan M'Gregor also had recommended that the gentlemen so situated should get £100 a year each. The recommendation of Lord Clarendon, however, through Sir Thomas Redington, then Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, was that they should get, in proportion to their former salaries and length of service, the sums respectively
334
of £150, £120, and £100, per annum each. The sums given to them nevertheless were—those officers who had served fourteen years and a half £42 per annum, instead of £150; and those who had served ten years £36 per annum; while those who had served less than six years got no annual payment, but were paid gratuities respectively of £104, £77, £63, £51, £34, and, as if the Treasury meant to try every possible scale, the last got nothing at all. That was not the way in which the Government had dealt with the Irish Poor Law Inspectors at the commencement of last Session, for those gentlemen had got £400, £330, and £200 a year, upon salaries of £700, £500, and £300, their services ranging from three to fifteen years. There was a provision in the Act of 1851, abolishing the office of paymaster of the Irish Constabulary to the effect that the retirement should be regulated by the Superannuation Act of 1834; and in that Act there was also a power given to the Treasury to award compensation even beyond the scale laid down in the Act. He was surprised that the Treasury should, in this case, not have exercised the power given by that Act in a manner more favourable to claims of those gentlemen whose diligence and good service had been so highly commended by the Irish Government in the correspondence which took place on the subject. Again, in reference to the retirement of four gentlemen who had held office under the Metropolitan Board of Health, the Government had proposed, and the House had granted, allowances to two of them who had served eleven years, and whose salaries were £1,000 a year each, of £800 a year each, and to two who had served nine years £500 a year each. There was abundant authority in the cases he had referred to, and in the Estimates, to prove that persons whose claims were not stronger than were the claims of the parties for whom he pleaded had obtained compensation. He only asked the House to apply to those gentlemen, without being unmindful of the public service, the same principle as had been applied to so many other similar cases. He hoped Government would, under the circumstances, give an assurance that they would reconsider their decision, and not conceive themselves bound by what had taken place.
SIR DENHAM NORRISsaid, he thought the case of the paymasters of constabulary was exceedingly hard, and

335
showed the absolute necessity of administrative reform. It was impossible that the civil service of the country could be conducted in a satisfactory manner unless all classes of employés felt that if it were found necessary to abolish the offices which they held, they would be dealt with upon the same principle. When the office of paymasters of constabulary was established the appointments were regarded as permanent; while the office of Poor Law Inspectors, which was subsequently established, was regarded as merely temporary. The office of paymasters of constabulary had been abolished, and the number of Poor Law Inspectors had been considerably diminished; but those who had held what had been regarded as permanent offices did not receive as compensation more than one-sixtieth or one-seventieth of their salaries, while Mr. Dillon, who had been only three years a Poor-Law Inspector, at £500 a year, had retired upon half his salary. He considered that such inequality of treatment in the case of public servants could by no means be justified.
VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, it was not in his power to hold out any hope that the Treasury, as at present constituted, would reverse the decision which had already been given upon the subject, and he thought great public inconvenience would arise if one Board of Treasury were to reverse the decisions of their predecessors without very good reasons. In 1848 provision was made to enable this class of officers to take a pension on retiring, and the option was given them of placing themselves under the operation of the Act by which the pension was provided. Those individuals whose case was now before the House distinctly refused to be placed under the provisions of the Act, but two years afterwards those offices were abolished, and the Treasury then agreed to give them such compensation as they were fairly entitled to. It was rather too much for those gentlemen, after having refused to avail themselves of the provision for a pension, to come forward now and complain that they had not received greater consideration. He trusted the House would support the Treasury in this instance on a matter which affected the expenditure of the public money.
LORD NAASsaid, the noble Lord treated the question as one of superannuation, whereas the question was one of compensation for the abolition of their
336
offices. It was true that in 1841 those gentlemen applied to be put on the superannuation fund and were then refused, but seven years afterwards the offer was certainly made to them, but coupled with such conditions as to induce them to decline it.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—QUESTION.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, of which he had not had an opportunity of giving him notice, but which he hoped he would pardon him for putting, considering the personal interest he took in the matter. He alluded to the sinister rumours which had appeared in the morning journals respecting the state of affairs at the Cape of Good Hope; and he wished to ask whether the noble Lord considered those rumours correct, and whether any orders had been given to reinforce the military stations on the frontiers, which he could say, from personal knowledge, were very slenderly provided with troops.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Certainly, Sir, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary received yesterday some accounts which led to the apprehension that disturbances might occur on the frontiers, such as the hon. Gentleman has alluded to. I do not understand that there was any actual outbreak, and such steps had been taken as would guard against the possibility of the recurrence of anything unpleasant. I do not understand that the accounts contain any reports of actual occurrences, but simply that there had been indications of disturbances between the Dutch settlers and the natives, and there was an apprehension that those disturbances might extend to the English settlers.

MILITIA REWARDS—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know what was the specific rule for distributing rewards to the Militia regiments which had been disembodied? Applications had been made to him, stating that officers and men had not received the usual gratuities.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, if the officers and men of any regiment had not received the gratuities they were entitled to, it must be owing to some mistake, and the proper course would be to make application to the Department of War. He was not aware that any distinction had been established that would shut out any

337
one regiment from the largess which it had been agreed to give to the Militia.
Motion agreed to.
House, at its rising, to adjourn till Monday.

CHURCH-BUILDING COMMISSION BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to point out the necessity for consolidating the whole of the Church-Building Acts. At the same time he strongly objected to the compensation clause which the Bill contained. Originally the Commission was intended to continue only ten years, but the time had extended to thirty-eight years. Nevertheless, it could hardly be asserted that the parties who had served under the Commission received their appointments under the expectation that at the expiration of the Commission they would be entitled to compensation for life. He thought that if the Commission were to cease altogether, that would be the best thing that could happen.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would admit that it was desirable that the numerous Church-Building Acts should be consolidated, but the present Bill could not operate to obstruct such consolidation.
Bill read 3deg;.
On the question that the Bill pass,
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he objected that certain payments which had formerly been made out of the Consolidated Fund would now be placed by the Bill on the annual Estimates in the shape of compensations. He should, therefore, move the omission of the words transferring those charges to the annual Estimates.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought it would be better to move the omission of the clause altogether.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the way to perpetrate jobs was to get a Bill passed through the House at two o'clock in the morning, and to afford no time for the provisions inserted in the Bill to be overhauled. His view of the salaries in the Bill was, that such matters ought to come annually under the review of the House.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to know why the persons to be compensated were to have compensation, when they took their situations with the full knowledge that the places were to be only temporary?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the persons to be compensated had been servants of the Commission for a number of years, and it was, therefore, thought that long
338
service entitled them to compensation. With regard to the salaries not being brought under annual revision, the reason was that they were never charged on the Consolidated Fund; and it was thought to be more in conformity with the established rule to transfer them to the Estimates.
Bill passed.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
MR. MUNTZsaid, the more he saw of the Bill the worse he thought of it, for he was satisfied it was one of the worst measures that had ever been introduced into Parliament. Instead of being called a Partnership Amendment Bill, it ought to be called a Bill for the encouragement of fraud, collusion, and robbery. Who was it that wanted the Bill? Certainly not the commercial community. He saw no reason why they should be dragooned into a Bill by the Board of Trade which was not wanted. If he were to take upon himself the business of a Chancery reformer, he would be called a conceited fool for his pains, and he did not see much difference between that and the Board of Trade undertaking to legislate in matters about which it knew nothing at all. A man in business, who was in bad odour and had little credit, could not do much harm; but if he got somebody of whom the world was to know nothing, to lend him capital secretly, he would be able to get credit on the strength of it, and then, the capital being quietly withdrawn, he might suddenly break and cheat his creditors in the most barefaced manner. He was satisfied that the commercial world did not want the Bill, and he should therefore move that it be committed that day three months.
Amendment proposed to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "This House will upon this day three months resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that all the great reforms which had been effected of late years had been carried in opposition to persons of experience, and therefore he did not think the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the Board of Trade were well

339
founded. Free trade and the penny post had been opposed, the one by the growers of corn, and the other by the officials of the Post Office; but both measures had proved of the greatest benefit to the community, notwithstanding the predictions of those whose opinion might have been supposed deserving of attention. He thought the Bill would turn out to be a most valuable measure, and in his belief it was one generally desired by the trading community.
MR. BIGGSsaid, that so far from agreeing with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Muntz), he thought the Bill the most valuable one of the Session; and he would appeal to the House whether there was not a universal feeling in its favour. He regarded the present law as antiquated and semibarbaric, and he must consider the Birmingham school very doubtful authorities in monetary matters.
MR. SPOONER, for his own part, had not conversed with any person on the subject of the Bill who had not denounced it in the terms in which it had been so properly described by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). He might illustrate the working of the measure by supposing a case which was very likely to occur if the Bill became law. Three persons might enter into partnership, two openly, the third secretly. The first two, it might be, had no money, and the funds were advanced by the third, who thus gave the concern a status and a credit which it could never without his assistance have obtained. The secret partner, having free access to the books, might discover that the trade was not going on well, and cautiously withdraw his capital little by little. In that way he might get back all he had advanced, in addition to the sums he had withdrawn, in the form of imagined profits. The partnership would then collapse, and the creditors who had been seduced into trusting the firm on the faith of appearances, arising from the advances of the secret partner, would thus be defrauded of their money. If the House went into Committee, he should propose a clause compelling any secret partner to refund all he had withdrawn during the three years previous to the insolvency of the firm of which he had been a member.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he could not consent to the rejection of the Bill in so summary a manner. To the general principle of the Bill, by which it was sought to
340
enable a man to obtain a capital by subscriptions from various quarters, he entirely assented; but there were one or two precautions which he thought were absolutely requisite. The evils apprehended by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner), that a man might improperly obtain a reputation and credit by trading upon a loan, might be guarded against by requiring all loans made under the Act to be registered in some public record, a provision which might easily be inserted in Committee. If such a clause as this were adopted they would have all the benefits of combination without any danger to the public; and he should, therefore, support the Motion for going into Committee.
MR. GLYNsaid, that if he had the slightest idea that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) would assent to the introduction of any such precaution as that suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), he would not support the Amendment; but as the Bill now stood, and remembering the evidence taken before the Committee of 1850–1, he must avail himself of every opportunity to get rid of what, in his belief, was a most obnoxious measure. Although that Committee made no Report except to recommend the issuing of a Royal Commission, yet the evidence taken before it was of great value, and fully established three points. The first point was, that the repeal of the usury laws had rendered it necessary for the protection of persons in trade that there should be an alteration of the laws of partnership; the second was the necessity of an alteration of the bankruptcy laws contemporaneously with that of those of partnership; and the third was that, while it was right that persons dealing in money should be allowed to make contracts exactly like persons dealing in other articles, that permission must be accompanied with a provision for the necessary publicity of such contracts. A great deal had been said during the progress of the Bill relative to the difficulties and frauds of legislation; but he was not aware of any other means by which that publicity could be attained. None of the points established by the evidence had been provided for in the Bill. Another reason why he objected to the further progress of the Bill was that, in moving the second reading, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) said that the proposed measure was not to be considered as an alteration of the law of partnership, but only as a remedy

341
for something which had accidentally occurred from a legal decision with that law, to which he (Mr. Glyn) could not assent; and that if he were encouraged, he should be happy to bring in an extended Bill upon the subject. [Mr. LOWE: Would the hon. Member move for a Select Committee?] To move for a Select Committee was the very thing which he (Mr. Glyn) wanted and had recommended, but if he were prepared to take that course, why should the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to force upon the House a measure of which he (Mr. Glyn) had heard no commercial man express a favourable opinion? The right hon. Gentleman had not made the slightest provision for the summary punishment of frauds. In all countries where the law at all resembled the proposed measure, as in France and Holland, there were very stringent bankruptcy laws; but, while introducing the Bill now before the House, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to leave the bankruptcy laws of the country precisely as they were, although their stringency was being daily diminished. He hoped that the House would take the matter into its own hands, and would induce his right hon. Friend to postpone the measure to another Session.
MR. MALINSsaid, he regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn), who had hitherto supported the principles of limited liability, had made a retrograde movement, and was now opposed to them. Notwithstanding what his hon. Friend had stated, he would assure the House that he had scarcely met anybody who was not in favour of limited liability, and he would remind his hon. Friend that that principle was supported by three out of five of the eminent commercial men who were examined before the Committee of 1850–51. The usury laws having been repealed, a man might advance money for others to trade with at the rate of 20, 30, or 100 per cent, might stand in the place of a creditor, and might take, not only the property, but the persons of his debtors, leaving the other creditors to whistle for their money, not once only, as in the case supposed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), but ten times. Now, all that the Bill under consideration proposed was, that the money might be advanced, not at a fixed rate of interest, but in consideration of the reception of a certain share of any profits which might be made by the trading. Nothing could be more reasonable than such a proposal.
342
The Bill would put an end to the contradictions and inconsistencies of the present system, and would not fail to operate beneficially on the general interests of commerce. It was no uncommon thing for a trader to employ a confidential person to carry on his business for him, yet such was the absurdity of the law as it now stood, that if that servant received a share of the profits he was a partner, whereas if he received a sum equivalent to a share in the profits he was not a partner. The distinction, therefore, was preposterous, and the Bill under consideration very properly contemplated its abolition. The principle of the measure was undoubtedly sound, and, as there was no reasonable cause to apprehend that it would have any other than a salutary operation, it was to be hoped that the House would not hesitate to sanction it.
MR. CROSSLEYsaid, he must deny that the Bill had any connection whatever with the principle of limited liability, for a partner under its provisions would have no liability at all. It was said that a man might lend money at any rate of interest; but there was this difference in the two cases—that a creditor, unlike a partner, had no right to examine the books.
MR. BASSsaid, that millionaires might be opposed to the Bill, but men of moderate capital were generally in favour of it. The evils apprehended by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire from the Bill were every day in operation under the present law. The objections taken to the Bill were entirely of a nature for discussion in Committee. He hoped, therefore, that the House would go into Committee.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he was really surprised to hear his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) contend that the Bill embodied the principle of limited liability. Its principle, as had been truly observed, was no liability. Had it carried out the principle of limited liability, he would have supported it; but he denied that it did so. He would put a case. Suppose a man advanced to a trader £1,000 on condition of receiving seven-eighths of the profits, he would receive his money back over and over again; and when the trader failed, he would still be a creditor for the amount. He was as friendly to limited liability as any one, but the Bill would enable persons to take away the profits of business without incurring any liability at all. Under the second clause, an agent or factor who took a

343
share of profits was exempted from partnership liabilities. The result of that would be, that men would engage as agents, servants, or factors, on such terms as to receive the greater share of the profits, and would escape liability altogether. The third clause was no less mischievous. It would enable retiring partners to pay themselves, in the shape of profits, the capital they professed to leave in the concern over and over again. Where, then, was the principle of limited liability? It was, in fact, a Bill to enable persons to share in the profits of business without being liable for a single farthing. It would give facilities for all sorts of fraud.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped that the House would go into Committee, and there continue that discussion, which appeared to be carried on by anticipation on the Motion that Mr. Speaker should leave the chair. Most of the objections taken by hon. Gentlemen applied to the details of the Bill, and not to its principle. It was said that the measure was not founded on limited liability; but, at all events, it was founded on the propriety of doing away with unlimited liability. It was needless to remind the House of instances illustrative of the necessity of such a change; yet he might be permitted to cite a somewhat remarkable one—namely, that of Sir Walter Scott, who, if he mistook not, was a dreadful sufferer from the prejudicial operation of the law of unlimited liability. It was said that public opinion was opposed to the Bill. Now, he must confess that he thought, on the contrary, that public opinion was strongly in its favour. The country was convinced that the law of partnership required fundamental alteration; and nothing would tend more to relieve a large portion of the community from the impediments that now prevented them from turning their small capital to profitable account than the Bill which his right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had introduced. It was somewhat singular that the opponents of this measure were chiefly the great capitalists, or individuals whose position enabled them to wield a large capital; while, on the other hand, its warmest advocates were persons connected with that more numerous class who were possessed of small capital. He thought that primâ facie the inference to be drawn from that fact was, that the Bill was a good one. Be that, however, as it might, it was certainly remarkable that the hostility
344
to the measure proceeded from—he would not say "the monopolists," for that was an odious and offensive term, but—the few who had the advantage of a large capital in conducting their commercial transactions, while the friends of the Bill included those who were anxious to benefit people of humbler means by letting loose their small capital, and giving them freer access to the general market. He trusted that when the measure got into Committee, it would be found to be worthy of the attention of the House, and calculated to advance the prosperity of the community.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, that if argument were wanting against going into Committee on the Bill, it would have been amply supplied by the speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down. The noble Lord had alleged that the contest on the question lay between the few who had the command of a large capital and the many who had but little; and in a very good-humoured way he ventured to impute motives of not the most honourable kind to the opponents of the measure. Now, he must protest against a person occupying the high position of leader of the House of Commons and Prime Minister of the Crown attempting to excite a cry against the capitalists of the country, and making it appear to the people out of doors that the question at issue was one of monopoly—a disagreeable term, indeed, as the noble Lord had admitted, but which he, nevertheless, did not refrain from launching most unjustly against the opponents of the Bill. The noble Lord, he apprehended, required to be reminded that the question before the House was one of principle, namely, whether they should go into Committee; and so far from all the objections taken that night being such as could best be treated in Committee, the objection stated by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) was in his (Mr. T. Baring's) opinion fatal to the principle of the measure. That principle was that everything should be done privately and secretly—that there should be no publicitly either as to the amount and the duration of a loan or investment, or as to the time when the money was withdrawn from a concern. Would the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) consent to modify his Bill so as to adopt the system of registration and publicity on those matters? If he did, he must go directly in the teeth of the doctrines he enunciated in the speech with which he introduced his measure. It was

345
manifest, therefore, that they were now debating a question of principle—the principle whether they were to establish a system different from any ever before adopted in any country, and completely at variance with the Bill which was proposed to the House by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, and supported by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) with the same warmth and, also, if he recollected rightly, with the very same insinuations against capitalists in which he had thought proper to indulge on the present occasion. Those charges were wholly unworthy of the noble Lord. If they wanted investments for small capitalists, that took them to the subject of joint stock companies. The Bill before them dealt with capital applied to the carrying on of trade; and he (Mr. Baring) viewed it in regard to its effect upon the general credit of the country. When the vastness of the credit brought into play throughout the world to carry on the commerce of England was considered, it would be seen how important it was to maintain that credit unshaken, and, therefore, he looked with the greatest suspicion on a change not demanded by the commercial community, and which must have a tendency to diminish confidence in the commercial system of the country. Allusion had been made to the fact that persons were now allowed to lend money at high rates of interest, but that was a different thing from the credit given upon the faith of money advanced. No man would give credit to another who was known to be trading upon borrowed capital for which he was to pay a high rate of interest, but any man would give credit to an establishment in which it was known that a man of great capital had invested money for the purpose of obtaining a share of the profits. Loans known to be obtained upon usurious rates of interest, would detract from the credit of any house. He should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), for he believed the Bill was not required at all. There was no want of capital under the present system for the full purposes of trade, and the Bill, moreover, was opposed to the Report of the Commissioners who had inquired into the practicability of reforms in the mercantile laws. It was said that the Bill was justified by the evidence which had been taken. There were, no doubt, many opinions expressed in favour of the change, but there were also opinions of equal authority against it, and the evidence
346
was entirely against the principle of the Bill, which did not recognise the necessity of publicity and registration. Every witness from the United States, from France, from Holland, or any country where the principle of limited liability prevailed was opposed to the principle of the Bill. Upon those grounds he, therefore, hoped the House would call upon the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Bill for the present Session. The Bill was not so necessary now, as the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had announced his intention, at a future period, to introduce a Bill for changing the character of partnerships, and it would be much better, he considered, to deal with the whole subject upon a wide and comprehensive scale. If it were enacted that men of capital could receive profits without becoming partners, the result would be that, when hard times came, every creditor would set about collecting evidence to ascertain whether the lenders of capital had made themselves liable as partners in any other way—whether they had given advice, had examined the books, or frequented the office, and thus the Bill would become an endless source of profit to the lawyers, but a source of ruin to many who might be tempted by its provisions.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, he must also complain that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had thrown out unworthy taunts against the mercantile members of that House, and had told them that their objections to the measure would be better stated in Committee. But they were called upon to determine upon the principle of the Bill, which was limited liability without publicity, which was a most objectionable feature in any system of commercial legislation. He wished to know whether, in Committee, the Government would adopt those precautions against fraud which were embodied in the Joint-stock Companies Bill—that a person lending money should not be a creditor against the estate for that money, and that all partnerships in that form should be registered?
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, presuming that the hon. Member for Birmingham would press his Amendment to a division, he would beg to join in the appeal which had been made to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade by the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed them. His own Vote would depend entirely upon the answer which might be given to that appeal. He could not forget that the Bill was opposed

347
to the Report of a Commission and to the Reports of two Committees; and, although it was based upon certain evidence, it was upon evidence which did not warrant the Bill in its present shape. The great weight of testimony in favour of a measure of that description had been accompanied by statements of the necessity of publicity and various safeguards. There was a broad distinction between a man lending money on usurious interest and a person being admitted to share in the profits of the business in return for the loan of his money. The lender on usurious interest had great risks; he had no access to the accounts and knew nothing of the state of the profits. A person, however, receiving a share of the profits would have access to the accounts, would be cognisant of all the secret transactions of the concern, and might withdraw his money as opportunity offered, either immediately or gradually. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) that the whole matter turned upon the question whether there should be publicity or not. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) said that in Committee he would be prepared to entertain propositions to insure publicity and to create safeguards, then he (Sir J. Graham) would vote for going into Committee. If, on the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman should regard such propositions as at variance with the principle of the Bill, he (Sir J. Graham) would feel bound to vote against going into Committee.
MR. LOWEsaid, the proposition made by the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell) and urged upon his acceptance by the right Baronet who had just resumed his seat reminded him that gold might be bought too dear. He should be glad to have the right hon. Baronet's support, but he would not purchase it at a price which he could not fairly pay. It had not been his intention to trouble the House upon this stage of the Bill, which had, in fact, been read a second time twice in the course of the session, after considerable discussion on each occasion; but, being challenged upon every point, and the last words of the right hon. Baronet sounding very much like an intimation of the probability that the Bill would not proceed any further, it was only right that he (Mr. Lowe) should briefly state the nature of the measure. The Bill certainly was not a Bill dealing with partnerships properly so called; that subject he had dealt with
348
already. If a partnership wished to constitute itself in a shape to receive the privileges of limited liability, the Joint-stock Companies Bill, which was now in the House of Lords, offered facilities for that purpose. He thought it very doubtful whether the principle of limited liability should be applied to partnerships in the manner that had been shadowed forth by some hon. Members in the course of the discussion, but he would give no decided opinion at present upon that point. Whatever was done with the law of partnership, the law of principal and agent ought not to be destroyed. The Bill now under consideration, however, was not a Bill to alter the law of partnership, it was merely supplementary to the repeal of the usury laws. It was not a Bill to regulate the relation of partners inter se, nor with third parties, but to regulate the terms upon which capital should be advanced. He believed the Bill to be a beneficial one, for as the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay), in a pamphlet he had published, observed, talent was a drug and capital was a drug, but the union of capital with talent was rare, and so far from being a drug would be extremely valuable to society. The present Bill would, he believed, bring about that union, and it was most desirable that it should pass, as, if it were thrown over, great injustice would be done to single traders. The Joint-stock Companies Bill was almost certain to become law, and by it a host of Companies would be created to compete with traders in all kinds of business. [Ironical cries of "Hear, hear!"] He rejoiced at that circumstance. They had carried out the principle of free trade into the competition of capital. His notion of free trade was not a one-sided one, and having enabled Joint-stock Companies to compete with individual traders, it was only fair and just to give to the latter every reasonable liberty to compete with the Joint-stock Companies. Believing as he did that the Bill was a salutary measure, he was most anxious that it should also be an efficient Bill and carry into effect the principles upon which it professed to be founded. That principle was to facilitate the advance of capital upon the considerations of a participation in the profits, and he believed that advances upon such terms would be advantageous both to the borrowers and the lenders, because the latter would take nothing except when the borrower was fully able to pay, and thus his capital would never be incumbered

349
with the payment of high interest. But the question which really pinched was—what was practicable? Hon. Gentlemen talked of safeguards being required, and that if they were introduced the Bill would be unobjectionable; but if too many safeguards were introduced, the Bill would be made safe altogether, for it would be inperative and not work at all. The question which, as a practical man, he had to decide was, how many safeguards could be introduced without making the Bill a dead letter? He wished the Bill to pass, and he wished, at the same time, that it should be effective and carry out the object it professed to have in view. That, however, would depend not altogether on the nature of the Bill itself, but on the facilities now given to other transactions of a similar nature. Where you to put a duty on an article you must look to the probable operations of the smuggler, and in the same way, when you imposed safeguards upon a particular kind of contract, which you were still anxious should be entered into, you had to consider what alternatives were possessed by persons for whom you legislated, and whether they would enter into those contracts with the safeguards you proposed to lay down. Now, he found that since the Committee of 1851, alluded to by the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn), two changes in the law had taken place—namely, the repeal of the usury laws, and the Joint-stock Companies Act recently passed; and he asked himself, when you had got your safeguards—the publicity, the registration and the other machinery of the kind proposed—who would take advantage of the Bill at all, who would be disposed to avail themselves of its provisions? How could you expect people, when they could obtain nearly the same advantages by other methods of proceeding, to have recourse to this measure? On what principle of human nature was it expected that a man who could lend his money at a fixed rate of interest, without depending on the profits, without publicity, without registration, would put aside those facilities in order to involve himself in all the intricacies now proposed? It was perfectly clear that the effect of such a provision would be to perpetuate an injurious system now in operation—namely, the practice which prevailed, with regard to trading concerns, of having a certain amount of their capital supplied for a short period by dealers in money. That was a system which he looked upon as injurious to the trade of the country;
350
it was far better that that capital should be supplied by persons who were more intimately concerned with the business carried on than the mere money-lender or bill-discounter. Under the system now proposed, however, you would be poising the scale in favour of the money-lender and bill-discounter, and against the persons whom it was wished to emancipate (so to speak) by the Bill now before the House. What was there in the nature of loans, based on a share of the profits, which should make them so utterly different from other kinds of loans? The only difference between such loans and those of the ordinary character was, that there was something to arrive at before the interest was paid, namely, the amount of the profits; whereas in the other case the amount of interest was settled by exact stipulation between the parties. Was there anything in that principle which warranted so great a difference in the manner of treating the two cases, so that whereas in the one instance you allowed the lender the fullest licence to deal with the borrower as he thought proper, without in the least interfering with the nature of the transaction, you should think it necessary in the other instance to tie up the transaction by every species of burdensome restriction which man could conceive or invent? It was said that the man who lent money on profits had access to the books. That, however, was a mistake. He apprehended that, practically, the mere lending of money on profits would not give a man the right to go into the counting-house and turn over the books as he pleased. In equity the lender might have such a right, but how many contracts would there be in which it would be left to a Court of Equity to decide in the matter? Would it not be left to be decided in the agreement between the parties? or would it not be left to arbitration? in which case there would be no difficulty at all in the matter. What was there in all this to warrant the wonderful difference made in treating the two kinds of loans? But go a little further. How long had it been laid down that a man, when he advanced his money, might not stipulate for any advantage he thought proper? In consideration for a loan at fixed interest he might stipulate for security, he might stipulate for access to the books, and for any other advantage which he chose to insist on. Take, however, a case:—Suppose a man advanced money on security on condition that he received

351
some portion of the profit—would you take his security from him because he stipulated to be paid in profits instead of a high rate of interest, which would have covered the probable profits? Now, hon. Members should be aware that all those things were to be considered; the line must be drawn, and he could not conceive where that line was to be drawn. It appeared to him, under all the circumstances, that he should be inexcusable if he consented to the proposed system of registration. He looked upon that system as the most cruel trap, the most perfect delusion which could possibly be devised—as one which would cause more hardships, more ruin, more misery than any provisions which could be imagined—as a system which would be the fruitful mother of every species of fraud and iniquity. The first words of the clause were these—
"No person who may hereafter lend money to a trader in the manner authorised by this Act for a fixed period of time shall be deemed to be a partner."
So that, if in the slightest particular the very numerous and intricate provisions of the Act were departed from—the least omission or inadvertence rendered a lender, instead of not being liable at all, accountable to the last shilling of his fortune. A simple error in the description, an error in a figure, an inadvertence for which he might not be in the slightest degree responsible, made him liable to the extent of every farthing he possessed for the debts of the concern. Well, then, he said, better—a thousand times better—have no Act at all than such a trap as that would prove to be. Again, it was proposed to register the name, the place of business, the description of the lender, and of the the trader borrowing, and the amount of the loan. In France, where the system had been in force for a considerable period, it was found that the loans on terms of receiving profits, unlike loans on terms of fixed interest, gave a degree of credit to the borrower. If persons were found willing to lend to a concern on condition that they should only be repaid when profits began to be made, that would obviously be one means of creating confidence in such a concern. You therefore gave people, if fraudulently disposed, an opportunity, under the system of registration, of putting down the name of any great capitalist, and of entering him as a lender, thus imparting a fictitious credit to the concern. Then as to the amount of the loan. Fraudulently
352
disposed persons might put down any amount they pleased, and might refer to the registry and show that they had this amount of capital at their disposal. What made the matter worse was, that the registrar was to ascertain, by a quasi judicial process the genuineness of the loan which would give rise to the notion that that officer had made inquiry into the bonâ fides of the transaction, whereas it would really establish nothing of the sort and could lead to nothing at all. Before registering the loan the registrar was to require the production of the instrument for securing or manifesting the same, and such other evidence of such loan as he shall deem sufficient," and then he would certify that it had been paid. But suppose it had been paid. In the case of the fraudulent collusion suggested, what was to prevent the loan being recalled the next day after being so paid? Then any variation of the contract, or any change of the terms, established a new contract, that is to say, if it was not registered at the very moment it made a man again unlimitedly liable to the creditors of the concern. There were a great many points of a similar nature which he might bring forward; but he had said enough, he thought, to show the objections he entertained to the proposals made; and, entertaining those objections, he considered that he should be culpable indeed if he held out any hope that he would assent to those proposals. Their adoption would be, in his opinion, a thousand times worse than having no Bill at all. He had, therefore, no difficulty in meeting the challenge of his right hon. I Friend (Sir J. Graham) by saying that he could not adopt a system of registration which would be looked upon as bonâ fide, but would be infinitely worse than none at all; and he could scarcely imagine how such Amendments could be introduced by any Gentleman favourable to the principle of the Bill. For his part, he was prepared to stand on the principle of the Bill, which was not, as had been truly said, that of limited liability; it was not the principle that a partner should limit his liability; it was not the principle of commandite, which was devised for the purpose of cheating the usury laws; but it was to enable private partnerships, under the competition to which they were now to be subjected, to increase their capital by removing from those who were willing to advance capital the present heavy restrictions and penalties. That was the principle of the measure,

353
and he would not sacrifice the carrying out of that principle by holding out any promise of yielding to the proposals to which he had adverted.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he must call upon the House to observe that, as it had been put by his right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, they were not going to vote upon the question of limited liability, and, therefore, hon. Members who voted against the proposal to go into Committee would not be voting against that principle. He had been under the belief that to his right hon. Friend was due the credit of having sent to the other House in the present Session of Parliament a comprehensive and useful measure for giving limited liability to Joint-stock Companies; but how great must be the disappointment with which they had listened to his right hon. Friend, who told them that any attempt, with regard to this measure, to give that simple publicity which many hon. Gentlemen thought essential to the bonâ fides of those transactions must necessarily be so impracticable that it would be thousand times better the Bill should not pass at all. Now what the advocates of publicity desired was, that the Bill now under consideration should follow the precedent of the Joint-stock Companies' Act. The hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn) identified himself with the principle of publicity, and argued that notice should be given to the whole community of the nature of the partnerships about to be created. The Joint-stock Companies Act carried out the fundamental principle of our own law, and what was also, he believed, a fundamental principle of the law of every commercial country in the world—that persons might limit their liability inter se, but that, if they limited their liability against an unknowing creditor he should not be bound by a contract made behind his back—that freedom of trade should not be extended to freedom of fraud—and that the creditor should not be governed by arrangements made collusively without his knowledge. It was found that that principle of the law of this country operated as a restraint upon commercial transactions, and, therefore, in the Joint-stock Companies' Act a mode of registration and publicity was devised, and it was provided that all persons dealing with a partnership incorporated under that Act, since they had the means of ascertaining the limits of its liability, should be deemed to have dealt with it as a limited
354
liability partnership. The hon. Member for Kendal, and others who agreed with him in opinion, said, "Be consistent in your legislation, and do not in the same Session, and on the same subject, assent to two measures which are diametrically opposed in principle." How could his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) tell them that the very same regulation for which he had obtained much credit for sending up to the other House in the larger Bill would be delusive, impracticable, and mischievous, if it were introduced into the measure now before them. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the Bill did not relate to the question of partnership, but that it was intended to supplement the usury laws. Common persons, he apprehended, would judge of the object of a Bill from its endorsement, and he found the endorsement of the Bill was "Partnership Amendment (No. 2) Bill." The House had twice, during the present Session, agreed to amend the law of partnership, and he would now ask them, if they went into Committee, to do that which, by assenting to the second reading of the Bill, they had determined to do—namely, to amend the law of partnership. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) said, they would act with injustice towards private partnerships if they did not pass this Bill, because they had given to great partnerships all the privileges and advantages of the Joint-stock Companies' Bill, thereby raising up competitors against smaller partnerships. Now what was the natural inference to be deduced from that observation of his right hon. Friend? Why place the smaller partnerships precisely upon the same footing as the larger, let there be perfect equality—a clear stage and no favour. Every argument urged by the right hon. Gentleman against the introduce resonable precautions into his Bill told with precisely the same force against all the precautions which he had himself inserted in the Bill that had been sent up to the other House. [Mr. LOWE said that no conditions had been inserted in the latter measure.] His right hon. Friend said that no conditions had been inserted in the Bill sent up to the other House. Possibly his right hon. Friend might be interested to learn what were some of the provisions of the Bill which had been sent up to the other House. That Bill expressly required a registration of the names of partners; a statement of the objects with which the partnership was

355
established; a declaration whether the liability of the shareholders was to be limited or unlimited; a statement of the amount of capital; and it provided also that the word "limited" should be added to the title of the company; yet the right hon. Gentleman said that the measure contained no provisions for the protection of the public. Surely those conditions would suffice to give universal notice of the character of the company, and would afford a protection against fraud to the public. But if the Bill was not only inconsistent with the principle of the law of this country, but also inconsistent with the measure for the regulation of joint-stock banks, which had been sent to the other House, upon what authority was it founded? Did the two Committees of that House, which had considered the subject, recommend a measure of this description? They did not. They recommended a measure similar to that which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn). Did the Commission recommend this Bill? No. One-half the members of the Commission—for there was a difference of opinion on the subject—recommended that some arrangement should be made with regard to such loans as were contemplated by the Bill, but not without safeguards against fraud. The example of foreign countries had been appealed to, and the case of America had been mentioned. He had in his hand the revised Statutes of Massachusetts, and he found that there was not one restriction that had been called for to-night that was not in force in that State. How could it be contended, then, that such restrictions would be impracticable, mischievous, and cruel in this country? What was the law of France and Germany on the subject? The speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) might lead hon. Members to imagine that in France no regulations existed for the protection of the public. He would not enter into a dissertation upon the bankruptcy laws of other countries, but he believed the stringency of those laws afforded greater protection to the public than was given by the laws of Great Britain. The Leipsic Chamber of Commerce, speaking of the Code de Commerce, said—
"It is necessary that this extract (a general notification of the character of the partnership), besides the names of the managing partners, the commercial objects of the newly-established company, the commencement and the termination of the period for which it is formed, should contain
356
the number (not, however, the names) of the commanditaires, and the amount of the funds advanced or to be advanced by them. Other commercial codes require also the publication of the names of the individual commanditaires."
The right hon. Gentleman, then, could not appeal to the law of America, of France, or of Europe; but it was said that the law was found to be satisfactory in those countries where there was an absence of restriction. Among the eminent men who composed the Commission there was not one whose opinion on such a subject was more valuable than that of Mr. Slater, who said—
"But it is by no means certain that partnerships en commandite, even in those countries where the system is most adopted, give that satisfaction which its advocates would predicate. In France, M. Horson, although in favour of such partnerships, gives no very flattering account of its operation, ascribing the evil effects which are occasionally produced by such partnerships, or rather the excrescences which have arisen out of them, 'to the fact of its principle not having been sufficiently clearly defined in the Commercial Code of 1807, while since that time the jurisprudence and the precedents have gradually deviated more and more from this principle.'"
Now, he would ask hon. Members if that principle would be clearly defined by this Bill? Could any man tell what would be the operation of a measure which, according to the right hon. Member for Kidderminster, would not entitle a person advancing money to a partnership to have access to the books? He (Mr. Cardwell) knew the Bill did not in terms entitle a person under such circumstances to have access to the books; but was a man to form a contract that he should be remunerated according to the profits of an undertaking, and then to be denied access to the means of ascertaining amount of those profits were? The right hon. Gentleman said that an account might be had in chancery; but would that House assent to a Bill which would establish a system of commercial contracts the nature of which could only be determined by the cumbrous and costly expedient of an account in Chancery? Mr. Horson stated that the mischiefs which had arisen in France were attributable to the fact that the principle of the law had not been sufficiently clearly defined in the Commercial Code, and those mischiefs were—
"That there is no guarantee that the commanditaire has wholly paid up his quota—no registration of either names or shares—and no effective security against fraud, both partnerships en commandite and sociétés anonymes being addicted to reckless speculation."

357
The House had been told that all the evidence was in favour of limited liability. They were not now discussing limited liability, but, if they were, it would be found that the whole tenor of the evidence was in favour of limited liability with publicity, but certainly not without publicity. One of the witnesses, who would have the greatest weight with the Commissioners, must have been his right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and he would therefore read to the House the opinion given by him before the Commission. He was asked this question:—
"Ought it to be indispensable to such limited partnerships that a registration of the terms on which the partnership is carried on should be required; and that the very name by which such company was denominated should mark it as belonging to that class? What ought to appear in the registration of the company? In particular, do you think that the names of the limited partners, together with the sums furnished by them respectively, should be published in such register?"
The House would see that this was the very thing now asked for. The right hon. Gentleman answered the question thus:—
"I think, as the partners are left to fix the terms of their contract, the public should have access to those conditions by which it is to be bound, and therefore that the terms should be registered."
Cruel trap! mischief! impracticability! Such had been the language of the right hon. Gentleman that night. Then, in his evidence, his right hon. Friend proceeded to say:—
"Too much publicity cannot be given to the nature of the partnership; and I think, to facilitate inquiry, the names of the partners should be given. I see no objection to publication in the newspapers, as practised in America; but I do not think a circular of accounts should be required."
He also said, he would have certificates "distinguishing who are general and who are special partners, the amount of capital which each special partner has contributed to the common stock, the general nature of the business to be transacted, and the time when the partnership is to commence and when it is to terminate." Do not let the right hon. Gentleman now say that the lender—that was to say, the commanditaire—ought not to be registered as well as the general partners. The matter had been rather discussed as if it was some difficult question of law—as if we had got some deep abyss of legal knowledge to fathom before we could come to an intelligible
358
opinion regarding it; but in truth it was a very plain question of common sense. The question was, whether we were going, for the first time in commercial history, to legalise a state of things in which such operations as he would now describe could be carried into effect? Imagine a capitalist desirous of speculating with £10,000. Imagine him to send down to Liverpool two men of straw with £5,000 each received from him. Let it be a period of great speculation, and let them deal with some particular article which was likely to fluctuate very considerably in price. He desires one of his agents to speculate for a rise, and the other for a fall in the value of the article. The article of course would either rise or fall. One of the persons so set up by the capitalist would sustain a loss, and the other would necessarily realise a large profit. The profit would go to the capitalist, while the loss would be limited to £5,000, and as the present Bill was drawn he would be a creditor for that amount. More than that, he would be a creditor with means of knowledge that no other man possessed, and with an opportunity of getting his £5,000 that no other creditor had. Now, let the Bill be called a supplement to the Joint-stock Company's Act, or to the Usury Laws Repeal Act; or let it be called on the back "A Bill to amend the Law of Partnership," and in the debate, as had been done, let it be stated that it had nothing to do with the law of partnership—what did all that signify? The question was, whether or not that House was going to establish a gigantic system of fraud to the injury of the honest trader and to the great detriment of the commercial interests of the country? Well, what was the particular time at which this Bill was brought before the House? He had read that morning some interesting observations in the city article of The Times, one or two of which he would take the liberty to bring under the notice of the House. It was said—
"The form of speculation now gradually commencing will be watched with anxiety by all who regard the permanent welfare of the country."
Then it went on to say that every one must see—
"That the final result will be a crash such as was witnessed in 1825, 1836, and 1847, and which in this country may be looked for with absolute precision once every eleven years."
Then, if a crash might be expected to come in the periodical way here described,

359
there surely was no need and no wisdom to make it more serious when it did come. But a part of the article referred to the Limited Liability Act as follows:—
"It is a singular fact, that while the law of limited liability has been assailed on the ground that it would prove a stimulus to the wildest speculation, it has thus far led only to a few moderate and for the most part useful projects, Which may serve in their degree the healthful purpose of finding employment for our energies within the limits of our own shores."
It must be very satisfactory that the limited liability law passed last year, which contained the principle of publicity, was working so well, even when the fever of speculation had begun. Could there be a better reason for taking care that in any other Bill passed by the House there should be the same safeguards? He would say, by all means allow persons, as our law now allowed, to limit their liability by such contracts as they pleased; but take care that the person against whom they were to be limited had the means of knowing the nature of the contract. On the second reading of the Bill he expressed his opinion that such alterations as were required could be made in Committee, and, had he been called on to give a vote some time ago when his noble Friend at the head of the Government, who judiciously said all those questions could be settled in Committee, sat down, he should not have voted with the hon. Member for Birmingham. But with that candour which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) exhibted on every occasion, he had distinctly told the House that the Bill would be worse than useless if the proposed change were introduced, and that it would be a thousand times better to have no Bill at all. It was clear, therefore, that if the Bill were changed in Committee, it would not have the advantage of his right hon. Friend's patronage in order to being carried into a law. If they went into Committee the result might be a law to which many in that House would positively object. If they succeeded in amending the Bill in Committee, then his right hon. Friend would abandon his guardianship of it, and they would be in no better case. Under those circumstances, therefore, he thought the wiser course would be to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he should not have interposed any observations of his own between the House and the division, if a discussion on the principle of the Bill had not been raised. He had
360
devoted much attention to the subject, and he must confess that if it were not for the high authority of the speakers who had preceded him, he should have supposed they had been talking about an entirely different matter from that which was really before the House. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) seemed to say that the Bill involved the principle of commandite. Now so far from advocating the principle of commandite he (the Lord Advocate) was not in favour of that principle; and when his right hon. Friend two years ago, proposed to introduce a Bill for establishing the principle of limited liability, he requested him not to extend the measure to Scotland, because he was apprehensive they were travelling rather too fast under the pressure of the railway system that then prevailed. On the other hand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) had dealt with the Bill as if it were a Joint-stock Companies Bill. Now, in his (the Lord Advocate's) opinion, no two subjects could be more distinct. There were three commercial relations totally distinct from each other, which had been brought into discussion by recent legislation:—First, partnership proper; second, partnership en commandite; and third, the partnership of a Joint-stock Company. Those were all totally distinct from what was meant when they spoke of limited liability. Everybody knew that a Joint-stock Company was not a partnership in the proper sense of the term. It was a combination in which the stocks and not the partners constituted the principal object; so much so, indeed, that it had been doubted whether the members of a Joint-stock Company were subject to the law of universal liability. It, in fact, differed entirely from a partnership proper, for the shareholders in Joint-stock Companies were not partners, they had only an interest in the stock. In the case of a partnership proper all the partners had a right to manage the concern; their shares were not transferable; and they were not succeeded by others in. the partnership. All the qualifications which characterised the members of an ordinary partnership ceased in a Joint-stock Company. Having put that aside, what was it that was meant by limited liability? It was not to limit a man's obligations, for what he undertook to do he was bound to perform; and what he did not undertake to do, no law could make him do. If you meant by limited liability

361
to exempt a man from his own obligations, that would be a false system of legislation; but if you meant by limited liability to compel a man to do what he never undertook to do, that would be injustice. A man who stood in the position of a lender and a creditor, should not be placed in the position of a partner. He, therefore, objected to the law of commandite because it made a partner a creditor; and he objected to the present law of partnership in England, because it said that a man who was merely a creditor should stand in the position of a partner. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.Cardwell) talked about the universal liability of partners, that depended upon the plain principle that every trader was liable to pay his own debts; and, if there were two traders each authorising the other to act for him, each of them would be as much liable for the debts contracted by the other as if they had been contracted by himself. But, as regarded the partnership property, the man who had lent his money as an ordinary creditor in order to receive a share of the profits only, but without any authority to act as a partner—such a person could not be subjected to the liabilities of a partner. The right hon. Gentleman had said that wherever the usury laws were in force no man could receive more than the legal rate of interest in the capacity of a lender; and that he must be a partner in order to enable him to receive a larger share of the profits. But the law had been altered in this respect; and a man might now advance money upon any terms he liked, provided the amount of interest were fixed. It was said that the profits were what the shareholders and creditors looked to for the payment of their debts. But that was entirely a fallacy. It was to the partnership that those parties looked; and it was the partnership that would be liable to pay the debts. It had been argued that the terms on which the money was lent might be so extortionate that the lender would have it in his power to sweep away the whole of the profits. But the answer to that was, that if a man were truly a partner he should not be anything different from a partner; and that if he were truly a creditor he should not be something different from a creditor. That was all that his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade asked by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had put the case of a man sending down
362
to Manchester or Liverpool two men of straw, to whom he advanced money, giving them instructions how they were to apply it, in order that he himself might avoid all liability; but was it not plain and evident that in that case, when a person not only advanced money, but exercised a control over it, giving instructions as to its application, the lender would be a partner, and that those facts would prove him to be a partner? The whole question, after all, was this—if a man honestly lent money to another for the purposes of trade, was that a sufficient ground for saying that he who was really only a creditor should be deemed to be a partner? It was said that such a person would have an advantage over all other creditors by knowing under what circumstances the borrower was carrying on his trade. That was perfectly true. But in Scotland any preference shown to the lender by the borrower was unlawful and was good ground for a commission of bankruptcy. It appeared to him that there was nothing in the objections that had been raised by hon. Members that could at all militate against the Bill. It was not proposed by the Bill to establish the principle of limited partnerships. What his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) proposed was to describe a creditor as a creditor. He held that a partnership consisted of persons who participated both in the profit and in the loss; but where there was only a participation in the profit, and without any participation in the loss, that was not a partnership. They could not create commerce, but they could leave commerce free, and allow every man to make what contract he pleased that was consistent with the ordinary laws and policy of the country—let him know what that contract was, and give him the cheapest and most efficient remedy to enforce its observance. He was perfectly satisfied that the more free commerce was left, and the more they reverted to first principles, the more surely would they protect commerce against fraud. He believed that all restraints and penalties that might be imposed either on money-lenders or borrowers would only result in opening a door to mischief, and would be of advantage to no one.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, the arguments used against the Bill went against the principle of limited liability altogether. His opinion was that the House legislated too much for the protection of the creditor. Men should be left to their own

363
judgment, energy, and industry, and all the attempts of the Legislature to prevent frauds were, he feared, but so many cloaks to cover them. The House could not prevent fraud, and it would be vain to attempt it. He agreed with his right hon. Friend, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, that the principle of registration was so entirely opposed to the principle of the Bill that it would be better to leave it alone altogether than admit anything like what had been shadowed forth that evening. The principle of the Bill was a simple and sound one, to allow A and B to borrow and lend on any conditions they thought proper. The public had nothing to do with those conditions. If registration was introduced, where were they to stop? Would they extend it to sums of £5 or £1? They should register not merely the sums, but also the conditions. A mere register of the loan would be of no avail, and would not prevent fraud. It would be better, in his opinion, to put the Bill aside altogether than adopt the system of registration. He could not, however, but respect the opinion of such men as the hon. Members for Kendal (Mr. Glyn), and for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell), and he thought his right hon. Friend, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, might very well have asked to be allowed to go into Committee, and see whether the opponents of the Bill had not some proposal different from that on the paper, which he might be able to adopt without sacrificing the Bill.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he was of opinion that there ought to be some means of preventing reckless men of wealth from working on the credulity of others, deriving all the profits in case of success, but, in case of failure, throwing the loss upon their dupes. The difficulties he felt were with respect to the third clause of the Bill, which contained the whole pith of the measure. It proposed to enact that no person making a loan to any trader shall be deemed to be a partner, or subject to any liability incurred by such trader, by reason only that he received as a compensation for such loan any profits of the business carried on by such trader. Now, what security was there in that clause against fraud? A trader might in two or three years take nine-tenths of the profits, and then in the fourth year, when the credits of the company had become large, and it may have incurred great losses, might
364
demand his share of the profits without contributing to the losses, and, perhaps, £1,000 besides. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate said it was simply a matter of borrowing and lending; but the law, as it at present stood, provided that a sharer in the profits should also be a sharer in the peril; and it was now proposed to abolish that salutary provision. He should, however, vote for going into Committee, in the hope that such changes would be made as would make this a useful Bill, giving freedom to capital without granting impunity to fraud.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 61: Majority 14.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, it was his intention to move the omission of the first four clauses, and in lieu thereof the insertion of the following:—
"The advance of capital or money, to be used in any trade or undertaking, not being the trade of a banker, upon a contract with the person carrying on such trade or undertaking that the person making such advance shall receive a share of, or a rate of interest varying with, the profits of the trade or undertaking, shall not, of itself, render the person making such advance a partner in such trade or undertaking. The person making such advance shall be entitled to call for an account of the profits of such trade or undertaking, but shall not, as against creditors, have any right or title to the property or assets of the trade or undertaking; and in case of the bankruptcy or insolvency of the person carrying on such trade or undertaking, the person making such advance shall be compellable to pay to the assignees any share of capital or money which he has undertaken to provide. Any such capital or money withdrawn by the person making such advance shall, if withdrawn within six months prior to the bankruptcy or insolvency of the person carrying on such trade or undertaking, be recoverable by the assignees. No contract for the remuneration of a servant or agent of any person engaged in any trade or undertaking, by a share of the profits of such trade or undertaking, shall, of itself, render such servant or agent a partner therein, but such servant or agent shall be entitled to call for an account of the profits of such trade or undertaking."
It was evident to him from the debate which had just taken place that there was a feeling, or rather a prejudice, in many minds against the object of the Bill. That prejudice arose, he apprehended, from a misconception. The Bill did not, as was supposed, touch the question of limited liability, but merely settled who should and

365
who sheuld not be deemed a partner in a commercial undertaking. Its object was to neutralise the decision in "Waugh v. Carver," and so far it would effect a great improvement in the existing law. Nevertheless he thought some of its provisions might be altered with advantage, and the clause which he proposed would, in his opinion, make it less objectionable than at present to some hon. Members. There seemed to be a very general impression that a distinction should be drawn between a lender with a varying rate of interest and one with a fixed rate. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade would see the propriety of yielding to that impression. He would not, however, press his Motion to a division.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 2.
Clause 3 (Lender not to be deemed a Partner).
Mr. GREGSONsaid, he would propose to add the following words:—
"No portion of such loan as aforesaid shall be recoverable until after all other creditors shall have been fully satisfied as to their lawful claims on the said business."
He thought, if a person partaking of the profits was not to be considered a partner it would be difficult to say who was a partner; but he ought, at any rate, to be liable for the sum he put down to obtain those profits.
MR. LOWEsaid, he must object to the proposed Amendment, the effect of which would be, that if a person lent some one money for the purpose of his business on the terms of receiving a portion of the profits, and, on the period of the loan elapsing, was obliged to sue the debtor for it, he could not recover without proving that all the other creditors had been satisfied. He thought he need say no more to prove the impropriety of adopting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. MALINSsaid, that the Amendment was a clinging to the old notion that persons participating in a business should be amenable to the liabilities, the very thing which the Bill sought to get rid of. Taking the case of a farmer to whom money was lent, this Act said that they might lend the money and accept a share of the profits; but was there any reason why the demand of the lender should be postponed, in case of failure, till after the remainder of the creditors were satisfied? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregson) seemed to think that all such transactions were to
366
be founded in fraud. The Bill was intended to give relief to capital, whereas to insert such a provision as that proposed would totally defeat its object.
MR. HINDLEYsaid, that a partner was nothing but one who took a share in the profits; and hon. Gentlemen had better get rid of their new-fangled notions. He objected to the clause. Under it a man did not maintain the same character; in his engagements he was at one time a lender, at another a partner, and again a creditor. They had been told they were to have free trade in everything. If so, he should like to know why, if he liked to issue pieces of paper, promising to pay £1 on demand, and the people were ready to take them, the law should step in and forbid him to do so?
MR. SPOONERsaid, he would suggest to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Gregson) that the Amendment should commence as follows:—"But in case of the insolvency or bankruptcy of such trader, no portion," &c.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, he should be glad if the Vice-President of the Board of Trade would clearly define what a partner would be if the clause passed. He foresaw very plainly that the clause would lead to endless litigation, for in every case of bankruptcy where there was a man who had lent money in this manner attempts would be made to constitute him a partner.
MR. VANCEsaid, he knew many firms in which the names under which the business was carried on were entirely different from those of the actual partners, and it was possible that under the clause all the partners might lend money to each other and yet none of them be deemed partners In case of bankruptcy. He agreed, therefore, with the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell) that the Government ought to state who would and who would not be a partner under the Bill.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he must avow that, in common with all mercantile men, he was under the impression that an arrangement between two persons that one should advance money for the purposes of business and the other conduct it, and that they should share the profits, constituted a partnership. Now, an agreement between two persons that one should lend money to the other for the purposes of a business and share the profits was, in substance, the same thing. He was aware that it might be considered an

367
old-fashioned notion, but it was a plain, common-sense notion, and an English notion. The Amendment proposed that he should run some risk corresponding to his chances of gain, and he thought that was only fair. The measure, therefore, in his opinion, required the limitation and restriction proposed.
MR. LOWEsaid, he was not perhaps an authority on law matters, but he would state what he believed to be essential elements in partnership at present. In the first place, there must be joint ownership of the partnership property; in the second place, there must be joint contracting; in the third place, there must be the power of choosing who should constitute the partners; and, further, the partners must be agents in binding each other in partnership transactions, which more lenders were not. Besides all this, there must be the power of sharing in the profits. But that was only one, and perhaps not the most important, incident; and his complaint against the present system was, that it extended a single incident of the law of partnership to everything, such as contracts for loans, &c. The object of the Bill was to remedy that state of things, by declaring that a man should not be deemed a partner simply because he shared in the profits. There would still be abundant criteria by which to distinguish partners.
MR. HINDLEYsaid, he thought one of the greatest objections to the Bill was, that the question of who were partners would be left to be settled by arbitration.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought that if the third clause were passed without any qualification, it would open a door to fraud. In his opinion, parties who lent money should be made liable for all engagements which were entered into while the money remained, and he also considered that in case of bankruptcy, if any collusion was proved to have taken place in regard to the division of profits, the money should be returned. The grand point was to make the provisions of the Bill sufficiently stringent to prevent fraud.
MR. E. BALLsaid, that the simple question was this—Whether a person advancing money to another person to enable him to carry on trade was to be in a worse position than other creditors? It would be a very hard case if a man who should lend a farmer money to extend his farming were, if hard times should come, to be deprived of his claim to repayment in his due proportion on that account. The Amendment
368
would deprive the tradesman of his proper chance of obtaining capital.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he had never been able to understand how the creditor could be damaged by a lender's receiving interest in proportion to the profits, instead of a fixed rate; on the contrary, that had always appeared to him the best arrangement for them; inasmuch as it would prevent the lender from drawing interest when no profits were made.
MR. BARROWsaid, that the proper principle was, that a man who claimed an extraordinary amount of profit, and who did not enter the concern as a mere ordinary trader, should also run the risk of loss.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 80; Majority 3.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he thought the Bill contained no sufficient precaution against the undue preference of a creditor who had advanced money upon participation of profits, and he therefore moved the addition to the clause of the following proviso:—
"Provided always, that any person making a loan to any trader and receiving a share of the profits as compensation for such loan shall, in the event of the trader becoming insolvent, repay to the estate of such insolvent trader all moneys drawn out by him either on account of the principal of the loan so made as aforesaid, or on account of the profits received as aforesaid, within the three years immediately preceding the insolvency of such trader."
MR. MALINSsaid, he put it to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) whether, after the division which had just taken place, it was worth while to proceed with the Bill? The principle of the Bill was that money might be lent to a trader upon a contract for remuneration by the receipt of a share of the profits, without incurring any of the disadvantages formerly incurred by a partnership. Now, those disadvantages were two—liability to creditors and liability to the loss of capital, as between the lender and the other creditors. It had, by a small majority of three, been decided that if a trader or farmer borrowed money of two persons—of one upon interest at the rate of 20 per cent, and of the other upon a participation in the profits, and became insolvent—the man who had lent at the rate of 20 per cent, while the profits were not more than 10 per cent, should be paid in full, while the other who had fairly agreed to take a share

369
of the profits should be unpaid. That seemed to be so fatal to the principle of the Bill that he put it to the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) and the right hon. Gentleman, that it had become valueless and was not worth the waste of any more time upon it.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last addressed them, that the Bill now was not worth a single farthing, as no man of any common sense would lend money under the clause as it now stood. He would recommend that when a Bill of this sort was next brought in it should be a little better considered. If they wanted to have limited liability, why not adopt the system which prevailed on the other side of the Atlantic? In America, when persons entered into a limited partnership, they advertised the names of the limited, and of the general, partners; and with respect to the former class not only the sums they had contributed, but the time for which they were to remain in the concern. An intelligent American, whom he had met the other day, told him that, in the United States, they were very jealous even of the system, and clogged it as much as possible. A limited partner was not allowed to interfere at all in the management of the concern. If he kept but a desk or a stool in the office for himself he became a general partner. To the adoption of such a system as that he (Mr. Muntz) should have no objection; but do not let parties contract debts with the public under an arrangement which no one could understand.
MR. LOWEsaid, he considered that he need not assure the Committee that he very much regretted the decision which had just been come to. An old school-book of his said, that two things were most contrary to good counsel—quickness and anger. He would indulge in neither. The best proof which he could give of his intention to go on with the Bill was to turn to the Amendment before the Committee. That Amendment was quite opposed to the principle of the Bill. Its effect would be that a man who had advanced money upon participation in the profits might draw out his money, leaving the concern perfectly solvent; but if two years and a half from that time the man who was carrying on the business entered into a speculation and failed, the party who had previously advanced money would have to pay
370
to the other creditors all that he had advanced.
MR. ARCHIBALD HASTIEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that if anything occurred in Committee which went against the principle of the Bill he would abandon it; but yet, after the Amendment which had just been carried, he said that it was his intention to go on with it. If the Amendment was adopted there could be no objection to the addition of the proviso of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.
MR. GLYNsaid, he was in favour of the Amendment, but he would suggest that the period to which it was designed to apply should be reduced to one year.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he would acquiesce in the propriety of the suggestion, and modify his proviso accordingly.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, He should support the limitation of one year.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he thougt the difficulty could be met by making the proviso run, "Provided that at the time the party withdrew the loan the concern was solvent." He would also suggest the further limitation of the time to six months.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he feared that the adoption of the hon. and learned Member's advice would lead to endless litigation. The difficulty would be to prove when the insolvency commenced. The remedy was in the hands of the party himself, by inserting a notice of the withdrawal of the money in the Gazette.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was his opinion that the real question they had to determine was whether they would make a man a partner who had advanced money to a firm without any intention of becoming one? If they meant to do so, the better course would be at once to abandon the Bill; if, on the contrary, they designed that he should not be a partner, it was most inconsistent and inequitable to saddle him with any of the perils and responsibilities of partnership. The principle of the Bill was, that what a man stipulated for in the way of interest he might stipulate for in the shape of profit, but that he might make this arrangement with the borrower, that if there were profits he, the lender, should share in them, and that if there were none he should forego the benefit he might have derived if the advance had been made on the usual terms

371
of loans on interest. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) said, let the withdrawal from the concern be inserted in the Gazette, but if the person advancing the money were not a partner, why was he to insert that he had quitted the firm?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he did not think his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had heard the argument which took place previous to the last Amendment. By the last division they had made a person who advanced money to a firm a partner to this extent, that the money he put in was to remain as assets for a certain time. The object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) was to take care that that provision was not evaded by the lender withdrawing his money. That proposition was on the same principle as the Joint-stock Companies Act, which provided that any person who ceased to be a holder of any share should, if the Company were wound up within the period of one year, be liable to contribute to the debts.
MR. HANKEYsaid, it appeared to him that the Committee seemed determined to argue the Bill as if the lenders were to have all the responsibilities of partners. If they affirmed that principle, he should recommend his right hon. Friend to withdraw the Bill. He was one of those who thought that if the Bill were carried out in its original intention, it would have a good effect, but if it was to be fettered by the Amendments proposed, the better course would be to abandon it.
MR. MALINSsaid, he thought there could be no more miserable and profitless occupation than that in which they were now engaged. The principle of the Bill was, that a person lending money should be absolutely free from the consequences of partnership. The Committee had negatived the principle by throwing on the lender one of the most penal consequences of a partner—the total forfeiture of the capital lent. It was attempted now to carry that further, and to say that if a man, on the 1st of January, withdrew money from a form perfectly solvent, and that firm, on the 1st of February, entered into imprudent speculations, leading to ruin, and was insolvent on the 1st of June, the original lender should be liable, on the 31st of December, to bring the money back again. If that proposition was agreed to, he trusted that, with or without the consent of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe),
372
the Committee would come to a Resolution not further to waste their time.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he quite agreed that it was impossible to assent to the clause without entirely departing from the fundamental principle of the Bill. They could not alter a lender into a partner without defeating the object with which the Bill was introduced. Therefore, he had no hesitation in saying the decision of the Committee now must determine whether the Bill should be given up or not.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, that as they had already departed from the principle, it was useless to go on with the Bill.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 125: Majority 20.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported.

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
SIR MICHAEL SHAW STEWARTsaid, that he rose to move that the Bill should be read a third time that day three months. For his part, he could not understand why the parish school should be severed from the parish church. That was a step of which he could not approve unless they obtained some security for the religious character of the schoolmaster—that he did not hold opinions contrary to the Confession of Faith, and that he would not use his office as a means of lessening the influence of the Established Church of Scotland. His reason for moving the Amendment was that the party most anxious for the passing of the Bill—namely, the religious denomination of which the right hon. and learned Lord was a distinguished member—the Free Church party had, in a meeting lately held at Edinburgh, declared that they would take the present Bill as an instalment, as they were for the present satisfied with getting in the narrow end of the wedge. Why was it they wished to have the narrow end in? It was for the overthrow of the Established Church of Scotland. The danger to be apprehended arose not out of anything which it provided, but from those things

373
which it failed to provide, and he would ask the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) instead of trying to get the present Bill passed, to join the right hon. and learned Lord in preparing a measure suited to the Scotch boroughs, where a change was more required than in the landed districts. A short Bill for that object had been introduced as a sister measure to the present, and he was now anxious to know what had become of it. For the reasons which he had stated, he felt it his duty to move an Amendment of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. BLACKsaid, he thought the objections of the hon. Baronet were untenable. He denied that by this Bill the parish schools would be separated from the Church. Indeed he believed that the superintendence of the Church would be rather fortified than weakened. The minister of the parish would still retain the same power as he had before. The power of the Presbytery, as to removing the schoolmaster, was at present a mere delusion. He (Mr. Black) held that all tests were either delusions or snares and had always failed in their object. A schoolmaster's signature to a test was no indication either of his opinions or his moral character. Hume himself would have signed any test that they could devise. It was a mistake also to suppose that the test had been abolished to favour the Free Church party. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had shown his impartiality by refusing to adopt the test which had been proposed, and which would have been conscientiously taken by members of the body to which the right hon. and learned Lord belonged, but would have excluded other Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and all Dissenters.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he must congratulate the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate on the dexterity with which he had changed his measure. It completely destroyed the jurisdiction of the Church of Scotland over the schools, and in lieu of that jurisdiction, which rendered the schools of Scotland models, in favour of a system of inspectors with no religious qualification whatever. That should warn the people of England how insidious were the attacks upon the Protestants system. The Bill had no recommendation save that it indirectly
374
accomplished those purposes which had been rejected by that House and the House of Lords. He looked upon it as a measure calculated to destroy the Church of Scotland, and give a heavy blow and a great discouragement to the Protestant Church of England. He was surprised that such a measure should be accepted by members for Scotland, but the English members, who had a duty to perform, would record their votes against it.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 79: Majority 70.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he did not wish to object to the passing of the Bill if certain suggestions made by the Committee who had sat on the subject were adopted. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to have the business of the Court during the remainder of its existence discharged by two of the three Commissioners who now presided over the sale and transfer of estates by this tribunal. As the House was already aware, one of the Commissioners was Mr. Baron Richards, who was also a Judge of one of the Superior Courts, and was therefore unable to discharge the duties entailed upon him by both offices. A return obtained by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Shelley) at the beginning of the Session, when he was making an attack upon some of the Irish Judges, showed that Baron Richards had not gone circuit since 1849; and one of the witnesses examined by the Committee, Dr. Longfield, had stated that Baron Richards had not latterly been able to give much of his time to the Incumbered Estate Court. Dr.Longfield had also stated that a great deal of the time of the Commissioners was expended in hearing appeals from each other. Now, a proposition had been made by some of the Committee that Baron Richards, who was no doubt a valuable Commissioner if he could attend to his duties, should be relieved from the office of Chief Commissioner; that the other two Commissioners should be left to do the business

375
of the Court; but that two additional days in the week should be saved to them for the performance of more active business by constituting another tribunal—a Court of Appeal from the Incumbered Estates Court—so that they should not have to be hearing appeals from each other. He should be glad to know whether it was the intention of the Government to adopt the suggestion? If not, he would propose a clause to carry out that object.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he would beg to call the attention of the House to another matter connected with the Bill under consideration, which he regarded as a matter of very great importance. If he was rightly informed, a most important judgment had lately been pronounced in one of the Superior Courts in Ireland, which gravely affected what had hitherto been supposed to be the indefeasible title of the Incumbered Estates Court, namely, the Parliamentary titles granted under the Act. If that judgment were a correct one, questions might be raised in all cases where there had been sales under that Court, and purchasers would have to go back to title-deeds anterior to the Parliamentary conveyance given under the Act. In fact, if the judgment were well founded, all titles obtained under that Court were shaken. There had been, he believed, about 5,000 sales through the medium of the Incumbered Estates Court, and there had probably been from twenty to thirty title-deeds brought into Court with each estate; and one of the Commissioners (Dr. Longfield), a very able man, had, as he (Sir J. Graham) was informed, recommended, with the view of preventing parties from going behind the Parliamentary title, that all those anterior title deeds should be destroyed. Now, if they had not been destroyed, they had been, he belived, put into something like a process of destruction, for they were stowed in a cellar into which nothing ever entered except the River Liffey, which did penetrate this deep recess, he was given to understand, from time to time, and bid fair to destroy them. Now, if the judgment to which he had alluded stood, the owner might be called on to produce his title when he no longer had access to those deeds, or when, if he had, he would find them in a state bordering on total destruction, the effect of which destruction would be to throw the whole proceedings that had taken place under the Bill, which it was thought had done so much for the
376
benefit of Ireland, into absolute confusion. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to consider whether, under those circumstances, it it would not be advisable, by some declaratory Act, to establish those indefeasible titles wich it was the object of the Legislature to give? He could not conceive a more grave subject than this—it was also a most pressing one—it was germane to the matter now in hand, and he hoped, therefore, the House would be favoured with a statement of what it was intended to do in order to correct this state of things.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that the matter to which the right hon. Baronet had called the attention of the House was one of very great importance indeed. The moment he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) heard of the judgment referred to, he took pains to put himself in possession of all the facts of the case, and to get an accurate report of the observations of the Judges who had pronounced that decision, in order to bring the matter under the consideration of the Government, that they might take such steps as might appear necessary. Unquestionably the feeling of the public, and that of the Bar generally, had been that the title given to the Incumbered Estate Court was indefeasible, and that no question need be asked by the purchaser, except as to what the Court professed to sell—whether a leasehold or a freehold interest. In confirmation of the observation of the right hon. Baronet, he could state that he had himself heard one of the Commissioners say, if once a purchaser got his conveyance from the Court, the best thing he could do was to commit all previous title-deeds to the flames. That advice he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) believed to be perfectly sound; and there could be no doubt that in passing the Incumbered Estates Bill the Legislature intended to give an indefeasible title; and one of the difficulties which he should have to contend with, if he were now to set about framing a declaratory clause, would be to find words any stronger than those in which the Legislature had recorded that intention. The case which the right hon. Baronet had alluded to was that of "Errington v. Rourke." Now, one of the most arduous and carefully performed duties of the Commissioners was the ascertaining of tenancies, and the insertion of those tenancies in the printed rental upon which they sold; and if any tenant found that he had not been served with a preliminary

377
notice of sale, had not been mentioned in the draft rental, or that his tenancy was improperly described in that document, it was open to him to come in and object before the Commissioners, which he could do almost without any cost whatever. If he did not object, he was taken to acquiesce in the description which the rental gave in his tenancy. In the case in question Mr. Errington was the purchaser under the Court, but twenty acres of his purchase were refused to be given up to him by a man named Rourke, who claimed to hold under an old lease. Rourke's tenancy was not noticed in the conveyance from the Incumbered Estates Court to Mr. Errington, and the latter refused to recognise it. Two out of the three Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, before whom the case came, held that Rourke' s tenancy was not disturbed by the conveyance from the Incumbered Estates Court; but in this Mr. Justice Crampton adopted the commonly received view of the Act—namely, that it gave an indefeasible title to all conveyed by the Commissioners. That learned Judge's view was subsequently confirmed by a judgment given in another case by the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland and another Judge of that Court, and he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) had not the least doubt that it was a correct one. However, as the case of "Errington v. Rourke" would be brought to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and subsequently to the House of Lords, he had not thought it his duty to advise the Government to introduce a declaratory enactment pending the decision of the question by the ultimate tribunal. Should that decision be against the hitherto received opinion, he should certainly recommend such an enactment. As to the question put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), he believed that an Amendment, such as that referred to, would be introduced by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) when the House went into Committee on the Bill: but while admitting the inconvenience of having two such judicial offices as those of Baron of the Exchequer and Chief Commissioner of the Incumbered Estates Court filled by one individual, yet, having regard to the amount of business which the latter Court would have to discharge during the remainder of its term of existence—a year or two—he would not feel justified in recommending the reduction of its judicial
378
staff. The Act empowered the Government to make such reduction if it thought fit, for it did not oblige them to have three Commissioners.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he was aware of an instance in which great injustice had been done in the case of the sale of land, subject to a lease that had been seen by the Commissioners and pronounced to be valid. There ought to be no Act of Parliament to make valid such doings; the Act of Parliament ought to be made to operate the other way. He considered that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was perfectly sound. All that it declared was, that the Commissioners of the Incumbered Estates Court had no right to sell away any interest belonging to third parties, the title to which appeared on the face of their own documents. He did not think a declaratory clause necessary, and he thought that Parliament had acted wisely in not introducing it. He considered that no blame attached to Mr. Baron Richards; the difficulty arose from the learned Judge going from one Court to another. From his own observation he could, however, say that Mr. Baron Richards had attended the Exchequer Court regularly. He hoped the Government would remove the Incumbered Estates Court to the Four Courts, and then the business would be conducted regularly.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that he had prepared a Resolution to the effect that the Court should, within a short time, be removed to the Four Courts.
MR. SERJEANT O'BRIENsaid, that the Court of Queen's Bench had broadly asserted that they had the right to go behind the Parliamentary title, and if they could do that, he did not see how purchasers could have an indefeasible title. However, pending the appeal to the Court of Error in reference to the case which had been alluded to, he considered that it would be inexpedient to bring forward any declaratory Bill on the subject; but should the decision of the ultimate Court be in accordance with the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, he thought it would then be necessary to introduce such a measure.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought the present position of the Court was inconvenient. The instance brought forward by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) was not the first or only instance in which that Court had sold property belonging to another

379
person, over which they had no proper control. The Court was in bad odour with the public, owing to the nepotism and irregularities practised in it.
MR. M'CANNsaid, he was well acquainted with the sentiments of the people of Ireland with regard to the Court, and he could state that they believed it had conferred more blessings on that country than any other institution that had been established. The Chamber of Commerce in Dublin, who were as good judges on the subject as any body of persons, presented an address to the Lord Lieutenant, in which they attributed the rising prosperity of Ireland mainly to the transference of property through the means of the Incumbered Estates Court. Men now got twenty-five years' purchase for their property, when formerly they only got eighteen years' purchase.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he thought that, under present circumstances, a more objectionable title than that under the Incumbered Estates Court could not be found. The late decision of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench was sufficient to shake the title of every property purchased under the Incumbered Estates Court. Unless the Government stepped forward and interfered by a declaratory Act, stating that all titles under the Incumbered Estates Court were indefeasible, the holders of property under that Court would be in a worse condition than the owners of any other property.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he thought that the last speaker had greatly exaggerated the effect of the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. However, he would not go into the question, as the case was still sub judice, but refer to one more practically urgent. He alluded to the locality in which the Incumbered Estates Court was situated. Two years ago, he obtained a pledge from the Government that the Court for the sale of Incumbered Estates should be brought into the neighbourhood of the Four Courts. It was most desirable that that step should be taken, but as yet no measures had been taken to redeem that pledge. He did not ask for another pledge on the subject, because he had experienced the little value which could be attached to pledges; but he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would take immediate steps for the removal of the Court into the neighbourhood of the Four Courts. It was not a mere professional
380
question. As the Court was now placed, it was away from the legal public, and so lost the superintending influence of that public opinion which was most beneficial to all Courts of Law. When he spoke of public opinion, he did not allude to the views of the unlearned public, or of newspaper writers, who seldom understood those matters. The truth was, that the junior Bar, who crowded the back benches, and who apparently had nothing to do, exercised a very wholesome influence over Courts of Law; but through the inconvenient distance between the Incumbered Estates Court and the Four Courts, a legal public—so to speak—was almost utterly wanting.
LORD NAASsaid, he thought that the course taken by the Incumbered Estates Court in the case referred to was a most unusual one. The Commissioners had departed from their general practice and their rules, and that had been the cause of their difficulty. He was of opinion that anything calculated to question the validity of the title given by the Incumbered Estates Court would be one of the most unfortunate circumstances that could occur to Ireland. He would call upon the Government to lay before the House the full particulars of the case alluded to, with a view to a thorough investigation of all the facts. He hoped that the Government would carry out the pledge they had given to remove the Court from its present inconvenient position to the neighbourhood of the Four Courts in Dublin.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
1. Resolved—"That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of £24,548,773 0s. 7d., be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
2. Resolved—"That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there be issued and applied to the service of the year 1856 the sum of £562,028 13 s., being the Surplus of Ways and Means granted for the service of preceding years."
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he would beg to ask if that was to be the last Committee of Ways and Means for the Session.
MR. WILSONsaid, he hope it would be.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.

MR. JAMES SADLEIR AND THE TIPPE RARY BANK.
On the Motion for deferring the Committee on the Joint-stock Companies' Winding-up Acts Amendment Bill,
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he felt called upon, in consequence of statements which had appeared in the newspapers, to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unhappily it was too notorious that frauds of the grossest character had been perpetrated in connection with the Tipperary Bank. He believed also he was not wrong in stating that according to what had appeared in the newspapers, a Member of that House had been judicially connected with those frauds. It also appeared, according to the same authority, that an active canvass was being carried on for the representation of the county of Tipperary, in expectation of the resignation of the Member who had been thus judicially referred to. Well, as that resignation could only be brought about by the acceptance of the individual in question of a nominal office under the Crown, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was an intention of conferring even that nominal office upon the Member for the county of Tipperary, for the purpose of vacating his seat. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman decided in the negative, then it would be for the House to decide what course it should adopt for the vindication of its honour.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, no application has been made to me, either by Mr. James Sadleir, or on his behalf, for the office of the "Chiltern Hundreds," and therefore it would be quite premature to answer the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I can only say, if such an application should be made to me, I shall of course consider the propriety of doing so before acceding to the request.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would remind the House that upon the occasion of the "South Sea Bubble," Members involved in those transactions were expelled the House of Commons. Perhaps a similar course might be proper under the present most scandalous circumstances. There was, however, another very serious matter arising for consideration out of those proceedings. A learned Judge, from his seat on the Irish bench, had declared that a certain person ought to be prosecuted, and that it was the duty of the Government to consider the propriety of such prosecution.
382
Now, it might hereafter be matter for serious investigation if, as had been stated, and stated also judicially, that the principal in those transactions, after having been allowed to walk about for some days subsequently unmolested, had finally left the country—it might, he would say, be matter for investigation how far the Government were responsible for not having acted upon the admonition thus judicially given to them.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. J. D. FITZGERALD)said, he hoped he might be allowed to make a few observations after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside). The case of the Tipperary Bank had originally come before Master Murphy on an order of reference. That learned functionary had had before him for private examination the Member of the House whose name was under discussion, and when the Master came to deliver his judgment he acquitted all the parties before him, including the Gentleman in question, of any intentional fraud. Subsequently the case came before the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, but that learned Judge adopted the very unusual course of broaching his opinions to the public before delivering his judgment. That judgment was delivered some ten days afterwards, and when he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) came to read it, he learned that the Judge had come to the conclusion that a fraud had been committed by the Member alluded to—and that he had gone further, and had impeached the conduct of the Government—or rather his (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald's) conduct, for not having instituted a prosecution against the party implicated, as the House would observe, without any knowledge of the circumstances of which the learned Judge was in possession. Now, if the Master of the Rolls had adopted the course which became him, he ought either to have made an order directing the evidence to be laid before the Attorney General for Ireland, or in his capacity of a Privy Councillor he ought to have waited upon his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, and apprised him that materials were before him to enable him to declare that a Member of Parliament had been guilty of a serious breach of faith. However, immediately upon having seen the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, he went to Dublin, and having examined all the documents in the case, he at once took the most active steps to set the powers of the law in motion against the

383
parties implicated; and all he could say, therefore, was, if the Gentleman referred to had absconded—and he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) was rather inclined to the conclusion that he had not—all he could say was, that if he had absconded he did so immediately after the Master of the Rolls had delivered himself of those most irregular observations of which he had already complained. The escape, therefore, of the Gentleman in question from the hands of justice would be attributable to the Master of the Rolls, and not to the dilatoriness of Her Majesty's Government.
The Motion for deferring the Committee was then agreed to.
The House adjourned at half-after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment (No. 2); Turnpike Acts Continuance.
2a Evidence in Foreign Suits; Dwellings for Labouring Classes (Ireland); Exchequer Bills (£4,000,000).
3a Divorce and Matrimonial Causes; Grand Juries; Survey of Great Britain, &c.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF INDIA.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE presented a petition from the Landholders, Planters, Merchants, and others interested in the agriculture, commerce, and trade of the lower Provinces of Bengal, praying for an

307
enlargement of the Legislative Council by the admission into it of persons selected from the Indian communities without distinction of race or creed; and to call the attention of the House to the exclusive and unsatisfactory constitution of the existing Legislative Council. The noble Earl said that the Legislative Council was composed entirely of the servants of the Crown and of the East India Company, thus excluding all the Natives and 10,000 resident Europeans. He doubted whether in the annals of the whole world a precedent could be found of a set of officials engrossing in this way the whole political and legislative functions of a vast empire. It was not too much to say that this Council was as remarkable for its ignorance and inefficiency as for its exclusiveness. Composed of a few officers of revenue and justice, it had to legislate for eight nations without any assistance from the Native Powers. A few weeks ago he had called their Lordships' attention to the legislation of this Council with regard to the people of Singapore. He had shown that their legislation had thrown the whole of the monetary system of the thriving settlements in the Straits of Malacca into a state of the utmost confusion. It was impossible, indeed, to conceive the absurdities and follies perpetrated by this Council. He had received a letter within the last few days from a gentleman in India, stating that no act promulgated by the Council had given satisfaction, and that their proceedings had excited dismay, disgust, and opposition from all parties. He had on a former occasion implored Her Majesty's Government to extend to India the privileges which had been successfully intrusted to Ceylon, Trinidad, and other Crown colonies—far inferior in numbers, wealth, and intelligence. The Act of 1853 was passed at a time when they did not know the East India Company as well as they did now. and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would see the necessity of introducing a measure at an early period for extinguishing the monopolising character of legislation for India, and making their measures more popular, more practical, and more useful.
Petition to lie on the table.

THE CHIMNEY SWEEPERS' ACT.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from Edward Shipley Ellis, of Leicester, worsted spinner, praying for an amendment of the Chimney Sweepers' Act. The noble Earl said,
308
there could be no doubt the Act was very grossly evaded in all parts of the country, although in the metropolis, containing a population of 2,500,000, it was duly observed. There was no reason whatever why the Act should not be observed in every part of the kingdom, and its non-observance entailed upon children great cruelty and suffering. He would not detain their Lordships by a long narrative of cases of disease and mutilation; it was sufficient to say that many children were crippled in early life and rendered wholly incapable of earning a livelihood. It was manifest that while these children were handed over to absolute and unqualified slavery, it was impossible they could receive the first rudiments of education, and that treatment of a most disgusting and cruel character must have a depressing influence on their moral feelings. He hoped the Government would pay attention to the prayer of the petition, and take into consideration the inefficiency of the Act.
Petition to lie on the table.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order),
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of dividing their Lordships; but merely to move the omission of a proviso inserted in this Bill last evening, for the purpose of giving himself an opportunity of recording his opinion against that proviso. The proviso to which he alluded was the one providing that the party divorced should not marry the party with whom he or she had committed adultery. Now he thought that this clause was a mistake, and would encourage rather than discountenance adultery. It would be a great infliction on the guilty woman, but it would be very favourable to the guilty man. There had been in that House a standing order to the same effect as that proviso; but their Lordships seeing that its insertion in divorce Bills might lead to very injurious consequences to women, it had invariably been struck out. Such a clause would either encourage the adulterer to abandon the woman, marry some one else, and enter society, when probably he would be forgiven, and suffer nothing for his culpability; or it would lead to the guilty parties living together, not in a state of marriage. Guilty men might, in many instances, be glad of such a clause, as it would prevent them from doing that which, but for the legal enactment, feelings of honour might compel

309
them to do. Under these circumstances he looked upon the proviso in question as calculated to work much mischief; but as their Lordships had already expressed their opinions upon it, he would not divide the House on his Motion to omit it.
Amendment negatived; an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
On Clause 6,
LORD LYTTELTON LORD LYTTELTON rose to move two Amendments, the first that the limit requiring the Members of the Council of the Senate should be elected from the electoral roll should be removed; and the object of this Amendment was to assimilate this Bill to the Oxford Act. The electoral roll in the Cambridge Bill corresponded with the Congregation in the Act relating to the sister University, and in that Act there was no limitation requiring that the Hebdomadal Council should be members of Congregation, but simply that they should be members of the Senate. It had further been suggested to him that there was a safeguard against the non-residence of the members of the Senate in the Oxford Act, which it might be well to adopt in the present case, and if he carried his Amendment in reference to the electoral body, he should move to add the proviso from the Oxford Act, which enacted that if any member of the Senate other than the Chancellor should reside at the University for a less period than fourteen weeks in any one year, his seat should be declared void and become vacant.
THE LORD CHANCELLORopposed the Amendment, thinking it would involve unnecessary complications in the working of the Bill.
Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 30 agreed to.
On Clause 31, providing that the Commissioners may frame University statutes,
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he could not at all see why Cambridge should be treated so differently from Oxford in respect to the legislative powers given to the Commissioners. In the Oxford Act no such general powers were given, but by the Cambridge Bill the Commissioners might, for a period of two years, frame statutes for any of the purposes mentioned in the preceding clauses, in case the University itself should not have done so. Now, he did not propose to take away that power, but the
310
clause provided that only statutes passed by the Commissioners affecting certain gifts or endowments should be laid before the Council of the Senate. He thought this limitation ought not to exist, and that all the statutes framed by the Commissioners should be laid before this body. He therefore proposed the omission from the clause of the words which restricted the statutes to be so submitted to the Council of the Senate to such "as shall be for the altering or modifying any of the said trusts, statutes, or directions affecting any gifts or endowment held or enjoyed by the University, or by any professor, lecturer, reader, preacher, or scholar therein, or the said endowments of Lady Sadler, or of the offices of Christain Preacher and Christian Advocate, or of William Worts."
THE LORD CHANCELLORopposed the Amendment.
After a few words from the Earl of Powis,
On Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, their Lordships divided:—Content, 26; Not Content, 51: Majority, 25.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 44 (That it shall not be necessary to make a declaration or take an oath on matriculating or taking a degree).
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, it was his intention to move an Amendment for restoring the clause to the state in which it was originally proposed to the House of Commons, by reinserting the words which had been struck out in Committee, excluding Dissenters from seats in the Senate of the University. He would remind their Lordships that the alteration was carried by a very small majority in a very small House. Their Lordships would understand the effect of the alteration. It was to admit Dissenters from the Church of England to the Senate—that was, to the governing body of the University. That body passed the laws of the University; it elected the Council of the University; it elected the officers of the University, and among other officers those connected with religion and with religious education. The question, therefore, was one of very great importance. They all understood the close connection that existed between the Universities and the Church of England. The whole ministration of the Church proceeded from the Universities. It was a most important thing, therefore, to take care that those who governed the University should be members of the Church of England. If their Lordships

311
adopted this change, they would be adopting a most important alteration; and they might depend upon it, it would have a decided influence upon the religion of the country. He would, therefore, earnestly recommend their Lordships to reinsert the words which had been struck out of the clause. He would repeat that the alteration was made in a comparatively small House, and was carried by a small majority, and carried by surprise. He thought it impossible that the Government, in the other House of Parliament, could sanction this change. His belief was, that the Government was on that occasion also taken by surprise. But with respect to the nature of the Amendment itself, he did not wish to rely upon his own opinion. He had been much struck with certain observations which he had understood to have been used in another place with regard to the Amendment which was there carried. An hon. Member had said that—
"The effect of the Amendment would be to confer upon Dissenters who took the higher degrees a right of interference in the affairs of the University and a vote for Members of Parliament. He feared that it would mar the usefulness of the Bill by exciting a feeling of hostility and alarm in the minds of those whose co-operation was necessary for the efficient working of the measure. It must not be forgotten that there was a strong connexion between the Church of England and the Universities, and a proposal to allow Dissenters to interfere in fixing the theological studies to be pursued in those Universities would excite great alarm in the minds of many persons. He opposed the Amendment, believing that it would tend to impair the practical usefulness of the Bill."—[3 Hansard, cxlij. 1755.]
Now, with those observations he entirely concurred. They were observations ascribed, and he believed justly ascribed, to a Member of Her Majesty's Government (Mr. Bouverie), that Member being the Gentleman who had charge of the Bill in the other House of Parliament; and he thought, therefore, that, taking those observations in connection with the fact that the Vote in the other House of Parliament was obtained by surprise, their Lordships would agree to the restoration of those words in the clause which prevented Dissenters from taking any part in the government of the University of Cambridge which had been expunged in the other House of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving, as an Amendment, the restoration of certain words in the clause, the effect of which was to prevent Dissenters taking part in the government of the University.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would admit that it was true that such a restriction was contained in the Bill which was before their Lordships two years ago, and also that the Bill which had been introduced in the other House of Parliament during the present Session contained the words which the noble and learned Lord now wished to restore. For his own part, he should have been perfectly satisfied with the Bill if those words had been retained; but, as they had been struck out by the House of Commons, he ventured to submit to their Lordships, that unless it could be clearly shown that their omission created any serious evil, or gave rise to any real apprehension of danger to the Church of England, it would not be advantageous that upon a question of this description their Lordships should place themselves in antagonism with the other House of Parliament. [Lord LYNDHURST: There is no such omission from the Oxford Bill.] There was not; but still it would not be creditable to their Lordships to place themselves in antagonism with the House of Commons on the subject. It was only a fortnight back since an argument was pressed upon their Lordships which appeared to him to be germane to the present question. The noble and learned Lord opposite them occupied the attention of their Lordships for a length of time upon a question upon which he regretted to say that he was defeated, and the argument employed by the noble and learned Lord was singularly applicable to the present question. If it were not dangerous—and the noble and learned Lord argued that it was not—to the Christian legislation of the country to admit Jews into Parliament, surely it could not be dangerous to the Church of England character of the University of Cambridge to admit Dissenters into its Senate. For his own part, he believed that the admission of Dissenters would not be dangerous to the Church of England, but to the Dissenters themselves. It had been said by a popular writer—he did not know whether it was Dr. Aiken or Mrs. Barbauld—Dissenters never remained so during two generations, and they would be more likely to become members of the Established Church than to induce members of the Church to dissent from it.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had a great respect for the noble and learned Lord, and also for Mrs. Barbauld, but he did not think that her opinion could be relied upon to guide the decisions of their

313
Lordships in the present case. He regretted that the noble and learned Lord should have thought it necessary to rest his argument upon the speech made by his noble and learned Friend on a previous occasion, to the effect that the admission of Jews would not endanger the Christian character of the House of Commons. He could not tell whether his noble and learned Friend acutely felt the sarcasm, but he begged to remind the noble and learned Lord that there were many members of their Lordships' House who had not agreed in that opinion, and who, therefore, could consistently maintain that the exclusion of Dissenters from the governing body was necessary to preserve the Church of England character of the University. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), on the present occasion, asked their Lordships to do, and the Government to do, that which both one and the other had declared would be most advantageous, and to adhere to a principle which they had established in the Oxford Bill. He could not conceive upon what ground the noble and learned Lord Chancellor could sanction the introduction of a Bill to amend the Oxford University Bill, and still less how the Government could reconcile themselves to adopting an important principle in one Session of Parliament, and then to be ready in the following Session to be guided upon the subject by a chance majority of the House of Commons. He would be most unwilling to see their Lordships in antagonism with the House of Commons, but upon an important principle their Lordships would be departing from their duty if they consented to abandon that which they felt to be right for any such consideration. It so happened that in the present instance, not only were the Government antagonistic to the views which they had expressed two years ago, and again during the present year, but the House of Commons had proved itself antagonistic to itself within the last two years. Two years ago, in the case of the Oxford Bill, the House of Commons decided by a large majority, and wisely decided, in favour of the admission of Dissenters to the University, but they decided also that they should not be admitted into the governing body. It was, in fact, the declarations repeatedly made in both Houses of Parliament to that effect, made and supported by the Government, which went far to reconcile the members of the University to the proposed change, because they felt that
314
in retaining the Church of England character of the University, they would receive the support of Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government. That principle had now been reversed in a thin House of 130 or 140 Members, and then by a small majority, although it had been originally affirmed by a large majority in a House of no less than 400 Members. He would implore their Lordships not to be guided in their decision by the feeling evinced by a stolen vote of the House of Commons, nor by the willingness displayed by the Government to play fast and loose, but to adhere to the principle which they had laid down. If the principle were right with regard to Oxford, it could not be wrong with respect to Cambridge; and he earnestly trusted that their Lordships would not permit the Government to go back from the ground which they had adopted, and, out of consideration for a trifling majority of the House of Commons, to induce them to shrink from that course in a manner not creditable to their consistency.
LORD MONTEAGLEconsidered that the Bill as it at present stood was more consistent with wise legislation than it would be if altered in the way proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Lyndhurst). The assimilation of system in the two Universities was not necessarily either expedient or probable. He maintained that from the earliest times there had been a wide difference between the University of Cambridge and that of Oxford with respect to Dissenters. In the days of Elizabeth, at Cambridge, a Dissenter was not excluded from taking his degree or becoming a member of the University. During the reign of James I. the authorities of the University were forced by a royal letter written from Newmarket to do that which they would not have done, except under the compulsion of a monarch who was not attached to the laws or liberties of England: long after that time the cases of Oxford and Cambridge entirely differed. The Dissenter, no doubt, had cause of complaint in both Universities; but at Cambridge the course of education was opened freely to him, and it was only upon his going up in the Senate House to take his degree that he was refused that evidence and outward recognition of the honour to which his industry and talent entitled him. But at Oxford the prohibition against Dissenters took effect in limine—it was applied when the candidate presented himself for matriculation—and the Dissenter,

315
refusing the offered test, was not admitted to the benefits of the same education which he enjoyed at the sister University. At Oxford, education was refused to the Dissenter. At Cambridge, education was granted, but the degree was refused. This was under the old system. He contended, further, that there would be no analogy between the two Universities even if the noble and learned Lord succeeded in carrying his Amendment. By the Oxford Bill a Dissenter could take only a B.A. degree. By the present, Bill, even as amended by the noble and learned Lord, he would be admitted at Cambridge to the M.A. degree, although he would be excluded from the privileges of the Senate. The question had been argued by the Lord Chancellor upon a right principle. Could the noble Lord show any objection to the admission of Dissenters to the Senate, except the cry of exclusion, on the grounds of religious faith, which of all cries was, in his opinion, the one most abhorrent from the constitution of England? What were they afraid of? There were above 3,000 members of the Senate, and it was absurd to suppose that any real danger could arise to the Church of England from the admission of a few Dissenters to that body. But this did not rest on theory. The experiment had already been tried. Mr. Pitt, in 1793, without objection from the then exclusively Protestant Parliament of Ireland, had recommended the admission of both Dissenters and Roman Catholics to the enjoyment of the degrees conferred by the University of Dublin; and he appealed to their Lordships whether, while the result of that experiment had furnished them with the best argument against the Ultramontane doctrines entertained by a portion of the Roman Catholic party in Ireland with respect to the system of united education, they had ever heard a complaint from the Irish University or the Church arising from the intermixture of the Roman Catholics with the Protestants?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREremarked that Dissenters did not form part of the governing body of the University of Dublin.
LORD MONTEAGLEwas aware of that, but that only referred to the scholarships, fellowships, and the privileges of the foundation. As Masters of Arts, the Dissenters and Churchmen were equal; they took the same degree as Churchmen, and voted for Members of Parliament in the same manner. But it was said, that by
316
previous clauses of the Bill, they had admitted Dissenters to the advantages of the University by giving them halls. This was not a correct statement. Equality was not conceded. The creation of three separate halls was also questionable. He regretted that these halls had been established, because some inconveniences, if not dangers, might arise from the establishment of small Dissenting communities in the University, very possibly representing the extreme and exclusive opinions of that body; whereas if Dissenters were admitted fully, freely, and unreservedly to the Colleges and to the "University" itself, the tendency would be of Dissenters towards the Church, not of Churchmen towards Dissent. But he relied upon "living authorities," as well as on that of the great statesman whom he had named, and he begged their Lordships to observe that the argument which he was about to quote was not founded upon any temporary or trumpery ground, but upon eternal principles which were at all times equally just and true. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), on the occasion of the presentation of the memorable Cambridge petition in the year 1832, said that he was confident that the Church would not be strengthened by keeping up the system of exclusion at the Universities. The noble Earl then expressed an opinion that it was not by exclusion, but by admission, that the interests of the Church were best supported. If those arguments were good then, they were equally good now. He begged to remind the noble Lord that the petition of 1832, entrusted to him (Lord Monteagle) in 1832, recommended the admission of Dissenters to a full and free admission to degrees. That petition was signed by the present Archbishop of York, the late Bishop of Lichfield, and by a distinguished Prelate now present, the Bishop of St. David's. It also bore the signatures of the Dean of Ely, and many other leading members of the Church and of the University. He could not understand how the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) could consistently advocate the admission of those who were not Christians to the Legislature of this country, and at the same time object to the admission of a Dissenting Christian as one of the Senate of the University of Cambridge. He could not admit that the alteration in the Bill which admitted Dissenters to the Senate on terms of perfect equality was carried in the other House by surprise, since the Amendment upon which the Vote was taken

317
had been printed and placed in the usual manner in the hands of Members, and in fact two divisions took place upon it. The House of Commons might have reversed its vote on the third reading, had it been carried by surprise; but, on the contrary, it was acquiesced in, without division, and the House unanimously passed the Bill with the Amendment. He implored their Lordships not to unsettle this question afresh by agreeing to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord. This was only continuing a cause of irritation, and it was certain that an imperfect concession would lead to a protracted struggle, which could only terminate by the concession of a just demand of that which was now unwisely refused. He would feel it to be his duty to take the sense of the House against the proposal of the noble Lord, and in favour of the Amendment introduced by the House of Commons, thus rendering the admission of Dissenters into the Senate final and satisfactory.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the noble Lord had quoted from a speech of his delivered twenty-four years ago, which represented him as having been opposed to the system of exclusion, and pledged to the question under their Lorships' consideration—namely, whether the Dissenters ought to be admitted to the governing body of the Universities. He adhered to the opinion he then expressed, that Dissenting youths ought not to be excluded from the benefits of a University education; and to the imposition of an oath on matriculation he had always objected; but that had nothing to do with the admission of the Dissenters to the governing body of the University; and if the noble Lord had read the whole of his speech he would have found that he proceeded to state that he would not enter upon details as to how far and in what manner it might be desirable to modify the admission of Dissenters—whether they ought to be admitted to all the honours and none of the powers of Government, and whether there should be any restriction with regard to the internal government of the University. Their Lordships would therefore see that he had carefully guarded himself then, as he guarded himself now, against declaring his opinion with respect to the modifications or relaxations under which Dissenters ought to be admitted to all the privileges of the University. He had always said Dissenters ought to be admitted to matriculation
318
and to the bachelor's degree; but he did not think they ought to be included in the government of the University, and in favour of that opinion there had been recorded during the present Session the vote and opinion of almost every Member of the Government in the House of Commons, including the Prime Minister himself.
THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, he did not feel himself bound by his recollection of the petition to which the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) had alluded, and which he (the Bishop of St. David's) had had the pleasure of signing, since he did not remember that one of the objects of that petition was to give the Dissenters a share in the governing body of the University. He desired to extend to Dissenters the fullest share in the honours of the University that was consistent with the principles of its constitution in connection with the Church of England. He did not think that a change so important should have been introduced into the Bill in the House of Commons in the manner which had been described. At the same time he did not believe that the clause, as it stood, would enable Dissenters at the University of Cambridge to exercise any injurious influence on the government of the University, because their numbers were very small and insignificant in proportion to the numbers of members of the Established Church. To the Dissenters, therefore, the boon in question was of the smallest possible value. The alteration proposed would not deprive them of that which would confer upon the Dissenters any substantial power, but it might infuse elements of discord and ill-feeling into the University. It was with very great reluctance, because he shrank from the appearance of withholding from the Dissenters any privileges which might be safely and usefully conferred, that he dissented from a change which he believed would be to them perfectly useless, while it would have a detrimental effect on the social state of the University, and give members of other Universities some right to complain.
On Question their Lordships divided:—Content 73; Not Content 26: Majority 47.

List of the CONTENT.

DUKES.

MARQUESSES.

Bath

Beaufort

Camden

Buccleuch

Exeter

Cleveland

Salisbury

Richmond

Winchester

319

EARLS.

Melville

Aberdeen

St. Vincent

Bandon

BISHOPS.

Bantry

Bangor

Bathurst

Lichfield

Beauchamp

Salisbury

Bradford

St. David's

Chichester

BARONS.

Delawarr

Abinger

Derby

Bagot

Donoughmore

Bayning

Egmont

Boston

Galloway

Berners

Hardwicke

Churchill

Harrington

Clarina

Haddington

Clinton

Lanesborough

Colville of Culross

Lucan

Denman

Mansfield

Delamere

Morton

De Ros

Nelson

Dynevor

Powis

Dunsandle

Portarlington

Feversham

Shaftesbury

Gray

Stanhope

Kenyon

Sheffield

Lyndhurst

Verulam

Lyttelton

Wilton

Redesdale

VISCOUNTS.

Sandys

Bangor

Southampton

Dungannon

Tenterden

Doneraile

Walsingham

Gage

Willoughby de Broke

Middleton

Wynford

List of the NOT CONTENT.

The Lord Chancellor

Strangford

DUKE.

Sydney

Argyll

BARONS.

MARQUESSES.

Broughton

Ailesbury

Byron

Headfort

Campbell

Lansdowne

Congleton

Sligo

Dacre

Westminster

Foley

Manners

EARLS.

Monteagle

Besborough

Panmure

Granard

Rivers

Harrowby

Saye and Sele

VISCOUNTS.

Stanley of Alderley

Falkland

Wrottesley

Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Monday next.
House adjourned to Monday next.