Sitting of 10 February 1857

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Aylesbury, Sir Richard Bethell; for Salford, Edward Ryley Langworthy, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Royal Marine Forces; Industrial Schools; Ecclesiastical Corporations; Sale of Beer, &c.; Chief Constables.

LEGAL EDUCATION—QUESTION.
MR. KEATINGsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government in the present Session to introduce any measure founded upon the recommendation of the Commissioners appointed to consider the subject of legal education?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that the Government had been in communication with some persons of great eminence upon the subject, and had also received various suggestions and recommendations, one of which was that there should be a legal University having the power to confer degrees after examinations, but nothing had yet been decided upon.

HYPOTHECATION OF GOODS AND WAR- RANTS—QUESTION.
MR. GREGSONsaid, he wished to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade whether, in consequence of the doubts which had been thrown by a court of law on the validity of advances on the hypothecation of goods or warrants, it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill upon the subject during the present Session?
MR. LOWE: Sir, the case of "Kingsford and Merry," to which the question of the hon. Member relates, is one the decision in which undoubtedly led to great hardship. That decision was of this nature. A man named Anderson obtained from Kingsford certain goods by means of false representations. Anderson pledged those goods to Merry, and having failed to pay for them, Kingsford brought an action against Merry to recover their value, and judgment was pronounced in his favour, so that not only was that rule of justice violated, which says, "That in the case in which one of two innocent men must suffer, the loss must fall upon the party by whom such suffering was occasioned;" but Kingsford himself was allowed to be the agent in recovering money from a person who was deceived by his own default. I do not for a moment doubt but the case has been decided according to law, but I do not think that any one can fairly contend that the decision is in accordance with substantial justice. I have therefore no

455
hesitation in saying that there would be no difficulty in introducing a measure which, while it would put an end to that licence of pawning and selling stolen goods which is now enjoyed by the thief through the instrumentality of market overt, would give to fair traders in the exercise of their ordinary business a greater degree of protection than is at present extended to them. It is not, however, enough for the Government to know that a case involving, features of great hardship has been decided, we must also be convinced that our interference in the matter would be satisfactory to the mercantile classes; and upon that point I am sorry to say my mind is not made up. It is quite true that a great meeting was held in the City of London upon the subject; and a most influential deputation waited upon Lord Stanley of Alderley and myself at the Board of Trade with reference to it; but I am bound to say that the chairman of the meeting in question was opposed to the object which it had in view; and it is certain that gentlemen of very great influence in the City of London entertain sentiments directly at variance upon the point with those to which the deputation gave expression. The only answer which, under these circumstances, I can give my hon. Friend is, that we shall be quite ready to bring in a Bill upon the subject as soon as we are satisfied that such a measure will meet the wishes of the mercantile classes, whose interests it would mainly affect.

LIGHTHOUSES IN THE CHINA SEAS—

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR SIBTHORPsaid, he would now beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade whether any steps were being taken by the Government towards the diminution of the risks to shipping by the erection of a lighthouse on the reefs known as the Pratas Shoals, in the China Sea?
  MR. LOWEsaid, some steps had been taken, but he was sorry to have to state that no decided result had as yet been the consequence, owing to the difficulties which stood in the way. The first of those difficulties related to the question of how funds were to be procured. The erection of the proposed lighthouse would be very expensive, and the only money at the disposal of the Board of Trade for the purpose were the tolls upon English vessels passing by the lighthouse. They were at present in correspondence with the Government
  456
  of Hong-Kong upon the subject of whether English vessels would be found willing to pay those tolls or not. The second difficulty in the matter was, that, even though such willingness should be expressed, there would be a differential duty against English shipping, inasmuch as it was not within the power of the Board of Trade to impose tolls upon foreign vessels.

SOLDIERS' FAMILIES AT COLCHESTER—

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, he wished to inquire whether the Government had decided upon taking any steps for relieving the great distress now prevailing amongst a large number of the soldiers' wives and children at Colchester, and as to which the chaplain of a regiment lying there had made certain representations to the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Under Secretary for War?
  MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, the Government were not aware of any distress prevailing amongst soldiers' wives and children at Colchester. He had also made inquiries at the Horse Guards, but found that no complaints had been made there.
  SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, he held a copy of the chaplain's statement in his hand, and he had been too long a Member of that House to make any statement as to which he was not quite certain.

SIR J. M'NEILL AND COLONEL TULLOCH

  —QUESTION.
  MR. J. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was the intention of the Government to make any recognition of the services of Sir J. M'Neill and Colonel Tulloch in the Crimea?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, Sir J. M'Neill and Colonel Tulloch were employed in the Crimea on an inquiry of a very important nature, bearing upon the state and condition of the army, and they performed their duty entirely to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government, and very much to their own credit—with great ability, great perseverance, and great minuteness of research; and no doubt the Report that they made was very useful to Her Majesty's Government in preventing a recurrence of such unfortunate events as had caused their being sent out. But at the same time it does not appear to Her Majesty's Government that their services were of such a peculiar nature as to require

  457
  any extraordinary recognition. It may be and must be a question whether that usual acknowledgment which is made for special services shall not be made to them, and it will be our duty to consult with those Gentlemen on the subject. But in answer to the question of my hon. Friend relating, as it evidently does, to honours conferred by the Crown, I can only say that the service does not appear to us to be one of a nature requiring the Crown to step out of the ordinary course to acknowledge it.
  MR. LAYARD: I wish to know whether it is true that advancement in the army was offered to Colonel Tulloch before he went out, and that since then many of his juniors have been promoted over his head?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am not aware of any offer of the kind having been made to Colonel Tulloch. He was a colonel in the army. There are between him and the top of the list several officers who distinguished themselves by actual service in the field, and I consider that it would not be fair to promote him over their heads.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS—

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he would be glad to know when the noble Lord at the head of the Government intended to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Corrupt Practices at Elections Prevention Act?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My hon. Friend may set his mind at ease. We shall take a very early opportunity of moving for the appointment of a Committee.

  JOINT-STOCK BANKS—QUESTION.
  MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer having withdrawn from the Committee of Inquiry into the Bank Charter so much of the proposed investigation as related to Joint stock Banks, he wished to know whether he intended to appoint another Committee to consider that subject, or whether he had any measure in contemplation?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have no present intention of proposing a second Committee, but I propose to state at an early day the course which the Government propose to take in dealing with the subject of Joint-stock Banks.

  ALLEGED TREATY BETWEEN FRANCE AND AUSTRIA—EXPLANATION.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid: Sir, I have to request the indulgent permission of the House to take a course which, although it may be somewhat irregular—
  MR. THOMAS DUNCOMBEsaid: I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am extremely sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but from what fell from him yesterday, and the intimation then given to the House that he was about to bring before us a subject of great importance, I presume that it is not his intention to enter into a mere personal explanation respecting a statement which he made on a previous evening, and the contradiction given to that statement by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Now, so far as my humble vote goes, the right hon. Gentleman should have every indulgence; but I first wish to come to an understanding which is, that being in ignorance as to whether the right hon. Gentleman is about to state that he was imposed on at Paris or not, and as to whether the statements of the noble Lord at the head of the Government upon that point are incorrect or the contrary—the understanding, I repeat, to which I wish to come is this: that if the right hon. Gentleman should go beyond a mere personal statement any other hon. Member may be at liberty to make such remarks as he may think fit upon the observations of the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord, without being called to order on a question of form and stopped by there being no question before the House.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I rise to speak to the point of order suggested by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I think the House will feel, that although my right hon. Friend may be about to take a course not strictly within its rules, yet it is one which has always been permitted for the purposes of personal vindication. When my right hon. Friend has made his statement and the noble Lord has replied, it will be for the sense of the House to determine whether the discussion should be further prolonged.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I was under the impression that when the accuracy of a statement made by a Member of this House—especially upon a subject of some moment—was impugned, and impugned without any qualification, it was the courteous custom of the House to permit that Member to take the earliest opportunity

  459
  of appealing to its indulgent consideration to make that statement which he deemed to be necessary to vindicate his accuracy—perhaps, his honour. It is in that spirit I appeal to the House to-night, and if any hon. Gentleman rises to call me to order I shall understand that the permission to which I allude is not to be accorded to me. If it should be accorded to me I trust it will be fairly and liberally extended; and I upon my part shall make no observation which I do not think necessary to clear up the point in dispute. I cannot help feeling that I am justly interpreting the general opinion of the House, when, in recalling the circumstances which have led to this appeal, I express a belief that my appearance in my place to answer the contradiction of the noble Lord at the head of the Government is neither unnecessary nor unreasonable. I shall, therefore, assume, that no hon. Member will again rise to call me to order, and that that indulgence will be extended towards me which, upon many occasions similar to the present, has been granted to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I remember some years ago—it may be eight years since—that there was a discussion in this House upon the proceedings which had taken place at Cracow. The discussion was one of considerable importance, and was adjourned for more than one day. I took some part in the debate, with a view of vindicating the Government of Austria on the particular question at issue, and I recollect that I had had occasion—the treaty of Vienna having during the debate been frequently appealed to—to refer to a guarantee contained, as I alleged, in that treaty, by which England guaranteed to Prussia her Saxon provinces. The noble Lord, at present the First Minister of the Crown, was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and had held that office for no less than seventeen years. On that occasion, when I referred to the guarantee by Great Britain to Prussia of her Saxon provinces, the noble Lord unequivocally contradicted me in the face of the House. He said there was in the treaty of Vienna no such guarantee. "Nay more," said the noble Lord, "there is in the treaty of Vienna no guarantee whatsoever." Upon that occasion I had an opportunity of reiterating my statement, and I mentioned the clause of the treaty in which the guarantee was contained. The noble Lord was still incredulous;
  460
  he instructed one of his aides de camp to go up to the library,—it was in the old House—and to bring down the treaty of Vienna. The noble Lord then referred to the treaty, and there he found among its provisions a guarantee upon the part of Great Britain of her Saxon provinces to Prussia; and thus the Noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had been Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for a period of seventeen years, and whose reputation as a statesman mainly depended on his knowledge of foreign affairs, then became acquainted for the first time, apparently, with one of the most important engagements of the British Crown. On the first night of the present Session I had occasion in the course of the debate to refer to another guarantee. I mentioned that there was in existence a guarantee by France to Austria of her Italian dominions; I mentioned also that that guarantee was expressed in a treaty, and further I mentioned that that treaty was a secret one. The Noble Lord contradicted me upon that occasion as he had done upon the previous occasion with respect to the guarantee to Prussia. But I was then in a very different position from that in which I found myself placed eight years ago. The treaty to which I referred was not printed; it was not published; it could not be sent for to the library of the House of Commons for the purpose of vindicating my assertion, or of refuting the allegation of the Noble Lord. I did not under those circumstances think it respectful to this House to rise and make a barren reiteration of the statement I had put forward; I felt that such a reiteration would not, under the circumstances, be satisfactory either to the House or to myself. I had a moral conviction when I made the statement that I was correct; that moral conviction of my correctness sustained me while listening to the almost unprecedented form of contradiction which I received from the lips of the chief Minister. I received the information which I presumed to communicate to the House that night for its guidance from a quarter which I felt convinced could not be mistaken, and which I was confident would not have deceived me. And here I may perhaps be permitted to say—although upon such a question I think it quite unnecessary that a Member should be called upon for his authority, yet in consequence of the peculiar observations of the Noble Lord,

  461
  the House will perhaps allow me to say, that I received that information from no French authority or quarter; and that if I had not made that visit to Paris, to which the Noble Lord with such good taste alluded, that information would equally have been in my possession. Now, I believe I am not mistaking the feeling of the House when I say that I think they will agree with me—assuming that the information I gave was correct, or assuming, what is the same thing, so far as my conduct is concerned, that I had, in consequence of the authority from which I received it, a conviction that it was correct—I think the House will agree with me that it was impossible, under the circumstances, that I could remain silent upon the point. It would be totally out of the question that if the affairs of Italy were brought under discussion in this House, as they had been brought at the termination of last Session—it would be impossible, for instance, that if the subject should be again introduced by the noble Lord the Member for London—and it was a subject which every one supposed would be brought under our notice by the noble Lord—it would be impossible as I felt that I could listen to a Motion upon the subject of the affairs of Italy, brought forward by a statesman of the reputation of the Noble Lord the Member for London—a Motion founded on the proceedings of the Conferences at Paris, and on the direct or implied engagements of the British Government—it would be impossible that if such a Motion were brought forward by the Noble Lord, or any other Member, founded on such authority, and if that Motion should be met by such an answer as that given by the noble Lord last year to a similar Motion—an answer which was then deemed quite satisfactory—I say I am sure the House will agree with me that while I was in possession of such information, and believed it to be authentic, it would be impossible for me, as an honest man, to withhold the statement of what I regarded as a fact that must have totally altered all the reasonings and all the views, all the arguments, and all the feelings of the House upon the subject to which the Motion was addressed. I felt, then, from the first moment that I became, or believed that I became, possessed of this intelligence, that if the affairs of Italy should be again brought under the consideration of the House, it would become on my part an act of peremptory and inexorable duty
  462
  to make the statement which I did. That statement was well considered. I will not attempt to excuse it by pretending that it was uttered in the heat and hurry of debate—that statement was a well-considered and a long-considered statement, and if it be an erroneous one I am prepared to take upon myself all the responsibility of so grave an error. Now, Sir, there is one point on which I must ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to make one or two observations, in order to prevent misconception. I wish to guard myself from any misunderstanding as to the views with which I look on such an alleged connection between France and Austria as a matter of policy. I wish no one to suppose that in the observations I made on the first evening of the Session it was my intention to offer any opinion upon that question. I alleged the circumstance which I stated, neither in vindication nor in reprobation of Austria, but simply in order to illustrate the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the general management of foreign affairs. I am not bold enough to suppose that there is any Member present who remembers with any accuracy what I may have expressed in this House with regard to the position which, in my opinion, Austria ought to hold in the political system of Europe. But I may be permitted to say, with a view to prevent any misconception upon the subject, that the last words that I uttered in this House before the termination of the last Session, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for London, expressed the opinion which I have long steadfastly and strongly entertained, that it is a matter of the highest European importance to maintain the power and the authority of Austria. That was the opinion which I expressed on the eve of the prorogation of Parliament. Often and often before have I stated in this House that opinion; and even in the debate to which I felt it necessary to recall the recollection of the noble Lord at the commencement of these observations—the debate on Cracow—I was vindicating the conduct of Austria, and asserting her claim to a powerful and an independent position for the maintenance of the equilibrium of Europe. If, then, it be one of the highest objects of European policy that the power and authority of Austria should be maintained—it is no less, in my opinion, for the sake of Italy and the Italians. It is when that authority is questioned—it is when it

  463
  is weakened by the plots of secret societies, or the machinations of foreign Governments, that the policy of Austria becomes, repressive and retrograde. It was not, therefore, to impugn the policy which dictated the treaty I alleged to exist that my observations were directed on the first evening of the Session. I believe the policy which dictated that treaty on the part of France was a policy founded on that wise, that temperate, and that conservative spirit which has gained for the Government of the Emperor of the French the respect and confidence of Europe. I have made these observations to the House in order to guard myself against the supposition that in the language which I used on the first night of the Session it was my intention to have impugned the policy which would maintain the authority of Austria, or to have created an impression that France was animated in that proceeding, if it took place, by any other motives than those which would have fairly entitled her to the respect of Europe. That which I did complain of the other night, that which I do complain of still, and that which is the point most germane to the question before us is, that if it be a fact that this treaty exists—that if it be a fact that the statement which I made was a correct statement—the conduct of Her Majesty's Government at the same time was conveying to this House, and to the country, and to Europe, an impression that they were pursuing a policy of an exactly opposite character, and that the course of their general policy was a course entirely adverse to that which this alleged treaty was intended to accomplish and maintain. I think it concerns our national honour that upon this matter there should be a clear understanding. If it be true that while this alleged treaty was in existence we were negotiating treaties with Sardinia, animated and occasioned by representations of a contrary character, surely that is a question which ought to be elucidated before the House. That is what I complained of. I complained of this, that Italian policy was made a stalking-horse by Her Majesty's Government. If the statement that I made was a correct statement, the Liberal party in this country, as I wanted to show them, who extenuate their lack of zeal in domestic affairs by an unlimited confidence in the foreign policy of the noble Lord at the head of the Government—not sufficiently warned by the cases of Poland and Hungary—the
  464
  Liberal party ought to understand that that Italy which they believed was about to be regenerated according to their ideas by the noble Lord, was the subject of a very different policy and of a very different treatment. Now, I want to place before the House exactly and without exaggeration the charges against me involved in the contradiction which I received from the noble Lord. The contradiction which I received from the noble Lord the other night involved two allegations. The first allegation of the noble Lord was, that my statement that there was a treaty, and that a secret treaty, in existence, by which France guaranteed to Austria the security of her Italian dominions, was altogether a fiction; that there was no such treaty in existence; that there was not the slightest foundation for the statement—that it was, to use the noble Lord's words, a romance. That was the first allegation involved in the contradiction which I received from the noble Lord. The second allegation which fell from the noble Lord was contained in a derisive hypothesis. The noble Lord said, "If there be such a treaty in existence"—after having immediately before declared to the House that there was none—"if there be such a treaty in existence, if the right hon. Gentleman has seen it, all I can say is that I have not seen it; that I have not heard of it; that Her Majesty's Government never heard of it; and instead of advising such a treaty, if we had known anything about it, and been consulted upon the subject, our counsel would have been to have made no arrangement of the kind." These are the two allegations involved in the contradiction of the noble Lord. But as everything in such a case depends upon accuracy, I will read the allegations of the noble Lord as I find them recorded in an authority the accuracy of which he will not, I am sure, dispute. The noble Lord said:—"We come now to Italy, and, in reference to that question, the right hon. Gentleman has had access to archives, and has found out treaties of which we never heard. He announces that there is a secret treaty concluded between the French and Austrian Governments, with the sanction of the Government of England, guaranteeing to Austria her Italian possessions. I am bound to say that this is the first time I ever heard of it. The right hon. Gentleman may have seen such a treaty; but all I will undertake to say is, that we are totally

  465
  ignorant of it; and, so far from having advised such a treaty, if we had been consulted we should certainly have given our advice in an opposite direction." I put it to the House whether or not I have accurately described the allegations contained in the contradiction I received from the noble Lord. I will now address myself to the first of those allegations. According to that allegation, the whole thing is a romance—there is no such treaty—it is a pure invention—I have either been hoaxed or I have created the treaty—and, in fact, it is a pure romance. Now, Sir, let me come to what my statement is. My statement is, that engagements were negotiated between France and Austria with the object—with the main object—of guaranteeing on the part of France the security of the Italian dominions of Austria; that these negotiations were brought to a successful conclusion; that they were expressed in writing; that the written instrument assumed the form of a treaty, and of a secret treaty; and that that treaty was executed on the 22nd of December, 1854. In answer to the first allegation of the noble Lord, that there was no treaty whatever—that the whole of my statement on that point was a mere romance, I am here to re-state that which I expressed the other night. I give the very date of the instrument, the form of the instrument and the purpose and object of the instrument. Now I come to the second allegation contained in the contradiction which I received from the noble Lord. That allegation, as the House must remember, was uttered in a spirit of derision; but I will give the noble Lord the benefit of taking it gravely. The second allegation contained in the noble Lord's demand was, that "if such treaty had been seen by the right hon. Gentleman I have not seen it, and the Government have not heard of it, and instead of advising it the Government would have recommended, had they known of it, that it should not be concluded." That is the second allegation of the noble Lord. Now, I have in my possession evidence—irresistible evidence—which proves to me that throughout the whole of the negotiations of this treaty, which I declare to have been executed the 22nd of December, 1854, by which the security of the Italian dominions of Austria is guaranteed by France—that throughout the whole of the negotiations of this treaty Her Majesty's Government were privy to them from the
  466
  first; that they counselled them; that the suggestions received their approbation, their concurrence, I will even say their cordial concurrence; and that they were formally advised upon the subject before the execution of that treaty took place. The House will now, I believe, at least agree with me in this, that I have not evaded the issue under our consideration. They will, I think, admit that so far I have placed the very pith and marrow of the contradiction which I received from the noble Lord fairly before them, and that I have directly met these two allegations. But I have a further statement to make upon this subject. I state to the House now that that treaty was not only executed on the 22nd of December, 1854, with the cognisance of Her Majesty's Government, but that it was largely and extensively acted on—that in consequence of that secret treaty Austria withdrew a portion of her troops from Italy—that in consequence of Austria having withdrawn a portion of her troops from Italy, the Italian Governments throughout the Peninsula became alarmed, and that Austria obtained from the French Government permission confidentially to communicate to the Italian Governments in order to tranquillise them—I use, I believe, the very word that was employed on the occasion—that Austria, in order to "tranquillise" them, obtained permission from the French Government to communicate to them confidentially the fact of the French guarantee: I would make upon that point even a further statement, and it is this—that the fact that Austria obtained that permission and communicated the existence of the secret treaty to the Italian Governments was known to Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord has said that I had had access to archives, and that I had found out treaties of which he had never heard. But I will refer now to archives of which the noble Lord has heard—I will refer to the archives of that office over which he so long presided; and I tell the noble Lord that if he will give me, without reserve, the correspondence in the archives of Downing-street during the month of December, 1854, and the month of January, 1855, and if he will assist me in obtaining, though I think it will not be necessary, any official evidence which may be requisite to elucidate some passages in this transaction, I think I may venture to say that I could then prove every tittle of the statement that I have made. The

  467
  House will, I hope, now admit, at least, that I have not evaded coming to a frank issue with the noble Lord. The noble Lord the other night, when this question was under discussion, treated—as is his custom—a very grave subject in a spirit of levity. I cannot say that I admired at the time the tone which the noble Lord assumed, because, if there was any foundation for what I stated, it required, I think, at least the serious attention of the First Minister of the Crown; and if, on the other hand, it was an inconsiderate statement, and still more, if it were a statement invented by me for the occasion, it was not in a tone of ribald ridicule that it ought to have been answered, but rather in one of warm and vehement indignation. For how stands the case with regard to myself. If I had made upon so grave a matter an inconsiderate statement, my character as a politician might have been damaged or destroyed; but if I had invented a statement of such a kind, it was not a question of my character as a politician, but it was a question of my character as a member of society itself that was involved. If that were at stake—if my conduct were susceptible of so grave an interpretation, surely the tone which the noble Lord, as the leader of the House of Commons, assumed, was not one which the occasion exactly warranted. I have now sat in this House for twenty years; I have laboured sedulously to obtain the good opinion and the respect of the House. They are to me dearer than all worldly possessions. I am conscious that I have frequently addressed the House inefficiently, and sometimes, it may be, with indiscretion; but this I also know, that I have treated this House always with candour. Whether the noble Lord the other night, in his answer to me, treated the House in the same spirit, I care not to inquire.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid: The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the observations he has just made, and in claiming, as he had a right to do, the attention of the House, said that the question at issue involved his character for judgment, and, it might be, his character for honour. But I beg leave to call to the recollection of the House that nothing that I said or insinuated upon a former occasion could in any way whatever justify the right hon. Gentleman in conceiving that any question affecting his honour or his character was here at stake. I did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of having invented
  468
  the statement which he made; I only charged him with credulity in having been induced to believe a statement which I thought was utterly devoid of any foundation in fact. I can only further say upon that point that I should very much regret if the right hon. Gentleman should harbour in his mind any notion that there was anything in what I said that at all brought in question his personal honour, which I never intended to impugn, and which I am sure no man possesses in a higher degree than himself. But the right hon. Gentleman finds fault with me for not having been angry. He complains that I treated him with too much good humour, or with what he is pleased, while talking of good taste, to call, in language upon which I will not now dwell, "ribald ridicule." Now, it is well known that those who make themselves ridiculous are always the most ready to resent the very ridicule which they have provoked, and it is their habit to charge others with the consequences which their own conduct has naturally and necessarily produced. The right hon. Gentleman has stated very correctly a part of the contradiction which I gave to his statement on the opening night of the Session, but he has omitted some very important points in the case. I beg leave to recall to the attention of the House what was the charge—for it was distinctly a charge—which the right hon. Gentleman brought against Her Majesty's Government, and what were the allegations by which he considered that he had proved that charge. He certainly could not have brought it as a charge against Her Majesty's Government that they were anxious to maintain Austria in the possession of her dominions. During the very last debate we had in the last Session of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, among the principles of the foreign policy of the party of which he was the leader, that the leading alliances with England ought to be alliances with Russia, with Austria, and with the United States. I had then occasion to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he had accidentally omitted in his list of our most valuable alliances our alliance with that Power—namely, France—with which we were bound in the most intimate alliance, and for the most important objects. But it being the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that a close and intimate alliance with Austria was the best and soundest policy for the British Government, he could not

  469
  mean that in the abstract it was a breach of duty on the part of Her Majesty's Government to be a party to a measure tending to secure the integrity of the Austrian dominions; and, indeed, in the course of the observations he has made this evening he has fairly stated that he considered the maintenance of Austria, not only to the north, but, if I understood him correctly, to the south of the Alps also, in full and undiminished power, to be a matter in which were involved the general interests of Europe. But what was the charge which the right hon. Gentleman brought against Her Majesty's Government? Why, it was this—he said that we were professing a great interest for the Italians; that we were professing to sympathise with their feeling of aversion to a foreign yoke; that we wished to encourage Italian nationalities; and yet that while we were doing all openly on the one hand, on the other we were secretly instigating the French Government to give a guarantee which, as far as the possessions of Austria are concerned, are directly at variance with the sympathy expressed for Italian independence. I stated, in reply, that which I now repeat—that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, there is no treaty between France and Austria guaranteeing the Italian possessions of the latter Power; and the right hon. Gentleman, I must observe, has given no proof of the existence of such a treaty. He has not offered any explanation of the grounds on which he made that assertion; and therefore it rests now, as it rested before, simply on hearsay evidence, or what somebody or other, whose name is not mentioned, told the right hon. Gentleman. He talked of "good taste." Of course every man is the best judge of the degree of latitude given to him in regard to the publication of communications which he may have received; but I own it appears to me that if a person is told of a secret engagement contracted between two other parties, he would not under ordinary circumstances deem himself at liberty to make that secret engagement public without the consent of some one, at least, of the parties immediately interested. This matter reminds me of a peculiarity that I remember in my late hon. Friend Mr. Hume, who used constantly to ask us to make known to the House the application of the secret service money. But secrecy and publicity seem to me to be matters not easily reconcilable with one another. The right hon. Gentleman, however, says that a sense of public duty rendered
  470
  it necessary for him, even before any discussion has been raised in reference to the affairs of Italy, and merely in anticipation of such a discussion, to take the earliest possible opportunity of informing the House of this secret transaction between two foreign independent Governments. That is no doubt a matter for the exercise of his own discretion. What I stated the other evening was this—I said we do not believe in the existence of any such secret treaty—that we had never seen any such treaty, that we had never heard of it; and that unless the right hon. Gentleman had seen it, and had access to archives of which we knew nothing, and made the statement on his own knowledge, my view was, that he had been imposed upon by false information which had been given to him in some quarter or other. I also said that the only foundation which I could imagine he had for the statement which he made was, that in the early part of the war, when there was a hope that Austria might have joined the Allies in active co-operation against Russia, a communication did take place between France and Austria, the object of which, on the part of Austria, was to ascertain that, if she took part in the war in conjunction with France, France would undertake that no advantage should be taken of the opportunity to disturb her Italian provinces. That is the only foundation, as I believe, for the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but it is perfectly true, as he has mentioned, that about December, 1854 and there are other hon. Gentlemen in the House, who are not Members of the Government, but who at that time were Members of the Government, who will correct me if I am erroneously stating the course of events as far as their recollection goes, if they choose to impart what took place when they were in office—it was hoped that Austria would join offensively and defensively with England and France, and in that case she would know that her armies would come into collision with those of the Emperor of Russia. Of course Austria naturally wished to know—supposing Russia to do that which as a belligerent Power she would be perfectly justified by the recognised law of nations in doing, namely, attempt to cause a disturbance or an insurrection in Italy for the purpose of distracting the attention of Austria—what course the French and English Governments would take. And the French Government did inform that of Austria that as an honourable ally it would not take

  471
  advantage of any such disturbance or insurrection. It stated, moreover, that if that state of things arose, if the Austrian army joined the arms of France and England, and if during the war any disturbance should break out in Italy, any French force—necessarily a small one—that might be in Italy at the time, would of course act in concert with whatever force the Austrian Government might think proper to employ for the purpose of putting down any insurrection in the Austrian possessions of Italy. This arrangement was undoubtedly known to the English Government. That answer was a very fit and proper one under the circumstances, and it would have been inconsistent with honourable conduct if any other answer had been given. The arrangement was embodied in the shape of a convention; the right hon. Gentleman says that convention was signed on a certain day in December. I can only say that from information received as late as yesterday from a quarter likely to be correct, there is great reason to doubt that that convention was ever signed at all. Still if it had been, it was as different from the treaty which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman as two things can possibly be, and that between that and a guarantee there is, as has been stated by a French publication which I have read, and doubtless the right hon. Gentleman has also read, a complete abyss, a gulf which separates the two as an impassable barrier. What I denied at the time, and what I again deny, is that there is, to my knowledge and belief, any treaty in existence, or that any treaty has ever been concluded and signed by which France guarantees the integrity of the Italian possessions of Austria. I am inclined to believe that the information which we have received is correct, and that the convention itself, which was merely a temporary convention and to have force only during the war, was never signed—and why? Because the foundation of that convention was, that Austria should join with England and France in offensive operations against Russia; but Austria never did join in those active operations. It was her policy, and of that she alone was the judge, to remain neutral, and therefore it was not necessary that the convention should be completed. No doubt the new engagements which the convention was intended to create would have been acted upon if the case had arisen, but it is a total perversion of things to represent such an arrangement as a guarantee given by
  472
  France for the integrity of the Austrian possessions in Italy; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman having repeated that assertion, I can on my part only repeat the denial which I have already made. I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon for not having been angry with him the other night, and I hope he will excuse me for now treating the subject in a manner which I think is not likely to give offence to any man. I must throw myself on his indulgence for not having spoken with more indignation than I have done to-night. My object has been to vindicate the Government from the charge of bad faith towards the House and of deceitful conduct towards the Italians in having secretly instigated the treaty, for the other night the right hon. Gentleman actually charged Her Majesty's Government with having not only approved and encouraged, but even having instigated and originated the secret treaty. To-night the right hon. Gentleman only says that the transaction was made known to us at the time. Having, Sir, as I hope, succeeded in vindicating the Government on this point, I shall sit down without further troubling the House.
  The subject then dropped.

THE INCOME TAX.

  RESOLUTION MOVED.
  MAJOR REEDsaid that he had given notice of a Resolution—
  "That whereas the Act of Parliament (18th Vict., c. 20) contains a proviso which by its technical construction would inflict in a time of Peace a second year of full War Income Tax upon the loyal but heavily burdened subjects of Her Majesty, this House is of opinion that the provisions of the said Act should cease and determine from the 6th day of April next"—
  That he had done so in vindication of his position as chairman of the Anti-Income Tax Association, but expressed his sense of the disadvantage under which he laboured of having to address the House after the eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, and the reply of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He hoped, however, that the House would extend its indulgence while he made a short statement explanatory of the policy he intended to pursue. He would not weary the House with a long statement, but prayed its kind consideration, while he reminded them of the fact that since the prorogation of Parliament an unparalleled agitation had taken place in opposition to the continuance of the war tax after April next. That agitation

  473
  was taken up by the Association over which he presided, had been supported both in metropolitan boroughs and large provincial towns, and resolutions condemnatory of the continuance of the war tax had in almost every case been agreed to. At the late meeting at Exeter Hall he had felt it his duty, when addressing a large assembly of taxpayers, to make a specific statement, and in the absence of any statement on the part of the Government as to their intention to abandon the war tax, he pledged himself to that assembly to place on the books of the House such a Resolution as would elicit a definite statement from Ministers on this subject. He had listened with attention to the Royal Speech, but he had sought in vain for any reference to this most interesting subject, for he must say that he never read or heard an address containing less information than that Speech. He had no intention to go into an elaborate statement of the finances of the country in connection with the subject, for the Press had done ample justice to this great movement. [The Speaker inquired whether the hon. Gentleman intended to conclude with a Motion as otherwise he was out of order in continuing his observations?] Major Reed said that then he would conclude with his Motion, but as he had observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come forward and stated his intention of bringing in his Budget on Friday next, he should not press his Motion to a division in the belief that the right hon. Baronet would satisfy the just expectations of the country by his forthcoming financial statement. He could not but be rejoiced to find that such an intention existed, but in reference to that Gentleman, he would call the attention of the House to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Education at Hertford, in which he expressed his opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had never supposed that the full tax could be continued another year, and that the clamour raised was most unnecessary, He (Major Reed), however, considered that the agitation had been attended with good results; for in the first place, it had had the effect of bringing on the Budget much sooner than usual; and he thought the ultimate result would be, that this abominable war tax would be abolished. He thought it would be but courtesy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant him the grace he desired, and he (Major Reed)
  474
  should, therefore, withdraw his Motion, on the condition that, if the right hon. Gentleman did not announce his intention of reducing the income tax by the additional war tax, he should be at liberty to re-introduce it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the care and education of vagrant, destitute, and disorderly children, and for the extension of Industrial Schools, observed that it was not his intention at present to trouble the House at any length, because this measure was in principle the same as one that had already been passed for Scotland, and was commonly known as Mr. Dunlop's Act. Its details were, indeed, necessarily somewhat different, in order to adapt them to the circumstances of England; and although they would require the careful consideration of the House, yet that consideration would be more satisfactorily bestowed on them when the Bill was in the hands of hon. Members. It was, however, incumbent on him now to state very briefly the main grounds why such a measure ought to be introduced. The large class of children to whom the Bill referred was one peculiarly demanding their care and attention, not simply from motives of humanity, but from reasons of State policy connected with our criminal legislation. The difficulty of dealing with our criminals would be materially diminished if we could cut off the supply of those criminals at its source; and, as the worst of them were those who had been trained to crimes from their earliest years, the best interests of society would be consulted by taking them in hand before they became hardened. It might be asked, why not leave it to the reformatory schools to work out this object? Those schools were no doubt doing great good; and, though much was yet required to bring them to completion, it might perhaps seem better to allow that system to perfect itself before we dealt with another class. But, looking to the large number of children who were now running about our streets, and constantly swelling the ranks from which those schools, supported as they were, in part at least, from the public purse, were recruited; and looking, moreover, to the likelihood of those ranks being thinned by the adoption of a measure

  475
  like that now operating in Scotland, it would be well to reflect whether it would not be wiser and move economical to apply such an Act at once to England. The Reports of our prison inspectors appeared to show that about 7,000 were annually added to the criminal class of this country; that might be, and he hoped was, an overestimate; but the number, whatever it was, represented a much larger body of children who ran about the streets, getting constantly into trouble, and continually coming into the hands of the police, and on whom our present schools failed to make any impression. In Bristol, last year, there were apprehended of this class 525 children under sixteen years of age, of whom only 126 were committed for trial or summarily convicted, the remainder being left to wander about uncared for. In Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and other populous towns a similar state of things unhappily prevailed. This class not only constituted a dangerous element in our society, but, from their neglected condition, had a strong claim on our pity. How, he asked, did our existing institutions meet the wants of this class! The national schools did not meet the demand, for they were too high to reach the children in question. The children with whom his Bill proposed to deal would not choose to mix in their rags with the children of a superior class who now attended the national schools, neither was the discipline of those schools such as was necessary for the proper government of children of the lowest class, who required not a high scale of education, but the training of strict discipline and control. Neither on the other hand were the reformatory schools suitable for those children, whom, not having yet committed crime, it would be unjust to associate with those who had. The ragged and industrial schools which had been established throughout the country were the proper places for the children with whom his Bill proposed to deal; but the difficulties at present attending those institutions were a want of power to compel children to attend, and a lack of means for the full development of the schools. He proposed to adopt the principle of the Scotch Act, which gave the magistrates a power to commit to industrial schools all children found in the streets begging or committing acts of vagrancy. It was true great care must be taken to define the class of children who should be subject to the exercise of this power;
  476
  but if that were done he had no doubt that schools of the right kind would spring up in such numbers as, with those at present in existence, would be sufficient for all purposes. A large proportion of the children who were to be found wandering about the streets had been either deserted by their parents or were encouraged by them to beg or steal; therefore he proposed to introduce into this Bill that which was a principal feature in the Scotch Act, a provision that would make the parents liable in every case for the maintenance of their children in those schools. Allusion had been made to the small sums collected from parents under the Reformatories Act, and the difficulty of collecting even those; but he submitted that the principal object of requiring those payments was not so much to relieve the Treasury as to operate upon the minds of parents, and in that respect he thought that that provision had not been without effect. He found from a letter he had received from Mr. Dunne, the chief constable of Newcastle-on-Tyne, that since the Act had been enforced in that district the number of juvenile criminals had diminished one-half, and Mr. Dunne stated that he knew that many parents who formerly sent their children to beg and steal about the streets had discontinued the practice, and sent them instead to some of the free schools of the town. The head constable of Liverpool had given similar testimony, and therefore he (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought, as the effect of the provision in the Reformatories Act, rendering the parents liable for the maintenance of their children, had been so beneficial, there could be little doubt as to the desirability of extending it to children who were idle and vagrant, but not yet criminals. In support of this Bill he would call the attention of the House to the successful working of the Scotch Act, the operation of which had been attended by a marked decrease in the committals of juvenile offenders. In Aberdeen, before the establishment of the free schools, the average annual number of juvenile vagrants taken into custody by the police was 342, while the average annual number in five years after their establishment was only six. In Edinburgh and Glasgow similar results had been produced. With such evidence of the successful operation of the system in Scotland, he thought the House would regard its extension to England as a wise measure of economy and humanity.

  477
  The subject was one which had excited much interest. A Committee had been sitting at Birmingham, and the matter had been taken into consideration by the Law Amendment Society, by a committee of which the Bill he now asked leave to introduce had been prepared. The hon. Member then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the care and education of vagrant, destitute, and disorderly children, and for the extension of industrial schools.
  MR. COCHRANEconfirmed the statement of the hon. Baronet as to the admirable manner in which the Scotch Act had been found to act, and mentioned that eighty per cent of the children who had been sent to the House of Refuge at Glasgow had been found, after quitting that institution, to be pursuing an honest career of industry.
  MR. KINNAIRDalso bore testimony to the excellent effects of the Scotch Act, and thought its extension to England would be of the highest advantage to the country.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he should not object to the introduction of the Bill, but must withhold any promise of support until he had seen the details upon which so much would depend.
  Leave given.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Mr. ADDERLEY, and Mr. HEADLAM.
  Bill read 1°.

SALE OF BEER, &c. BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  MR. HARDYsaid, that in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the sale of beer, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment, he desired to excuse himself for presuming to take up a subject of such importance, and that he did so on the ground that the Government were overwhelmed with business, and that he had been requested to do so, and that he felt a deep interest in it. The question of regulating the sale of beer had been dealt with by Parliament on several occasions, and every attempt to improve the law had only brought discredit on the Legislature, and had only served to show that the present system was unsuitable to the wants and feelings of the country. The first Act passed in the first year of
  478
  the reign of William IV. allowed any person to obtain from the Excise a licence for the sale of beer on the payment of £2 2s. That was found objectionable, and in the fifth year of the same reign another Act was passed rendering it necessary that the house should be of the rateable value of £10, and requiring certificates of good character, signed by six inhabitants and certified by the overseer. The House knew how easily certificates of character were obtained, and that even among the higher classes gentlemen were not ashamed to put their names to testimonials which were not strictly true; so that persons altogether unqualified found no difficulty in complying with the provisions of that Act. In the 3 & 4 of Vict. another attempt was made to remedy the evils by raising the rating in towns of 10,000 inhabitants to £15, and to a proportionate amount in smaller places, and requiring a certificate of rating from the overseers. By collusion with overseers the provisions of that Act were evaded. In 1834, a Committee of the House sat to inquire into the evils which arose from drunkenness. They declared that, in their opinion, the beershops were, to a great extent, the cause of intoxication, and they offered some strong recommendations, which were not, however, carried into effect. In 1849 and 1850, Lord Harrowby obtained a Committee of the House of Lords to inquire into the nature and character of beershops, and how far they had proved of advantage or comfort to the working population, it appeared from that inquiry that the comforts and morals of the poor had not been only not improved, but had been impaired by beershops. Another Committee of the House of Commons, which sat in the years 1853 and 1854, reported that the beershop system had proved a failure, that it was established in the hope that the public would obtain beer cheap and pure in houses where the disorders incident to houses for the sale of spirits would not occur, but that that hope had proved fallacious. Nothing resulted from that Committee, except a controversy on Sunday drinking, which he much regretted, and into which he would not enter, as the Bill which he proposed to introduce did not affect that part of the question. He believed that at present there were not less than 41,000 beershops in England, besides 80,000 public-houses. In Manchester one house in 35 and in Leeds one house in

  479
  45 were devoted to the sale of intoxicating liquors. In large towns there was every facility for drunkenness, and in the secluded districts, where these houses were removed from the close supervision of the police, they served as places where crime could be concocted almost without the risk of detection. When people said that drunkenness was becoming less, his answer was that there wore no statistics with respect to the increase or decrease of drunkenness on which reliance could be placed. In some towns no drunken persons were taken up unless they were riotous and disorderly; in other places, if they were taken up, they were only locked up for the night, discharged in the morning, and never brought before a magistrate. They were, therefore, unable to tell whether drunkenness was decreasing or not; but every one knew that destitute wives and children came upon the poor rates in consequence of their husbands and fathers haunting public-houses and beershops, and that there would not have been the necessity for reformatories and industrial schools of which they had heard this evening if Parliament had done its duty in protecting the morals of the people from the destructive and baneful influences of public-houses. In this view he was confirmed by Mr. Wright, the philanthropist, who said that of all destitute children there was not one whose misery and destitution could not be traced to the neglect of parents caused by drunkenness. Although the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) referred last night to the great diminution of crime, yet, on reference to the criminal returns, he found that crimes nurtured by drunkenness—where the victim, being drunk, tempted men to rob him, or where men, being drunk, first assaulted, and then robbed—had greatly increased. In the five years from 1846 to 1851 the number of robberies was 1,951. In the five years from 1851 to 1855 they were 2,377, having increased about 21 per cent. He did not wish to make a sweeping charge against every man who kept a beershop, because he knew there were many exceptions, and that numbers in the metropolis, as stated by Sir Richard Maybe, were as well conducted as public-houses; but it was proved before the Committee of 1853–54 that beershops were places where thieves met, where stolen goods were disposed of, where burglars planned their attacks, and where poachers and sheep-stealers associated before starting on their expeditions.
  480
  It seemed remarkable that, although beershops had been in existence, and the system had been complained of for twenty-six years, no attempt had yet been made to put beershops on the same footing as licensed public-houses, by taking away from the Excise the power of granting licences and placing it in the hands of the magistrates. Many complaints had indeed been made respecting the partiality shown by magistrates, but he believed that those complaints, generally speaking, had come from persons whose applications had been rejected, and that the publicans generally were contented with the present system; although some magistrates might have acted improperly, he believed that the gentlemen of England had done their duty in this respect, and he hoped they would for the future perform it even more strictly and efficiently. He might be asked, whether he could show the difference between public-houses and beershops? He said he could. The chief constable of Bradford gave a return of all the convictions of keepers of public-houses and beershops. There were 135 public-houses in the town, and 240 beershops. The offences of public-house-keepers were only 5 in the year 1856, being 1 in 27; of beershop keepers, 42, or more than 1 in 6. In Manchester the convictions of publicans were 22 per cent, and of beershop-keepers 47 per cent. Thus, therefore, it appeared that the system of magisterial licences acted far better than that of excise licences, and indeed Mr. Hogg, the chief constable of Wolverhampton, ascribed the greater respectability of publicans to their having once a year to meet the magistrates and the black book of the police. Now, what were the remedies which had been suggested for the present state of things? The Committee of 1853 had recommended that every person of good character (meaning every person who has not been convicted of any offence), should be entitled to a licence, on payment of a large fee, and that it should be obligatory on the magistrates to grunt it; and that the licence should permit the sale as well of spirits as of beer. There was another proposal—that the licences granted should be subject to a certain restriction, that no more than a certain number should be allowed for a given area, and according to the population. There were some who suggested the Maine law (prohibiting the sale of fermented liquors altogether); and then, for himself, he had a measure to propose

  481
  different from all these. With respect to the first, it appeared to him that if the licences were very high, it would tend to prohibit and destroy the trade it desired to regulate, and if not too high, to leave the trade remunerative, there would be introduced into the sale of spirits the same system of unrestricted competition which had proved so injurious in the case of beershops. The chief constable of Bradford stated in the Report before referred to that there were 27 beersellers in that town who kept prostitutes in their houses, and 10 had brothels upon, or attached to, their premises. The restriction of the number of licences according to the population was impossible, because the population upon different areas was so variously distributed. With regard to the Maine Liquor Law, he had the highest respect for those who advocated it, but it would first be necessary for them to purge their own houses; and, as he admitted he was not prepared to give up either wine or beer, he should consider he was only acting a part in a system of organised hypocrisy if he attempted to compel the humbler classes to give up those beverages. It would be necessary to search the cellars of Bellamy's for spirituous liquors at the opening of each Session, as the cellars were formerly searched for gunpowder, if the Maine Law were adopted. This law could only be carried when hon. Members had adopted its principles in their own persons, and then there would be no need of any compulsory law on the subject. A great reformation in this respect had taken place amongst the higher classes. Formerly there was scarcely a German prince who did not go drunk to bed every night, and too many of the higher classes followed their example. He believed that the alteration which had taken place in the habits of the upper classes would spread to the lower, and that the time would arrive when the latter would enjoy themselves moderately, and drunkenness would be abolished. He now came to the provisions of the Bill he intended to submit to the House. In the first place, he proposed to adopt the recommendation of the Committee of 1853–4, and to respect vested interests. Where licences had been given, therefore, no alteration could take place; as, however, the 41,000 beershops now in existence changed hands, or the licences were withdrawn, they would come within the operation of the measure, and he proposed to vest the licensing in the magistracy.
  482
  He proposed that beershop licences should be granted at all annual licensing meetings, and also at the special sessions, held from four to eight times a year, for the transfer of licences, under 9 Geo. IV. The new police afforded the means of investigating the character of the persons applying for licences, and also of those who certified to the character of the applicants and the amount of their rating. He proposed that persons intending to apply for licences should give twenty-one days' notice to the superintendent of police, and should furnish him with a copy of their application, and of the certificates of character by which it was to be supported. The magistrates would then be furnished with all the materials for forming a judgment. At present no beershop-keeper forfeited his licence except after a third conviction, and the magistrates had then to give the Excise notice, so that the licence might be withdrawn. But upon this point the evidence was singularly conflicting, for, while some of the magistrates stated that they were in the habit of sending information to the Excise, Mr. Wood, Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, said he could not call to mind that he had ever received one of these notices. The Excise, indeed, received the certificates and issued the licences in a perfunctory manner, since they had no means of inquiry. Thus it sometimes happened that the magistrates deprived publicans of their licences for notorious and flagrant crimes. These men then obtained an excise licence for the sale of beer, and kept open their houses under the noses of the magistrates. This was an intolerable evil and abuse. He proposed, therefore, to put all these houses under the same jurisdiction. He should also propose to carry out the provisions of what was generally called the Tippling Act with regard to beer. A petition had been presented to-night which had been forwarded and favoured by the County Judge of Salford upon this subject, and it had been stated to him that beershop-keepers sometimes sued a man for debts of £12 or £14, which the debtor declared he knew nothing about, having been run up while he was in a state of semi-intoxication. He proposed that no beershop-keeper should sue for beer drunk on the premises, unless he commenced his action within one week. It would be hard where a man had treated a great number of persons on the same night that the beershop-keeper should have no remedy.

  483
  It was his intention to make the Bill applicable to another class of persons. In the report of the Committee of 1853–4, a recommendation was given that all coffeehouses should be placed under the supervision of the police. In the metropolis the keepers of coffee-houses were forbidden to harbour bad characters, but there was this great anomaly mentioned by Sir Richard Mayne, that the police had no authority to enter such houses to ascertain whether bad characters were harboured or not. He did not indeed propose to touch coffee-shops, temperance hotels, shell-fish shops, and places of that description, which were kept open during the day time; but he proposed to give the police a supervision over all those houses which were kept open between nine at night and four in the morning. It was to such places as these that bad characters resorted after they were expelled from public-houses, and in many cases they had not the least difficulty in obtaining illicit spirits. In 1854, Mr. Hogg, the superintendent of the police of Wolverhampton, who was in London to give evidence before the Committee, went into one of these coffee-shops at night and asked for some gin. They gave him some without difficulty, but not in a glass. They served it to him in a coffee-cup, and told him that if the police came he must pour some milk into the gin, and then they would think it was coffee. He proposed that these houses so open between the hours of nine and four should be licensed and pay a small sum annually, and that they should be subject to the supervision of the police in the same manner as beershops. He also proposed to levy penalties for selling spirits, for harbouring disorderly characters, and permitting gambling. A clause in the Towns Police Bill prohibited the assemblage of disorderly characters in houses of this description, and this clause was adopted in most private improvement Bills. There seemed, however, no reason why it should not be extended over the whole country. He proposed to levy fines upon drunken and disorderly persons who refused to leave licensed houses when required by the landlord or his servants; and he proposed, not only to fine the landlords for permitting spirits or beer to be drunk at unlawful hours, but also to fine those who were found drinking in these houses at such times. He was glad to hear that the Government did not intend to oppose the introduction of his Bill, and he implored the House to give the measure their
  484
  fullest and most mature consideration. The aim of the Bill was to improve the condition of the poorer classes, to diminish their temptations, to promote their domestic enjoyments, to render them better husbands and better fathers, and without some such Bill as this all the efforts which were being made for the spread of education would be entirely frustrated. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved for leave to bring in his Bill.
  MR. EDWARD BALLseconded the Motion. He only knew very recently that he should be called upon to take part in the discussion, much less that his name was to be put upon the back of the Bill. But he had given his consent to that course upon the understanding that he was not to be committed to all the details of the measure, He belived that while beershops existed to such an extent throughout the country, all the efforts of clergymen, dissenting ministers, city missionaries, ragged schools, and institutions of that kind would prove failures. He had in his hand a compendium of the crimes which had occurred in beershops, and the picture was a terrible one. There had been in the course of the past year no less than 711 broils and violent assaults, 294 robberies, 237 cases of atrocious cruelties upon wives and children, 166 serious accidents, 162 actual and attempted suicides, 520 terrible deaths, and 120 murders and manslaughters, all arising from the vice of drinking. He did not go the whole length with the Alliance, which had been formed, but this he would say, that if he was to have the alternative, whether these frightful crimes were to continue or licences destroyed, he should have no hesitation in saying that he would have all licences destroyed, and the sale of intoxicating liquors entirely suppressed. A Committee was obtained and presided over by Lord Harrow by last year. Before that Committee there was given the testimony of forty chaplains of gaols, who were unanimous in attributing the vast majority of the crimes for which prisoners were convicted to the influence of the beershops. He would refer also, to the united testimony of the City Missionaries, who were so well acquainted with the habits of the people in the courts and alleys of the metropolis. They agreed that the beershop was the first step to crime, that it was there crimes were concocted, and there where the wretched people went to gloat over the wickedness they had committed.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would not then enter into a premature discussion on the provisions of the Bill as other opportunities would be afforded him of stating his opinions on the subject. There could be no doubt as to the effect which drunkenness had in increasing crime, and the great point to be solved was, what was the best means of preventing drunkenness. How far the provisions of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill would have that effect would be better discussed at a future stage than at present. The Committee of 1853–54 had taken a great deal of evidence on the licensing system and the beerhouse system, and the conclusion they came to as to the expediency of abolishing the distinction between beerhouses and public-houses was the same as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but they came to a very different conclusion as to the hands in which the licensing power should be placed. It would be well if hon. Members, before the second reading of the Bill, would look into the evidence taken before that Committee, which contained much useful information on this subject. As a great deal of interest would no doubt be excited in the country by the Bill on account of the great amount of property embarked in the beer trade, as well as from other and higher causes, he would suggest that a sufficiently long interval should elapse before the second reading to allow the public to become well acquainted with its provisions.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he doubted whether there was any subject on which opinions were more unanimous than on that of drunkenness being the chief source of crime. There could not, he maintained, be a greater nuisance than beershops as they were at present constituted throughout the country. He was therefore glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman had undertaken the task of supplying a remedy for the evil. At the same time he must express an opinion that it ought not to have been left to a private Member to deal with the subject. He thought the country had a strong claim upon Her Majesty's Government, who should have made an attempt to deal with this great national evil. It was not by any means a new subject. For the last six or seven years the attention of Parliament had been drawn to it. In 1850 and 1851 the Earl of Harrow by conducted an inquiry into the evils of these beershops. In
  486
  1852 he (Sir J. Pakington) gave notice of a Motion on the subject, and it was taken up by the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes). Then a Committee sat in 1853, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) on behalf of the Government. He, as a member of that Committee, had hoped that after that long inquiry, and after a Report had been presented to the House, Her Majesty's Government would have taken some steps to have carried through some legislative measures based upon those recommendations. But 1855 and 1856 passed without anything being done, and he believed that 1857 would also have passed by had it not been for the exertions of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had that evening asked leave to introduce his Bill. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would not be content with merely complimenting the hon. and learned Gentleman; but would do what they could towards carrying out the Report of their own Committee and bring legislation of the subject to a successful termination.
  MR. WILKINSONsaid, he rose to notice the assumption made by the right hon. Gentleman, that the limitation of beershops would necessarily be beneficial and diminish the ranks of drunkards. It appeared to him that this Bill began at the wrong end. The people did not drink because beerhouses were there, but the beerhouses were there because the people drank. There were two classes of people in this country, those who had an unbounded command over the means of intoxication, and those whose consumption of intoxicating liquors was limited by their means. Now, it was said that there was less intoxication, but that was amongst those classes who had an unbounded command over the means of intoxication. It might be true that robberies and other offences were concocted in these houses, but were counting-houses and banking-houses free from such imputations. He thought they should not prevent the people from having access to these houses when they were properly conducted. It was a mistake to impose restrictions on those who were sober, because some persons got drunk.
  MR. LOWEobserved that the wish expressed by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that the Government should carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee could hardly be

  487
  realised, inasmuch as the Committee was in favour of throwing open the trade altogether, and the Bill of the hon. and learned Member proposed to limit as much as possible the number of public-houses.
  MR. CROSSLEYbelieved that every additional house open for the sale of intoxicating liquors was an additional temptation. People did not begin through a desire for drink, but they went to beershops in the first instance for company. The fact was, that the number of these houses was so great that the keepers of them could not possibly get a living without additional immoral incentives besides selling drink. It was an evil that ought to have been taken up by the Government, but as they had failed, he was glad the hon. Gentleman had taken it up. He would engage that the licensed victuallers would be almost unanimous in favour of the Bill, and the majority of the beersellers also. All who had now got houses would be in favour of licences being granted by the magistracy instead of the Excise.
  MR. WILLIAM BROWNregarded the proposed measure as one in the right direction; but it was in direct antagonism to the Report of the Committee, and he hoped the Government would not let the Session pass without themselves legislating on the subject.
  MR. SCHOLEFIELDhoped the hon. Member would not suppose that because this Bill was now read the first time, with the general concurrence of the House, that it would not excite some opposition. He entirely differed from him as to the remedy he proposed. The hon. Member had greater faith in the magistracy of this country than he had, in reference to the granting of licences. He should be much more disposed to throw the trade open, and to deprive the magistrates of the power they at present possessed. He could not promise the hon. Member his support; on the contrary, he thought he should be obliged to oppose the Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM EWARTremarked that the source of the evil lay in the character of the people. Unfortunately their education had not been sufficiently attended to. The hon. Gentleman made two allusions which reacted against his own proposition. He said the rich class in this country had reformed themselves. And also that no restrictive laws were imposed on them; taverns were not closed, and yet education, and that which was still
  488
  higher than education—religion and morals—had improved them. With regard to the working classes, they allowed no such means; but they wanted to put them down with restrictive laws. He was a friend to anything, in a reasonable sense, which might lead the people to conduct themselves better. He looked to such places as working men's reading-rooms, and places of that kind, as more likely to lead the poor classes away from these houses, and to give them higher aspirations than such measures as were now proposed.
  MR. MANGLESagreed most cordially with the proposition that the granting of these licences should be taken from the Excise and vested in the magistrates. In the borough he represented there was a beerhouse which was kept up as a brothel of the lowest character, the resort of all the thieves in the neighbourhood. Representations had been made by the magistrates to the Excise; but the Excise said they had no discretion or option in the matter, but were obliged to grant the licence.
  MR. HARDYreplied: He wished to maintain a distinction between beershops and public-houses, as he thought it was of the utmost importance that those who frequented beershops should not be tempted there by the sale of ardent spirits. He was surprised to hear an hon. Member say that drunkenness was not increased by adding to the number of taverns and beerhouses. The throwing open of spirit licences during the last century had produced a degree of drunkenness quite horrible to contemplate, and Lord Chesterfield denounced the Act which produced that addition as a measure which sanctioned the sale of poison. He (Mr. Hardy) was a free trader in everything but in the sale of intoxicating liquors, because he believed that a system of restriction was the only means by which drunkenness could be checked.
  Resolved—"That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the general Sale of Beer by retail, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment."
  House resumed.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to brought in by Mr. FITZROY, Mr. HARDY, MR. WILLIAM BROWN, and Mr. HEADLAM.
  Bill read 1°,

ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORD,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the mode of securing and paying fixed incomes to ecclesiastical corporations, aggregate and sole, said, he believed he should be consulting the convenience of the House by not entering at the present moment into any statement as to the measure. He entertained the greater confidence in asking the House to assent to the introduction of the Bill, inasmuch as on two occasions they had agreed to the second reading of a Bill, which, although differing in some points of detail from the present Bill, was the same in principle. Those differences in points of detail he believed would be found to the advantage of the measure. He would not now enter upon those details, but take an early opportunity of doing so, and also of stating his views upon the subject generally.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEseconded the Motion.
  MR. WALPOLEhoped the day fixed upon for the second reading would be after the production of the Report of the Commissioners.
  Leave given.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Marquess of BLANDFORD and Mr. GEORGE BUTT.
  Bill read 1°.

STATUTE LAW COMMISSION.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON VISCOUNT PALMERSTON moved for a Select Committee to consider so much of the second Report of the Statute Law Commissioners as related to the proposition therein made for the adoption of means to improve the manner and language of current legislation, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House. Nothing, he thought, could be of more importance than this subject. Everybody who had turned his attention to the framing and language and operation of the Statute Law must have seen what confusion frequently arose from diversity of construction, from oversights and from conflicting enactments of laws that were passed at different times. He remembered, as an instance of this, that a Bill some years ago was brought into the House in which, by oversight, the grammatical construction of one of the clauses went to provide for the case "in which Good Friday should fall on a Sunday." Besides these ridiculous results there was a want of precision in the language of our Statutes, and a want of sufficient care in
  490
  providing that harmony should be preserved between Bills brought in and laws in existence; and, indeed, when they considered the method in which Bills passed in that House, it was very natural. A Bill was brought in frequently by an independent Member with such assistance as he might be able to command, or a Bill was brought in by Government, who had the assistance of the law officers, whose time was very much engaged. Neither of these framers of Bills was able to give sufficient attention to the language, or to examine all existing laws, to see that the Bill did not conflict with those laws; that, in short, the Bill should be an improvement, and should not lead to confusion. Well, the Bill was brought in, and in debate Amendments were suggested which were afterwards carried out in Committee. One Member had a particular case in mind for which he wished to provide, and he proposed a clause. The mover of the Bill, taken on the sudden, finding that to accept this clause would smoothe the passage of the Bill, without, perhaps, having the opportunity or the means of ascertaining exactly the bearing of the clause on the other parts of the Bill, or on existing laws, adopted it. The Bill passed that House, and in the other House Amendments were made in the same way, and additional clauses were inserted, without sufficient opportunity or time to ascertain their bearing, and the result was frequently that a Bill came down, and was passed into law, and the next Session another Bill had to be brought in to alter it, as was the case lately in reference to a Bill for the collection of rates in the metropolis. A great advantage, therefore, would arises if some proper officer were appointed, who should be servant to the two Houses of Parliament in regard to these matters, who should, when a Bill was referred to him, examine the legal effect of it, its operation on existing laws, whether it repealed or altered existing laws, whether it left in existence laws on the same subject wholly or partially repealed—in short, to report to the Houses of Parliament the effect of the Bill, both as to its operation and also as to its language and construction. A great improvement might no doubt be made in the phraseology of our Statutes. A great many superfluous words were frequently used. Lawyers, in order to prevent mistakes—ex abundanti cautelâ—very often caused mistakes. He therefore thought it would be a very desirable thing that a

  491
  Committee should be appointed to take this Report into consideration. He was bound to say that the authors of the second Report had shown by their example how it was possible for able men to have clear ideas on the subjects referred to them, and to express those clear ideas in the most perfect and lucid manner. Though Gentlemen might think that reading a Report on law amendment was not an agreeable occupation, yet he could assure them that any one who read this Report would have great pleasure in reading it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALseconded the Motion.
  MR. NAPIERsaid that, although he had no intention to offer any opposition to the appointment of this Committee, he must at the same time express his surprise sit the present Motion, inasmuch as on Thursday next it is well known he was about to submit a Motion on a much larger but kindred question, of which the present proposal was a mere fragment. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Lord, he (Mr. Napier) believed the evil to lie much deeper than had been stated, more especially when it was found that Government Bills, prepared under Government auspices, failed in their objects, and the complaints by the Judges of want of accuracy in the framing of Acts were met by charges of technicality in those learned persons. The phraseology and construction of our laws constituted a disgrace to a civilised country. The remedy required was an entire, not an homœopathic remedy. He doubted the efficacy of the means suggested by the noble Lord, for it was difficult to suppose how a Committee of that House could sit in judgment upon the Commission, which numbered in its ranks the Lord Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, and other legal luminaries. He trusted that on Thursday the House would pass an opinion on the larger proposition he should make. Last year the Government had assented to a Resolution moved by him in a large and comprehensive shape, and affirming that something should be done. They then asked him to wait. The Report came out in March, 1856; but the Session passed without legislation, and at the close, seeing that nothing was done, he gave notice of his intention of renewing his proposal this year. He should, on Thursday, therefore, take the sense of the House upon it.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he concurred in
  492
  thinking that the learned Commission who had reported were better able to settle the phraseology of Acts of Parliament than any Select Committee of that House that could be named. Before we could hope for a return to that simplicity of language which had marked the Acts passed in the reigns of our Edwards and our Henrys, the Minister of Justice, as proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Napier), must be appointed. On Thursday he would give his best support to the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, that he thought the argument of Mr. Napier conclusive that this was dealing in a very fragmentary manner with a very wide subject. This was not a new scheme. It was proposed in the time of Elizabeth, in the time of the Commonwealth, in the reign of Charles II. and that of George III. A commission in 1806 had no result, Another in 1816, which cost £37,000, and another in 1833, had also no result. Another in 1844, also, after costing £12,500, had no result. In the course of that time they had paid to Mr. Bellenden Ker, £10,000, and that gentleman had received £1,000 from the Committee which sat in 1853. He did not think a Committee of that House would accomplish that which so many Commissions had failed in doing. The statutes of this country were beyond all question verbose, tautologous, obscure, and perplexed. They were complained of not only by Englishmen, but by foreigners, and especially by the Government of the United States. He (Mr. Phillimore) had never listened to a speech, even of a Minister, which had occasioned him more profound disappointment than that which the speech of the Lord Chancellor had caused him when the noble Lord stated his views on the subject of the consolidation of the law. The result of all the money which had been expended was eight Bills, which were to be models for future legislation. He would give the House a specimen. The Act on treason enacted that it should be treason to violate the king's companion, or to kill a Judge sitting in eyre, although the office had been abolished ten years. There were in the proposed Bills provisions relating to corruption of blood, though the thing was abolished in the time of William III. There were provisions relating to the appointment of the officers of the South Sea Company, though the company did not now exist; penalties were provided for

  493
  destroying of Exchequer tallies, though they had been disused; and a provision relating to the "Spencean philanthropists," though the sect had long since been extinct. Tautology in Acts of Parliament began in the reign of Henry VIII., and since then they had abounded more and more in prolixity and confusion. Nevertheless there were Acts which might have served the Commissioners as models of lucidity and common sense—such were the 5 Eliz. c. 4, and the Acts drawn by Mr. Deacon Hume for the regulation of the Customs. Contrast those statutes with an Act of George II., which regulated weirs on the Thames, provided measures for preventing the spread of distemper amongst horned cattle, which contained provisions relating to attorneys and solicitors, the more frequent return of writs from the county Palatine, the making of rates, and the assessments on the inhabitants of London, and the allowing of affirmations by Quakers in lieu of oaths. He hoped that such prolixity, confusion, and tautology would not be perpetuated by the Commissioners.
  MR. BAINESwas prepared to contend that the Report of the Commission which was the subject of the present Motion was entitled to great praise at the hands of the Legislature. To that Report were appended names no less distinguished than those of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, Chief Justice Jervis, the Lord Advocate, Sir Alexander Cockburn, Vice Chancellor Page Wood, Mr. Justice Keogh, and others. Now, he thought any suggestion emanating from such persons might well be considered worthy of being remitted before a Select Committee. It had been said, however, why appoint a Committee to go over again the same ground as a Commission? Now, to suppose they would have to go over the same ground was a mistake, for the Commission and Committee would be appointed for perfectly distinct purposes. The object which his noble Friend had in view was to discover the best means of carrying out the Report of the Commission. Undoubtedly there were suggestions thrown out by the Commission which might be fairly considered open to review. For example, it might be well worthy of consideration whether the task of improving the wording of Acts of Parliament should devolve upon a single officer or upon a Board. Whether, again, each House should have a separate officer
  494
  to superintend its work of legislation. However, the real question now before the House was, whether the suggestion of the Commission was one containing sufficient good to be deserving of further scrutiny.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed—
  "To consider so much of the Second Report of the Statute Law Commissioners as relates to the proposition therein made for the adoption of means to improve the manner and language of current Legislation, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House."

CHIEF CONSTABLES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he rose to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the appointment of chief constables for adjoining counties, and to confirm appointments of chief constables in certain cases. The first object of the Bill was to remedy a defective proviso in the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 93, the Act which first sanctioned the appointment of a county constabulary. Henceforth it would be lawful for adjoining counties to appoint the same chief constable, subject to the consent of the magistrates at quarter sessions of the district last electing him. Another part of the Bill related to a provision of the existing law which rendered the election of chief constables subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and also declared that the persons chosen must not exceed the age of forty-five. A case had lately occurred in Staffordshire in reference to which the opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been taken, and they were of opinion that, under the terms of the Act of Parliament, the magistrate had no option but to elect a person qualified according to the rules prescribed, and that the Secretary of State could not by his consent render valid an election at variance with those rules. Under these circumstances, as doubts might arise as to acts done by chief constables who had been thus elected and approved by the Secretary of State, it has been thought desirable to bring in a Bill to render valid all acts done by them in the discharge of their duties.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to inquire whether the Bill referred to appointments very recently made?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid he wanted to know whether, in future, candidates above the prescribed maximum age could be elected?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he must explain that up to the present time it had

  495
  been assumed that the approval of the Secretary of State would cure any defect in the appointment. There had only been four such cases in which approval had been accorded by three different Secretaries of State. As, however, it appeared that, according to the construction of the Act, the rules must be strictly adhered to, he had thought it necessary to alter those rules, to render them less stringent, and to provide for the exercise of discretion in special cases by the Secretary of State.
  Leave given.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY and Mr. MASSEY.
  Bill read 1°.

THE ORDER OF THE BATH.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  MR. SCOTTsaid he rose to move an Address for tabular "Returns of the names of all Officers in the Army and Navy who have been decorated with the Order of the Bath since the 1st day of January, 1854, with the degree and date of such decoration; the date of entrance into Her Majesty's Service, and promotion to their different ranks therein; giving also the Staff or other appointments or commands, with the emoluments attached, held by them respectively, and stating the engagements in which they had taken part; and of the Civilians who during the said period have been honoured with the like decoration, and the date." In moving for the above Returns, he wished to disclaim doing anything invidious, or an intention to find fault with the distribution of honours. On the contrary, he apprehended that, if the Returns were granted, they would show with what strict impartiality the patronage had been exercised, and all mistaken notions would disappear on their publication.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought that, according to strict practice, some Parliamentary grounds should be shown for the production of Returns—such, for example, as the setting right of some grievance, or the supplying of some peculiarly useful information. However, if the hon. Gentleman thought that misapprehensions really existed as to the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown—if those would be removed by the production of the information asked for, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing against the Motion for an Address.
  Motion agreed to.
  The House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Schools (Scotland); Young Persons Instruction; Probates and Letters of Administration; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS—

  QUESTION.
  LORD WYNFORDasked if it was the intention of the Government to bring in the same Bill as that of last Session on the subject of agricultural statistics; or any modification of that Bill? Great anxiety was felt throughout the country on the subject.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he regretted the failure of the Bill of last year; but during the recess he had taken the opinion of many people, and he did not think that there would be found that general concurrence on the subject, without which any Bill would be useless; it would, in fact, be distasteful to the feelings of a large portion of the public. It was not, therefore, his intention to propose any Bill on the subject during the present Session. If, at some future time, a Bill of this nature should be introduced, he should give it his support.
  LORD FEVERSHAMsaid, that the objection was not to the Bill of last year, but to the manner in which it was to be carried into effect, it being intrusted to the hands of the poor law guardians.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he had stated at the time that if it was thought desirable in the other House to propose other machinery, he would consent to it.
  LORD FEVERSHAMsaid, that the noble Lord last Session refused to adopt any other machinery.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he had considered the machinery of the Poor Law Board the best, but in fact no other machinery had been proposed.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, that there would have been no objection to a Bill of a modified form. It was the character of the Bill in question which was really offensive to public feeling through the inquisitorial power which was proposed to be vested in the Poor Law Board. He thought that another Bill might be framed with more moderate terms.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY 422
  said, the Bill had been agreed to by a Committee composed of various political opinions, and had commanded the consent of all who had given attention to the subject.
  LORD FEVERSHAMsaid, it was evident that the Bill was by no means satisfactory to the country.

  THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid: I have placed on the paper a notice that I should this evening call the attention of your Lordships to the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The term "Ecclesiastical Courts," to those who are not familiar with the subject, would lead your Lordships to suppose that the matters with which I am going mainly to deal were matters of a spiritual or ecclesiastical nature. Had that been the case I should have felt diffident as to my competency to touch upon such a subject, which would present considerable if not overwhelming difficulties to a layman in addressing this House upon it, and I should have felt myself less fitted than a Member of the right rev. Bench to discharge this duty. In truth, however, although these courts pass by the name of Ecclesiastical Courts, Ecclesiastical matters—that is to say, matters which are in their nature purely Ecclesiastical—form but a small portion of the business which they transact. By custom and by law, indeed, the matters which are referred to these courts have come to be considered Ecclesiastical owing to their connection with these courts; but, in truth, they are mostly of an entirely temporal character. We learn from antiquarians—from those who have looked into our early legal history—that in the remotest ages of our history the temporal and ecclesiastical jurisdiction were united in one court—the County Court—in which the Sheriff or Alderman presided, assisted by the Bishop; and that there all causes, civil as well as ecclesiastical, were disposed of by the joint authority of the two, the Bishop, it has been observed, giving the weight of dignity, while the temporal officer possessed the means of enforcing the decrees. But however this may be, from very early, even prior to what lawyers call the time of legal memory,—that is, the accession of Richard I.,—a distinction was established between Courts Temporal and Courts Ecclesiastical. The Courts Ecclesiastical were created to deal with questions having reference to the interests of the Church; but

  423
  in process of time it happened—whether by abuse, by accident, or by a mixture of both, I cannot say—that those Courts came to have jurisdiction over matters which cannot, except technically, be described as of an ecclesiastical character; and it is for the remedy of abuses connected with the jurisdiction thus acquired by these Courts in matters testamentary and matrimonial that I propose to introduce a measure. With regard to the first of these matters, the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts may be described as having thus originated:—There has been a doubt among learned persons whether in early times, even as regards personal estate, an individual had at his death the power of disposing of that property by will. But this appeared clear that he had not the power of disposing of more than a part of it, and, that being the case, the question naturally arose, to whom did the personal estate, not disposed of, go at the death of the possesor? In the earliest times the rule undoubtedly was that it went to the Crown, upon the supposition that the Crown would dispose of it in piosusus. The right to take this undisposed of personalty was from time to time granted by the Crown to different subjects, chiefly to the Bishops of the different dioceses, or to other ecclesiastical functionaries there; though not rarely it was placed in the hands of lords of manors and other persons of influence and property, with regard to those dying within the range of their authority. The result of this was that the right to this property became vested in a great number of persons, from which, there naturally resulted great confusion and considerable abuses. The first attempt to remedy these abuses was by a statute passed in the reign of Edward I. (sometimes described as the English Justinian), by which it was enacted that the Bishops, who, generally speaking, were the persons to whom these grants had been made, and who had in other cases acquired by some means the right originally vested in the Crown, should be bound to discharge out of the personal estate which came into their hands the debts of the deceased. So matters remained until half a century later, in the reign of Edward III., when a further advance was made by enacting that, instead of the property being distributed by the Bishop, the Bishop should grant "administration" of the property before distributed by him to the nearest relations of the deceased. This led to the appointment
  424
  of an administrator, who, by the terms of the statute, was to have the same rights and duties as were possessed by an executor when the deceased had appointed one. As to the mode in which the administrator was to deal with the surplus, after the debts had been paid, this was a point unsettled by positive law for centuries; but by a statute of Charles II., called the Statute of Distribution, it was enacted that any surplus remaining over after the discharge of the debts should be distributed among the next of kin, the statute defining who are to be considered next of kin. And the law then enacted upon this subject continues with little alteration to this day. A man may now therefore dispose of all his personal property by will if he thinks fit; and if he does not dispose of it the Bishop grants letters of administration to some near relative, who pays the debts and distributes the surplus among the next of kin. I should observe that, the Bishops, being intrusted with the distribution of the surplus, it naturally followed that the same persons should have the right of pronouncing upon the genuineness of a will, which has pro tanto diminished the undisposed-of property, and these same Bishops therefore had the right of requiring that the fact of the existence of a will should be proved to them. They granted letters of probate: probatum est, that there is such a will. I have thus sketched out the history of the Testamentary Jurisdiction, and I think I need hardly say more to satisfy your Lordships that there is nothing essentially ecclesiastical in it, but that this is a subject of a purely temporal character just as much as the disposal of property under a deed or contract. Another important subject with which ecclesiastical courts deal in this country, not essentially ecclesiastic in its nature, is the subject of marriage and (in a qualified manner) of divorce. The right of deciding upon the question of marriage or no marriage, or whether there ought or ought not to be a divorce, arose in a very different manner from the jurisdiction of which I have hitherto been speaking; it arose in times anterior to the Reformation from the circumstance that marriage was a sacrament of the Church, and could only be dealt with therefore by those to whom the ordinances of the Church were familiar—by churchmen, and not by laymen. This, therefore, was a jurisdiction which existed in Ecclesiastical courts, and in Ecclesiastical Courts only. That is another branch, my Lords, of the

  425
  jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts with which I shall ask your Lordships to deal, and I will presently state the course which I shall venture to propose. These are the two most important branches of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts; but a third branch still remains, which is more of an ecclesiastical character,—that is the jurisdiction over the clergy upon questions of discipline, the right to grant faculties for pews, alterations in the church fabric, and other matters of a similar kind. These might no doubt be subdivided, but I think they are sufficiently indicated by embracing them in one class. I shall also ask your Lordships to deal with this branch of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts as being part of the general subject. I will now proceed to state to your Lordships the course which I propose to adopt—first, with regard to the testamentary; secondly, with regard to the matrimonial; and thirdly, with regard to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of these courts. In order to make clear the proposals which I shall presently make as to matters testamentary, I have shortly explained to your Lordships the mode in which the jurisdiction of these courts originated upon such matters, and shown that, as a consequence, the manner in which they so first obtained jurisdiction. A large number of courts sprang up which had the duty of dealing with matters testamentary; so great, indeed, was the number that, according to the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which was issued about twenty five years ago, it appears that at that time there were no less than from 350 to 400 courts enjoying a testamentary jurisdiction, and granting probates. This is of itself a great evil, though the number was probably overstated, for it appears from a return which was laid before the other House of Parliament during last Session that the number of courts actually granting probate is not now nearly so great, for during the five years preceding, probate had not been granted by more than ninety-eight courts, although fifteen others were provided with machinery for exercising that jurisdiction. My Lords, when a person dies within the jurisdiction of one of these courts, primâ facie that court has jurisdiction to grant probate; but many persons have personal property not all within one diocese or district, and in such a case the probate taken out in any one diocese is absolutely
  426
  valueless and void, and the consequence is that most persons have recourse to the Prerogative Court; but this is liable to great inconvenience as the probate of the Prerogative Court is liable to be set aside if the testator had no property out of the district or diocese in which he died. That, my Lords, is a great practical evil, and one which was pointed out twenty-five years ago, but, although many attempts have been made to remedy it, whether from the conflict of interests or from other causes, all those attempts have proved abortive. It has, indeed, been said, my Lords, that the subject is one of second-rate importance and of first-rate difficulty, and so that no reform will ever be effected, but I trust that we shall be able during the present Session to give the lie to that view of the case. It is a point also of great importance that wills should be properly preserved and registered, and although in the larger districts the registers are perfectly efficient, nothing can be more unsatisfactory than the arrangement of many of the smaller courts in that respect, and the documents there kept, although of great value to those interested, are rendered extremely liable to loss or spoliation. There is also another great evil connected with these courts. The contentious business which is conducted in them mainly consists in ascertaining whether a testator was competent to make a will at the time of its execution, and then whether the will has been executed with all the necessary legal solemnities. Now, in all cases of inquiry into the competence of a testator to make a will, depending upon the state of his mind at the time he made it, there is, as may naturally be expected, a very vast amount of conflicting evidence, and the mode of procedure of the Ecclesiastical Courts is ill adapted to deal with cases of that description. The process of these courts is founded on the canon, or civil law, according to the practice in which all the evidence is reduced to writing, and tendered in that form; and the advantages which would result from oral examination, from seeing the demeanour of the witnesses, are therefore lost. There is another evil connected with this subject, which, although not of so practical a character, is nevertheless one with which I think your lordships ought to deal. I have stated that these courts, in their origin, had the power of disposing of the personal property of a man whether he died intestate or not, but no such right

  427
  has ever existed with respect to real estate. As regards real estate these courts have never had any power of granting probate. Two years ago, my Lords, I introduced a Bill in which, among other things, I proposed that the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts should be extended to real estate. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and after a full and careful inquiry my proposal was overruled by a large majority. At the time I felt that that Vote of your Lordships' Committee had damaged my measure, but I am not now ashamed or afraid to confess that further consideration has satisfied me that there would be great inconvenience in requiring probate in the case of real estate. With regard to personal estate, which may consist of goods in one place, stock in another, and debts all over the kingdom, it is necessary, in consequence of incidents connected with it, that some person should, as soon as possible after the death of the testator, be designated to represent him in order to dispose, collect, and arrange these matters. But with regard to real estate that is fixed, certain, and easily ascertainable, and passes, generally speaking, on death—supposing there is no will—not to several persons claiming as next of kin, but to one claiming as heir. Hence probate would be a most tedious, useless, and expensive process to apply to realty. There are, however, certain qualifications which I propose to introduce, and which I trust your Lordships will not hesitate to sanction. One great anomaly which exists under the present system is that the Ecclesiastical Courts decide only upon the validity of wills so far as the personal estate is concerned, while the real estate is decided by other tribunals. If a question, therefore, arises whether the testator were of sound or unsound mind, there may be a different decision with respect to the personal estate from that which may be given as to the real estate. There is a suit of this description pending before your Lordships' bar at the present moment. In the year 1842 a gentleman named Colelough died seised of a large real estate in the county of Wexford, and of personal property to the value of £120,000 or £130,000. The will gave all the property to the widow, and she obtained probate in the Prerogative Court of Ireland, and took possession of everything. In 1849, however, the heir-at-law brought an action of ejectment to recover the real estate in
  428
  Wexford, and the Court decided that the testator was a man of unsound mind, and that the will had been unduly obtained. The consequence is that, although the same piece of paper conveyed both properties to the widow, she has validly obtained possession of a large amount of personal property, while the question of the real estate, of some £7,000 or £8,000 a year, yet remains in dispute. Now, that is an anomaly which, as it appears to me, your Lordships ought to deal with. I propose, therefore, not that it should be necessary in every case of real estate to obtain probate, but that if there be a contest as to the sanity of the testator, and a caveat be entered against granting probate as to the personal estate, then that the heir-at-law as well as the next-of-kin shall be cited, and that that adverse proceeding shall litigate and determine the question both as to the personal and the real estate. I do not attempt to deal with these matters in a manner merely theoretical, but I look at what are the practical evils of which the public justly complain, and to those evils it is the bounden duty of your Lordships to apply a remedy. Now, without intending any sort of disparagement to those very able gentlemen who from time to time have presided in the Ecclesiastical Courts, I think that we should adopt the suggestion of the last commission, that the court of probate ought to be a Queen's court, and not an Ecclesiastical Court. I therefore propose to constitute one Queen's Court of Probate; but it should be observed that the duties of that court are practically almost entirely of a ministerial character. The real matter in which the public are interested is that there should exist the means of ascertaining cheaply and without delay, whether he left a will or not, and who is the representative of the deceased person. All that is necessary for that purpose is to have a good, clear, cheap, and expeditious system of registration of wills; because that is what in ordinary cases probate really amounts to, the practical duty of the court being the duty of the registration. The question has been raised whether, in transacting the ordinary business of proving a common will, the aid of proctors might not be altogether dispensed with. That is a point upon which my opinion has from time to time varied; but, on the whole, I think that the result of the evidence which was taken before the last commission

  429
  was to show that the business was done better, and it might be done cheaper, through the instrumentality of proctors than if no such machinery existed. I do not propose, therefore, at present to abolish the proctors; but if it should be found after experience that they can be dispensed with I should have no objection, when we had felt our way, to get rid of them. In the meantime, however, I propose that they shall be contined, subject to the power of the Lord Chancellor and the Judge of the court to add to the number of proctors, or to make new regulations with regard to them. Your Lordships will understand that this monopoly only applies to non-contentious business—to the proving of wills according to the ordinary form, or to what I call the common registration of wills. In these matters and none others I propose that they should have the same exclusive privileges which they have now; their number is very limited, there being in all only 120, of whom only about eighty practise; they are known to all the officers of the court, and there is the greatest attainable security against any fraud or impropriety in their conduct, and a man would be immediately struck off the list if any sort of fraud were discovered. So much with regard to wills proved in London. Now, looking at the matter with a theoretical view merely, it might seem desirable that all wills should be proved in London; but I am satisfied that that would not really tend to the convenience of the public. I therefore propose that there shall be, as at present, a number of district courts where wills may be proved as they now are. For that purpose I propose to retain all the present diocesan registries, and to add a few others, so as to make the number thirty in all throughout the kingdom, because some of the dioceses are so large and straggling that it is inconvenient for persons to have to go so far. I do not mean, however, to give these district registries a jurisdiction except in cases where the property does not exceed a given amount. Their operation will be confined, according to the recommendation of the last Commissioners, to cases where the personal estate is sworn under £1,500. When the property is of greater value it will be more convenient that the will should be proved in London. There will, however, be one important difference between wills proved under the Bill and wills proved in the diocesan courts as at present. I propose, whenever a will shall
  430
  be proved in a district court, to take away the power of questioning its validity, and render it a valid instrument in all parts of the kingdom. I intend to introduce a similar measure with respect to Ireland. [Lord CAMPBELL: What about Scotland?] There is more difficulty about Scotland, but I am in communication with the Lord Advocate, and I do not despair of succeeding in extending the principle to that country. What I have said thus far applies to the non-contentious jurisdiction of the courts in which out of the 30,000 administrations granted in the year, something like 29,950 are included, and under the Bill which I propose all non-contested wills may be proved in London if the parties please, but wills under £1,500 may be proved in the district registries, and whenever so proved shall be valid. Hitherto the Bank of England has represented that it would be put to great risk if called upon to transfer stock upon probates coming from small courts in the country; but I have been in communication with the solicitor of the Bank, and having apprised him of my intention to render valid wills once proved in the district registries, he has intimated to me that the Bank is satisfied with that proposal. So much for the non-contentious jurisdiction. With regard to the contentious jurisdiction the law at present is, that wherever a will is proved there the contest arises whether it is a valid will or not. That arrangement is very inconvenient, for where there is often neither Judge, nor barrister, nor legal assistance at all competent to deal with such difficult and delicate questions, and in such cases practically, the contest is removed by letters of request to London. What I propose, therefore is, that, with the exception I will hereafter mention, there shall be no contentious jurisdiction in the country—where it is all but impossible—but that it shall be carried on in the court of probate in London, as other questions are dealt with in the Superior Courts at Westminster. Very strong objections have been taken to the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, mainly arising from the tedious, expensive, and imperfect manner of taking evidence, and the decisions of those courts have failed to give satisfaction. Under the measure which I propose, the Judge of the court will really have next to nothing to do. The registrars will, in ordinary cases, determine whether a will is in due form or not, appealing to the Judge for assistance whenever they require it, and

  431
  when a question of fact arises whether, for example, the testator were a man of sound mind, or whether the will was duly executed, I propose that such questions should be dealt with exactly in the same manner as an issue is directed by the Court of Chancery to be tried in a court of law, and that nothing shall be done by the Judge, except sending them wherever they can most conveniently be tried. Some are of opinion that they ought to be tried by the Judge of the Court of Probate himself; but I cannot give my support to that theory. In the first place, nothing will be saved either in point of time or expense; and, in the next, the trial of a disputed fact such as the sanity or insanity of the testator, cannot be carried on in the ordinary progress of a cause. It must be proceeded with at a different time from that in which the ordinary proceedings are going on; whether the Judge of the Court of Probate tries it or not is of no consequence; and most assuredly it would be hard to compel witnesses to come from a great distance—from Exeter, Norwich, or Carlisle, for example—to give evidence in London before the Court of Probate, where the question could not be so well tried as by the Judge on circuit. What I propose, therefore, is, that the same course of procedure should be followed as in the case of a trial directed by the Court of Chancery. That brings me to a point upon which I have the misfortune to differ from many of your Lordships. At present the Judge of the Prerogative Court—my very able and learned Friend Sir John Dodson—is occupied a great portion of his time in the trial of questions of fact; and when all disputed questions of fact are sent to be tried by a jury he will have almost nothing to do. This being the case, I cannot honestly propose to your Lordships the creation of a new Judge. What I propose is, that one of the existing Judges shall discharge the duties of that court, and in this way a saving will be effected to the country. My proposal is that one of the Vice Chancellors shall be appointed to the discharge of this duty, though I am aware that on this point I have the misfortune to differ from some of your Lordships. It has been said that the Vice Chancellors are not proper persons to try questions of this kind, as they are unaccustomed to deal with matters of fact. I believe there will be no matters of fact, or very few, for them to try; but if there should, I propose that all the evidence
  432
  shall be vivâ voce; I grant, for the sake of argument, that the Vice Chancellors are not so familiar with the rules of vivâ voce evidence as the other Judges, but they will not be often called upon to apply them—[Lord BROUGHAM and Lord LYNDHURST intimated their dissent from this portion of the measure.] I may observe that motions for new trials, when heard before equity Judges have generally been disposed of in a most satisfactory manner; I have thought the matter over, and I hold to the opinion, that this part of the scheme is sound, but I will not persevere in it if another opinion prevails among your Lordships. With regard to the practitioners in the court, I do not propose that in contentious business the exclusive privileges of the proctors should be continued. My decided opinion is that the advocates in Doctors' Commons, the proctors, and all the practitioners of the common law courts should be at liberty to practise in the new court of probate at the discretion of the client. Thus far I have spoken of cases amounting to £1,500, but there may be wills of very small amount—say, £100 or £200—in which there is an actual contest, and it would be very hard that they should have to come up to London. We are therefore bound in such instances to find a remedy, and I propose that in cases where the personal estate is sworn under £200 it shall be within the competency of the County Court to decide the matter. The mode in which these courts are doing their business is such as to entitle them to our confidence, and, as occasions arise, to increase their jurisdiction, and accordingly I think they may be usefully employed in the discharge of this duty. This is the whole of the proposal which I have to submit to the House with reference to testamentary jurisdiction. I shall now proceed to the second branch of the subject, which is not less important than the first—namely, that which related to what were called matrimonial causes. Your Lordships are aware, that some years ago a Royal Commission, composed of very learned persons, was appointed to look into the question of divorce, and that this commission, having taken evidence on the subject, came to the conclusion that the present state of the law of England on that subject was highly discreditable. The simple fact is, that a divorce a vinculo matrimonii cannot be obtained in this country by any legal proceeding known to the constitution. It is true, a marriage

  433
  contracted under certain physical circumstances, may be declared a nullity, but that is not a divorce; to call it so would be an entire misuse of the term; it was a declaration that there never has been any marriage at all. For a century and a half it has been the practice of your Lordships' House if an act of adultery on the part of a wife has been established, and if the act has been followed by a divorce a mensâ et thoro obtained in the Ecclesiastical Court, to grant a private Act of Parliament—a privilegium—in order to make the husband a single man again, so as to enable him, if he so choose, to marry an other woman. In the case of the wife she can only obtain a divorce from her husband if adultery has been committed by him under circumstances which render it impossible for her ever to cohabit with him again, as, for example, when the adultery amounts to incest; and I believe there are only four instances on record in which your Lordships have granted such a divorce by dissolving the marriage at the instance of the wife. Now, the Commissioners reported, as I think every person of good sense must admit, that this was a state of things extremely discreditable to the country, and that a remedy was called for. One of two courses is open to your Lordships—either that you should not allow any such Bills to pass your Lordships' House—an opinion entertained by a noble Friend of mine the Chairman of Committees (Lord Redesdale); or, as the Commissioners suggested, that you should constitute a tribunal which should take cognisance of questions of divorce on similar principles to those that had regulated the proceedings of your Lordships in such cases. With that object I introduced a Bill last Session of Parliament, which was passed by your Lordships, but which went to the Commons too late to be passed into a law. After I introduced that Bill, my noble and learned Friend on my left (Lord Lyndhurst) took up the whole subject with his accustomed clearness, and adverted to the great grievance which pressed on married women, even independently of this question of divorce. He pointed out the injustice done to a married woman who might be divorced a mensâ et thoro from her husband, so as not to be under the obligation of cohabiting with him again. The law with regard to property acquired by married women under such circumstances is exceedingly anomalous, and with
  434
  the view of remedying that anomaly, the Divorce Bill of last Session was referred to a Select Committee, and some proposals were made by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) with the object of mitigating, if not of removing, the existing evils. These proposals were adopted by your Lordships, and I propose to introduce them, with some alterations, in the Bill I am about to lay on the table. In the first place, I think that if a married woman has been deserted by her husband without lawful excuse for a certain time—say three years—it is extremely reasonable that she should be entitled to a decree of divorce or separation from the court to be constituted, which will enable her thenceforth to be mistress of her own property. She may employ her industry either in intellectual or in less elevated pursuits; but her husband will be precluded, if he should return, from claiming as his property any money she may have accumulated. It is difficult to define what period of desertion should give this right, but I think it is not unreasonable to say three years, and the precise period can be fixed at a subsequent stage of the Bill. I think no husband who leaves his wife without lawful excuse for a period of three years should retain the right of saying on his return, "I claim possession of all the property you have acquired since I left you." If, however, the husband and wife should desire to live together again, I think every facility should be afforded them for doing so, and, in order to encourage such arrangements, I propose that a wife who has earned money shall, under such circumstances, have the power of making a settlement just as she could do before marriage. Your Lordships are aware, that at present a settlement made after marriage is invalid as against a third person, but I propose so far to alter the law as to render a settlement made by a woman, under such circumstances as I have mentioned, equally valid with an antenuptial settlement. I propose, further, that even in cases where there is neither cruelty nor desertion a similar arrangement may be made by deed. This proposition has startled some persons; but practically such arrangements are now entered into. It is now legally competent to married persons to separate by deed, but the legal consequences of such separations are not exactly defined, and Lord Eldon contended, that if a husband or a wife so separated were to institute a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for a restitution of conjugal rights the deed

  435
  would not be a bar to the claim, because the wife had no power to contract; since his time, however, the validity of these deeds has been established, but the object is effected in a most cumbrous manner. The wife cannot contract, and therefore she gets a trustee to contract with her husband. I propose to remove these cumbrous anomalies, and to enable persons to do directly what they can now only do indirectly, and that the wife shall in such cases have the same power over any property she may acquire as if she were separated by a decree of divorce of the Ecclesiastical Court. I will not now enter into further details of the Bill which it is unnecessary for me to describe, but which your Lordships will be enabled to consider when the measure is before you, but I will lay the Bills on the table and ask your Lordships to consent to the first reading. There is still another subject relating to ecclesiastical jurisdiction with which I propose to deal, and with reference to which I introduced a Bill last Session, which I had not the good fortune to carry. That measure was opposed not merely by right rev. Prelates, but by noble Lords for whose opinion I entertain very high respect; and I therefore withdrew it, in the hope that at a future time I might see my way out of the difficulty in which I was placed. Some few weeks ago I communicated with my most rev. Friend the Archbishop of Canterbury, who furnished me with the sketch or outline of a measure which is, I believe, generally approved by right rev. Prelates, and, adopting that sketch as the framework of the Bill I intend to introduce, I have no doubt that it will meet all practical evils, and I hope will be approved by the right rev. Bench. That measure relates to offences of the clergy, which may be classed under two heads—moral offences and doctrinal offences. At present the course of proceeding in such cases is artificial and cumbrous, and expensive to a degree hardly credible. If a clergyman is charged with any offence moral or doctrinal, he is summoned to answer the accusation, and if he admits his guilt the Bishop inflicts punishment. If the accused does not admit his guilt the Bishop has to issue a commission to five persons, one being his chancellor, another a barrister, a third a dignitary of the Church, and two other clergymen, who are empowered to summon before them witnesses in support of the charge, and the accused clergyman, and to inquire into the facts. These Commissioners sit and examine witnesses
  436
  at a great waste of time and enormous expense; they then report to the Bishop, but the case, instead of being concluded, was then only commencing, as their Report was only in the nature of the finding of a grand jury—a constat for further proceedings. If further proceedings are taken, the same dilatory and expensive course is pursued, and the expense of such proceedings is so great, that no one without a well-lined purse can venture to institute them. The remedy I propose, in conformity with the suggestion of my most rev. Friend is, that a Bishop may at any time file articles in his own court, in the simplest form, against an offending clergyman, and that the same course may be taken by any voluntary promoter. The accused is then to be cited, and if he admits the charge, the Bishop, assisted by his chancellor or vicar-general, will pronounce sentence. If the charge is not admitted, I propose that a jury, consisting of five persons, part clergymen and part laymen, shall be summoned, and shall decide upon the questions of fact. Their finding was to be conclusive of the facts, but the accused might still say that even admitting the facts there was no right to punish him, and I propose in such case to give the same power of appeal which now exists—first to the Court of Arches, and then to the Privy Council. I propose that the same course should be pursued in the case of doctrinal offences; except that I think the interests of the public, and particularly the interests of the Church, require that it should not be at the option of any one voluntary promoter to institute proceedings with reference to what are called doctrinal points. I think that before such proceedings are taken, a certificate ought to be given by a certain number of persons of station in the Church, declaring that there are reasonable grounds for instituting proceedings. I am sorry to say that, although this Bill is in preparation, I am not yet enabled to lay it upon your Lordships' table; but, as on a former occasion, I was more than once blamed for having dealt with these subjects separately, instead of having laid the proposed changes before the House at the same time, I have endeavoured to explain all the measures which it will be my duty to bring forward. I shall only conclude by saying that, if any of these Bills should not meet the approbation of this or the other House of Parliament, I cannot admit there is any such necessary connection between them that any one of them may not be passed, even

  437
  if the others be rejected. The noble and learned Lord then presented a Bill to amend the Law relating to Probates and Letters of Administration in England; and a Bill to amend the Law relating to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, I desire, my Lords, to say a few words upon that very extensive scheme of legislation which has been submitted to you by the noble and learned Lord. And first, with respect to the testamentary jurisdiction, I am very apprehensive that the Bill proposed by my noble Friend will not generally be considered satisfactory, and I may state very briefly the reasons upon which I found that opinion. At the same time, it is not to be assumed, that in stating those reasons I express my own opinions on the subject. I shall reserve the statement of those opinions until the Bill reaches a subsequent stage. In the last Session the Attorney General introduced a Bill upon this subject into the other House, and the great objection urged against the Bill was, that it was a transfer of the jurisdiction of the Court of Probate to the Court of Chancery. That transfer was objected to by almost every Member of the other House whose attention was directed to the subject. It was said that it would be contrary to policy to add to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, and I heard expressions used as strong, as this—no sane man would add to the jurisdiction of that court. In the present Bill, it is true my noble and learned Friend has not in terms transferred the jurisdiction of the Court of Probate to the Court of Chancery, but I will satisfy your Lordships that he has done so in substance. Whether that be a wise and proper course, I will take some subsequent opportunity of considering; I am now only suggesting the difficulties with which my noble and learned Friend will have to contend in the progress of the Bill. In the first place the Judge of the new court is to be an equity Judge, one of the Vice-chancellors, and is to hold the office only so long as he continues Vice-chancellor. Further, the orders and regulations with respect to the course of proceeding are to be framed by that equity Judge, not by him indeed alone, but by him assisted by another equity Judge, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. Again, in the mode of enforcing the decrees of the Court the practice of the Court of Chancery
  438
  is to be followed. So far, then, this tribunal is to be an adjunct to the Court of Chancery, and the mode of taking evidence is to be the same as that of the Equity Courts, with respect to which, give me leave to say, that I have communicated with many of the practitioners and some of the Judges of that Court, and they concur in the opinion that it is most unsatisfactory. But to proceed further, the appeal from the present Court of Probate is to a most popular tribunal, the Judicial Committee. Every one approves of that tribunal. My noble and learned Friend, however, proposes to take the appeal from the Judicial Committee and to transfer it—to what? Why, to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, and from the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to the House of Lords! Is not this Bill, then, a Bill to abolish the Court of Probate, and to make the jurisdiction of that court an adjunct to the Court of Chancery? One objection which has always been made to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, and will be made to the proposal of my noble and learned Friend is, that when questions of fact have to be decided the court does not decide them, but calls in the assistance of another court. When, for instance, a case occurs in the City of London or in the county of Middlesex upon which a question of fact arises, the Judge does not summon a jury and try that question, but he sends it to another Court; the record is made up, it then goes down to another court, it is afterwards referred back to the original court, and ultimately judgment is pronounced upon it. Mark the inconvenience and inconsistency that arise in these cases. An issue is sent to be tried in Middlesex before my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Campbell)—a Judge profoundly conversant with the common law, having been accustomed to practise in courts of law every day for years. A question arises in the Court of Equity on my noble and learned Friend's decision, and a new trial is moved for. Before whom is the Motion made for a new trial, calling in question the decision of my noble and learned Friend not only upon the questions of evidence, but upon any questions of law which may have arisen in the progress of the case? Before a Judge who has never been in a court of common law in his life. It is an appeal from an enlightened Judge who has practised every

  439
  day in a court of common law to a Judge who is—I will not say utterly, but comparatively—ignorant of the subject. Are not these adequate objections to the species of tribunal which my noble and learned Friend wishes to establish? I am not now urging them myself; I am merely stating them as they will be urged in other places against my noble and learned Friend's Bill. Again, as the law at present stands, an heir-at-law cannot be divested of his property without the verdict of a jury; he has a right to insist upon it. But by this Bill a verdict will be by no means necessary. The question may be decided by a court without a jury, and not by a court of common law, but by a court of equity. I now ask your Lordships whether it is not probable that the Bill, when it comes to be considered and discussed in another place will not be thought quite so satisfactory as my noble and learned Friend seems to anticipate. My noble and learned Friend may be sanguine as to the successful management of the Bill, he may be able to combat many of the observations I have made, some of the arguments against it I might myself be able to refute, but those observations and those arguments are very likely to prevail against the Bill. The noble and learned Lord spoke of forty district courts. I did not quite understand whether they were new courts to be established or old ones continued. But what is the duty to be discharged by the registrars of those courts? They will have no more than a ministerial jurisdiction; they will only have to see that the wills are properly framed. Why are courts of this kind to be established or continued? You have County Courts all over the country. Why should not this jurisdiction be exercised by the registrars of the County Courts, who would be aided by the intelligence and supervision of the Judges, and the expense of these new courts saved to the country? Another very difficult part of the subject is that of compensation. You are transferring the jurisdiction from the Court of Probate, presided over by a learned Judge, experienced in the discharge of his duties and ably performing them, to a new tribunal. Why that court is to be abolished for the purpose of creating a new court as an adjunct of the Court of Chancery I cannot say, but I should be glad to know what compensation is to be offered to the members of that court. Your Lordships will surely require
  440
  some anticipation to be made by my noble and learned Friend as to the probable amount of that compensation, in order that you may consider whether you are not paying too highly for this transfer of jurisdiction. I said at the outset that I would reserve my opinion upon the details of the Bill, and would only state my reasons for thinking that it would not be satisfactory. Those reasons I have now stated, and it is for my noble and learned Friend to consider whether he will be able to overcome the objections to which I have directed his attention. Dismissing that subject, I now come to the Bill of my noble and learned Friend which relates to church discipline. The subject of that Bill is one of great importance, and I must claim the attention of your Lordships, particularly of the right rev. Bench, to the few observations I am about to make upon it. Our attention has been very much drawn lately to the statute of 13 Eliz., under which a prosecution has recently been carried on. By that statute the slightest deviation in doctrine from any of the articles of the Church of England may be made the subject of a prosecution, although that deviation may be sanctioned by the highest authorities—by rev. divines and right rev. Prelates, and the only sentence that can be pronounced is that of deprivation. There is no alternative. This is a very harsh state of things, and what is worse is, that every offence within the jurisdiction of the Act to which I have referred may also be dealt with as an offence under the general ecclesiastical law, and if dealt with there the punishment is not defined, but the sentence may adapt itself to the nature of the offence. I think this is a subject of great importance, and one eminently deserving your serious consideration, though I am not sure in adverting to it that I have made myself intelligible to your Lordships. My opinion is, that it would be desirable to provide that such offences should always be dealt with under the general ecclesiastical law, and not under the provisions of the statute. There is, however, a difficulty which has been pointed out to me as standing in the way. The statute to which I have referred, it seems, was incorporated in the Act of Union with Scotland; but I may remind your Lordships that in this particular matter now under consideration the Scotch have no interest or concern, and if we are desirous of relaxing or altering the law in this respect, surely no reasonable objection

  441
  to that course can be made by them. With reference to the third subject to which my noble and learned Friend has called your Lordships' attention—namely, the Divorce Bill, I shall say but a very few words upon that point, and for this obvious reason, that this Bill was before your Lordships last Session, and was discussed as well by your Lordships as by a Committee upstairs. I shall not, therefore, go over the merits of the Bill again, but there are two alterations in it, one an omission and the other an addition, to which I must briefly allude. The Bill of last year contained a clause by which in the case of a conviction and separation for adultery, the party guilty of the adultery should not be allowed to marry the accomplice. That clause has not been introduced in the present Bill. I regret, too, that my noble and learned Friend has not thought it necessary to incorporate in his Bill any provision for putting an end to a practice of which I cannot speak too strongly in terms of condemnation—I mean the action for criminal conversation. I say, my Lords, it is scandalous and wholly inconsistent with the manly character of this country for a man to attempt to satisfy himself for loss of honour and degradation by having recourse to a proceeding of that nature; and if no other noble Lord should seek to introduce a clause with the view of abolishing this form of action, I shall certainly think it my duty to do so at a subsequent stage of the Bill. The only remaining point to which I shall call your Lordships' attention is the addition made to this Bill by my noble and learned Friend on the point of separation. By that addition a husband and wife, without the intervention of any tribunal, and simply by a deed registered in some office, would be allowed to separate, and the wife would acquire by the deed a right to all future acquired property. I believe, my Lords, this is the first time that an attempt has been made to deal with the question of separation in this way; and I hope my noble and learned Friend will well consider this clause before it passes into law. It is a subject of the greatest gravity, affecting most deeply our domestic interests, and it ought not to become law without the most serious consideration. These are all the observations I feel myself called on to make on the subject under consideration, and I need scarcely assure your Lordships that they are not made in any spirit of hostility to the various proposals of the noble and
  442
  learned Lord on the woolsack, all of which, on the contrary, are of such importance as well to deserve the close attention of your Lordships.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERexpressed the pleasure with which he had listened to the speech in which the Lord Chancellor had propounded his plans to the House, and would content himself by simply saying further, in reference to the subject of Church discipline, that he hoped his noble and learned Friend would be of opinion, on reconsideration, that it would be better made the subject of a substantive Bill than form part of any general measure.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid: I am imperatively called on, my Lords, in the discharge of my duty, to express a strong opinion in corroboration of what has fallen from my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) upon one part of the Bill of my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack. I hear with astonishment and dismay that it is proposed that any married couple any morning, if they have had a temporary disagreement, or in pursuance of some improper purpose long entertained, may go actually and obtain a divorce for all practical purposes, except marrying again. Those of your Lordships who may have read a book written by my learned Friend, Mr. Macqueen, will remember that they have in France what is called a separation de corps, the effect of which is that the marriage between the parties affected by it is dissolved for all purposes, except that they are denied the privilege of marrying again; but the matter must be decided by a judicial tribunal, there must be adequate reasons assigned for the separation, and an attempt at reconciliation on the part of the Judge. The common law courts at present viewed deeds of separation with great suspicion, but such deeds were nothing compared with the judicial proceedings proposed under this Bill, which would amount to a virtual divorce, except that parties would not be allowed to marry again. The foundations of domestic peace, and the security of married life in England will be shaken by this proposal, and I implore of my noble and learned Friend to reconsider this subject. I, of course, offer no opposition to the first reading of this Bill, and I hope that it will accomplish the reforms which for twenty-five long years have been desired in vain. I must say, however, that I have my misgivings on the subject, and begin to think that the Ecclesiastical Courts are immortal, and

  443
  bear a charmed life. At the same time there is no one better qualified than is my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack to fight with the difficulties which must be encountered, and I shall be happy to give my noble Friend any aid in my power to surmount those difficulties. With regard to the Court of Chancery, I have a sincere respect for that Court, but I do not think it is well imagined on the part of my noble and learned Friend to make a court of probate an adjunct to that tribunal. I know that in the other House of Parliament it is considered a dreadful calamity—a tremendous evil—when any person is forced to go into the Court of Chancery; and even among your Lordships, in spite of the opportunity many of them enjoy for seeing the ability with which the equity Judges discharge their duties, it is felt that for some purposes the Court of Chancery cannot very properly be selected for the performance of certain functions. Now, suppose an issue was directed to be tried as to whether a will had been properly executed, and whether the testator was of sound mind. That question would come before one of the Judges of the land either in the County of Middlesex or upon circuit; it might in due course come before me. Now, I should feel it no degradation to have one of my decisions reviewed by an Equity Judge; but, at the same time, without arrogating any superiority to myself, I doubt very much whether it would not be more satisfactory to the parties if the appeal were to go before my brethren in the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Exchequer Chamber rather than before a single Vice Chancellor. These are some of the arguments which will be used against the present Bill, and I trust that my noble and learned Friend, if it is not too late, will avoid the Court of Chancery, and make his new tribunal a common law court. Notwithstanding the difficulties pointed out I hope they will be surmounted. My learned friends and myself will all do our best to assist in this work, but I think my noble and learned Friend is not exactly in the right course at present, and that after consideration he may avoid some of the objections to which the scheme, of which your Lordships at present have a sketch, seem open.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that he also hoped that the difficulty in the way of this important measure would be overcome by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack; but at first sight a difficulty started
  444
  up, that his noble and learned Friend proposed to establish a new court under an equity judge to exercise a common-law jurisdiction. At least, if he understood the plan aright, the new court was in its procedure to follow the course of the common law. This being the proposition, and the Vice Chancellor being to sit as the judge in the new court, he was at a loss to know what occasion there was for taking the jurisdiction out of the hands of Doctors' Commons. If the jurisdiction was to be taken from the Ecclesiastical Courts, and placed in the new Court of Probate—that Court of Probate being as little a court of common law as the Ecclesiastical Courts were common law courts, and the Vice Chancellor being as little a common law judge as his right hon. and learned Friend Sir John Dodson, the head of the Prerogative Court—then he wanted to know why his right hon. and learned Friend might not discharge the same functions as well as a Vice Chancellor? As to the "common form" business, there could be no doubt that it would be quite as well—if not better—disposed of by the present eccclesiastical judges as by the Vice Chancellor; and as to the contentious causes, as far as he could see, they could be quite as well disposed of by the Ecclesiastical Courts, which at present had the disposal of them, as by the new Court. Here, then, was his difficulty. He wanted to see the necessity which existed for abolishing the Prerogative Court for the purpose of creating another Court of Probate under a Vice Chancellor; for it appeared to him that such a judge was as little likely to expedite the business—seeing that he was not a common-law judge—as the Prerogative Court itself. Then the Vice Chancellor was to direct an issue; well, could not the Prerogative Judge direct it in the same way? It must not be supposed that he was arguing against the abolition of the Ecclesiastical Court; on the contrary, he quite agreed that the Ecclesiastical Court ought to be abolished. To that he had no objection, as at present advised; but he should let a Court of Probate be constituted, not of Equity Judges, administering business after the rules of the Court of Chancery, or the rules of common law, but of common law, proved by the common-law Judges. With respect to another measure of his noble and learned Friend—the Clergy Discipline Bill—he could not help agreeing with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) who had just now spoken, that it would be better to repeal

  445
  the 13th Elizabeth by a separate Act, and to treat the whole question as entire and separate. There was a case now before the Privy Council, with which they were all familiar, and which afforded just ground for complaint, inasmuch as he was sorry to say it had sequestrated, so to speak, his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor's) services in his judicial capacity in that House. And he believed that much time would not elapse before another case would come before the Judicial Committee—he alluded to a case that was much to be lamented by all friends of the Established Church—much to be lamented by all friends to the peace and harmony of the community, which he feared would ultimately find its way, and, probably, after no great lapse of time, to the same tribunal. Some check ought really to be imposed upon these Church cases, so that it should not be left at the option of any one individual, however well-intentioned he might be, but, unfortunately, not very wisely advised, to go before the Ecclesiastical Court, in the expectation that it would decide upon doctrinal questions, and so threaten, he would not say the disruption—Heaven forbid that should be the result!—but at least to disturb the peace of the Church and of the community. He thought that some check should be provided, so as to control individual caprice in promoting such suits; and he also thought that some such arrangement was advisable as the creation of a spiritual body to whom such questions might be referred for the purpose simply of ascertaining what was the doctrine or discipline of the Church, but leaving the ultimate decision of the question in the hands of the lay tribunal—the Judicial Committee. This would prevent—not disruption, for he apprehended no danger of that sort—but a continuance of that which at present existed in the nature of a disturbance or want of unity in that most venerable body, and tend to satisfy all parties in matters referring to the doctrine of the Church. Another matter relating to Churchmen and Dissenters required to be considered, and he trusted that he might receive sufficient encouragement to reintroduce a proposition contained in a Bill which he brought in two years ago for the removal of a serious grievance under which clergymen of the Church of England now laboured. Under the present system, if a clergyman, from conscientious motives, separated himself from the Church—if from conscientious scruples or conscientious differences of opinion he
  446
  had become a Dissenter, as he knew several had done to the great loss of the Church, and without any want of charity, he might add, to the great loss of the parties themselves, the seceders from the Church—if a clergyman thus entered into communion with a Dissenting body, and performed divine service as a Dissenting minister, he was, by the law as it now stood, liable at any moment to be brought before the Bishop, within whose diocese he was executing his functions, as a Dissenting parson, to be dealt with by him in the same manner as if he still belonged to the Church. Holy orders were on all hands regarded as indelible, and if, without in the slightest degree infringing that sacred principle, it could be enacted as part of the plan proposed to be brought before their Lordships that Church censure and all other Church discipline should cease to apply to parties who had separated from the Church, and that all civil disabilities and all the privileges of clergymen should cease likewise, he considered that it would be a wise and certainly a most tolerant addition to his noble and learned Friend's Bill. With respect, also, to Church discipline, he did hope that some measure would be passed for relieving the right rev. Prelates from the position in which they at present stood, of being compelled to enforce discipline by the prosecution of charges against clerks. They had no choice, but were almost compelled by law to prosecute; and yet what was the consequence? A right rev. Friend of his who was not then in the House—he alluded to the Bishop of Winchester—had, to his certain knowledge—for he (Lord Brougham) sat upon the Judicial Committee on the trial of the appeal—incurred expenses amounting certainly to upwards of £4,000, and he believed to above £5,000, in the prosecution of one such proceeding, not one farthing of which could he by possibility ever recover. He thought that common justice and expediency also required that provision should be made to meet such expenses out of the common fund, for it was the inevitable result of such a state of things that the right rev. Prelates could not have much encouragement to perform their duty. With regard to the question of marriage, although he entertained some doubt relative to the giving a power uncontrolled of separation, he generally approved of his noble and learned Friend's scheme. He was sorry that the Bill did not go further in granting divorces a vinculo at the suit

  447
  of the wife. As far as it did go it was in the right direction; but it did not provide the complete remedy that was required. He quite agreed with his noble and learned Friends as to the cruelty inflicted on the wife in cases of adultery on the part of the husband, and he concurred also in their remarks upon the suit of crim. con. which he thought ought, at any rate, to be put an end to. He quite concurred also in his noble and learned Friend's remarks as to the cruel injustice in these actions inflicted on the woman, whose character was at stake, and yet she was not permitted to be a party to the suit, when indeed she might be the victim of a conspiracy between the husband and the alleged adulterer. Possibly some remedy for this evil might be provided, should the action be still allowed, by requiring the plaintiff to give the wife notice, so that she might intervene for the protection of her character. But the action should be altogether abolished. On the other hand, he thought that seduction should be dealt with by criminal procedure as a public offence, and not by a civil action, as merely a private wrong. This was the opinion of those who had gone before us, men of the greatest name and highest authority; not only of Lord Erskine, but of Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville. Some persons felt great difficulty in this, but, at all events, actions for criminal conversation ought to be got rid of as speedily as possible. He would not now speak of the state of the law, as it affected the property of married women, because he intended to introduce a Bill on that subject himself.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, the present was not the proper stage for their Lordships to make up their minds with regard to the details of the measure of his noble and learned Friend. He was aware, however, that there were some clauses which required further consideration, though there were also some which were not deserving the appellation his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had given them. Speaking of the measure generally, it received his cordial assent, because he believed it would effect a great improvement in the law. It did away with a multiplicity of small jurisdictions, established one court, where all original wills could be seen, put an end to the inconvenience of bona notabilia, and all this without creating a number of new offices, involving the payment of enormous compensation to the possessors of the old. In his
  448
  opinion, the chief merit of his noble and learned Friend's scheme was, that the gentlemen who now officiated in the Courts would be employed in the New Court, and of course would receive no compensation; and these were usually the principal objections to many modern improvements and reforms. In 1830, he was engaged with Sir James Graham in the preparation of a Bill, the object of which was to improve the Court of Probate. For some reason or other that measure was not proceeded with; but in substance it was very like the present, and the reason which induced him (Lord Wensleydale) to support that plan was, that it worked on old foundations, and avoided the expense of compensation.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he trusted the Lord Chancellor would not incorporate in his Bill the suggestion thrown out by Lord Brougham, towards the close of his speech, relative to ministers seceding from the Church. The Clergy Discipline Bill proposed to deal with clergymen who remained in the Church; and as the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, which was, as far as he (the Bishop of Oxford) could judge, a very proper one, was to pass an Act of toleration protecting those who left the Church against the infliction of penalties, he would advise that it had better be treated as a separate measure. He trusted, therefore, that the measure sketched out by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) would be separate and distinct from the Clergy Discipline Bill. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack proposed to provide for the appointment of assessors to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from the Episcopal Bench, and further proposed to multiply those assessors, if necessary, so as to get something like a representative bench in the court; but that was not the proposal of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham). The proposal of the noble Lord was, that the Privy Council should decide, in cases in which doctrine came in question, simply and solely the legal question involved, and that machinery should be provided to enable them to learn what the decision of the Church was upon the point of doctrine. The proposal was, in fact, that there should be a reference on the subject of the spirituality to a spiritual body, in the same manner as in questions relating to foreign matters. Our law courts now obtained the decisions of foreign jurists,

  449
  and decided on the questions before them when they were put in possession of the opinions of those jurists. They could not make the Privy Council an Ecclesiastical Court by putting bishops upon it or having them as assessors. Let the Privy Council; decide the question of law, and let there be no admixture of the spirituality with the law. No such admixture would be caused by the proposal of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), which was, that machinery be provided to enable the Privy Council to obtain on the spiritual point that knowledge which they might require to enable them to come to a right conclusion. One serious objection to the appointment of assessors was this, if it were left to the Crown to appoint Bishops, however right and just the acts of those Bishops might be—however rightly they might conduct themselves, it would be impossible either for those who appointed them or themselves to escape the imputation that they had been named, in order that they might give a particular decision in a particular case. Thus the evil of temporary delegates would be revived, and revived in a most mischievous manner, besides bringing a reproach upon the highest officers of the Church.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that the proposal of the right rev. Prelate who had just addressed their Lordships was, that there should be a reference to an ecclesiastical body, and that their response should be binding.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDwished to correct the noble and learned Lord. He (the Bishop of Oxford) had advocated some such machinery as that suggested by Lord Brougham, and that noble and learned Lord had stated expressly that the opinion of the ecclesiastical body should not be binding in the particular case. The Privy Council was to take the opinion of that body, and then give such decision as they themselves should think best.
  LORD CAMPBELL: Then, if the opinion of the ecclesiastical body was not to be binding on the Privy Council, this lay tribunal was to decide on doctrinal matters. If their opinion was to be binding, they would supersede the Privy Council; if it was not, this proposed reference would make the Privy Council more odious, and be likely to bring about a disruption of the Church.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDwas desirous of explaining what his meaning was, that the spiritual body should declare the general
  450
  holding of the Church, but that the Privy Council should be responsible for the particular decision.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORdid not think the difficulty of dealing with the spiritual part of the subject would be greater if the Privy Council had the assistance of assessors, than it would be if they were to take the opinion of an ecclesiastical body by reference. The assessors would be appealed to by the Judicial Committee as the Judges were when summoned to their Lordships' House. The question to be decided by the Privy Council was always a legal one. It was, had the party violated the law? He was of opinion that it would be very useful to have the assistance of right rev. Prelates on the Council; much more so than to have a distinct question argued before them on which they (the Bishops) were to make a report, which the Privy Council might or might not adopt, just as they thought fit. However, he would give the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) and the observations of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) his careful consideration, and communicate to the House the decision at which he had arrived before anything final should be done on the subject. His noble and learned Friend had asked why Sir John Dodson should not be the new Judge, his answer was, that he wished to get rid of the Prerogative Court altogether. As to his having selected the Vice Chancellor as the Judge before whom the cases to which he had before referred were to be brought, he should remark, that the Judge would only have one function to perform—to say whether he was satisfied with the verdict, or whether there should be a rehearing. The reason was, that there was always a Vice Chancellor in London, while the common-law Judges were absent from town during several months of the year. This was desirable, considering that these cases would be of daily—certainly of weekly occurrence. Otherwise, he (the Lord Chancellor) would have no objection to a common-law Judge, for there was nothing in the habits of a common-law Judge which unfitted him for disposing of such questions. By his plan there would be no additional staff or no additional salaries.
  LORD BROUGHAMobserved, that there was always a vacation Judge in town.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he knew by experience that the time of the vacation Judge was already fully occupied

  451
  from ten o'clock in the morning till six or seven in the evening.
  The said Bills were then severally read la.

IMPROVEMENT OF LEGISLATION.

  SECOND REPORT OF THE STATUTE LAW COMMISSION.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to refer the second Report of the Statute Law Commission to a Select Committee, in order to consider the propositions in that Report for the adoption of means to improve the manner and language of current legislation. The Statute Law Commission was one whose duty it was, according to the terms of their appointment, not merely to consolidate the existing statute law, but to devise means for obtaining simplicity and uniformity in future legislation. In their second Report, presented last year, they expressed the opinion that a great advantage would be derived from a better supervision of Bills while in their progress through Parliament, that in truth a great portion of the evils of our statute-book arose from the language of the Acts being unnecessarily verbose and perplexed, and from the fact that Bills were passed without due consideration of the mode in which the existing law affected them, and in which they affected the existing law. That was an evil that existed when they were originally introduced; and it was still more aggravated by alterations innumerable being made in them in their progress through Parliament. The introducer of a Bill was often troubled with applications from a variety of parties, and when he found that he could conciliate opposition or gratify supporters of his measure, by adopting some new clauses, he was apt to do so, and material alterations were made not contemplated at the time the Bill was drawn. He proposed that an officer should be appointed, with a sufficient staff—at least one or two assistants under him—whose duty it should be to attend to all Bills that were referred to him, and to report exactly what the state of the existing law was, and how the proposed alterations would affect it. With that advantage, Members might more satisfactorily come to a decision whether measures ought or ought not to pass. It would also be pre-eminently part of the duty of such officer, after a Bill had been through Committee, to examine it, and report immediately to the House what had been done by the Committee. The most discreditable mistakes were made for want
  452
  of some such supervision. Only in the very last Session of Parliament (and he took shame to himself, for the Bill came more or less under his own cognisance) a County Court Act was passed, which said that the Judges should receive the salaries mentioned in the schedule. They were enumerated in the schedule, and sums set against their names; but by some oversight, the salaries of two were omitted. The Bill passed the other House in that form; and it came back to their Lordships with nil opposite the names of two of the Judges; and as that House had no power to remedy it, questions of money belonging to the House of Commons, it passed in that form. That was a most ridiculous oversight. He knew not how the Treasury had dealt with those persons, whether they had assumed that they were to have the same salaries as their colleagues or not. He was ashamed to say, that in the same Session an Act had been passed for improving the Scotch Bankruptcy Acts, in which certain proceedings were to be carried on according to the form in the schedule set forth. But there was no schedule at all in the Act, and consequently the Act could not be put in operation. The clause in question, no doubt, had been put in in Committee. In 1851 or 1852 an Act was passed, which was to come into force on the last day of next Trinity Term. It passed in Trinity Term, so that it referred to Trinity Term in the next year; and it was necessary to pass another Act to set it right. Besides these blunders, there was a very inconvenient custom of thrusting clauses into Bills with which they had no connection whatever. In the 20 Geo. II. a Bill was passed for the better collection of the duties upon windows; and in that Act was introduced a clause, "enacting that, wherever in any Act of Parliament England is mentioned, it should be deemed to include Wales and Berwick-upon-Tweed." Not long ago, Lord St. Leonards had complained that a certain Bill referred in its enactments to England only, not mentioning Wales, this old enactment having escaped the recollection even of one of the most profound lawyers in the House. This was an anomaly that ought to be remedied. Again, at present there was a mass of legislation passed every year, of which a very small portion consisted of Acts that were to be a permanent guide of conduct, the rest consisting of local and personal Acts, Acts relating to certain departments of the Government;

  453
  and all these formed part of the statute-book. According to a calculation made by Mr. Coulson, that applied to nearly four-fifths of the legislation of the year. Therefore, it was proposed that the Bills should be classed, so that those which were permanent rules of law should be separated from the rest. These again would be subdivided, according as they related to England, Ireland, the United Kingdom, or the Colonies; so that our yearly legislation might not be that confused mass which it was now too apt to be. With a view to introduce this Amendment, he proposed that both Houses should appoint sessional Committees of legislation, empowering those Committees to communicate with each other. The great object would be to have the same officer attached to both Houses, so as to reduce the expense, and prevent collision between the two Houses. He trusted that this was a move in the right direction; and though it might not seem a very important measure at first, he hoped that, in its immediate and ultimate operation, it would lead to the very best results.
  Moved—"That the Second Report of the Statute Law Commission be referred to a Select Committee, to consider the Propositions in that Report for the Adoption of Means to improve the Manner and Language of current Legislation."
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that he gave the proposal his unqualified approbation. Their bungling mode of legislation had brought discredit on legislative assemblies. Questions relating to the common law which were brought before the Court of Queen's Bench were very soon settled, but those which turned upon the statute law—the settlement of the poor, or the statutes relating to highways and prisons for instance, occasioned the court great trouble and inconvenience, in consequence of the deplorable laxity with which the different Acts were framed. He anticipated that great advantage would result from the adoption of his noble and learned Friend's proposal.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned to Thursday next.