Sitting of 6 May 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Durham County Palatine Jurisdiction; Property Qualification.
AUDITING OF THE ARMY ACCOUNTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in compliance with the provisions of the Act 9 &c 10 Vict. c. 92, the accounts and vouchers of the Expenditure for the several Branches of the Service in the War Department for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1857, had been sent complete for examination and audit to the Office of the Commissioners for Auditing the Public Accounts; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay, and in what section of the department the accounts have not been so completed; also, whether the outstanding accounts for the Service of the Army in the Crimea during the years 1854, 1855, and 1856, have been examined, arranged, and reported upon to the Audit Office or Treasury, for which service a first class Commissary General has been retained upon full pay since the close of the War in the East?
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid that, in answer to the first part of his hon. Friend's question, he had to state that the accounts and vouchers for the several branches of the Service under the management of the War Department, for the year ending 31st of March last, had been sent in on the 30th of last month for examination and audit to the Office of the Commissioners for auditing the Public Accounts. In reply to the next part of the question, he had to inform his hon. Friend and the House that the result of the examination of the Commissariat accounts, forwarded by the Audit Commissioners for the years 1854 and 1855, had been duly reported upon to the Audit Office. With respect to the accounts of 1856 and 1857, he had to state that steps had been taken for their final adjustment, but they had not yet been completed, thirteen months being allowed by the Act of Parliament for that operation. The store accounts of the Commissariat attached to the Army of the Crimea had been examined and arranged, and would be reported upon on the receipt of a letter from the Audit Office relative to the accounts of the year 1855. The whole of the records of the service, both for cash and stores, could not be put away until the final decision of the Audit Commissioners upon certain provisional disallowances was received. With regard to the last part of the question, he had to state

  179
  that Commissary General Adams had been retained, with one book-keeper, to afford such explanations as might be called for in reference to the transactions of sub-accountants, who were dispersed all over the world.

COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH THE PORTE—QUESTION.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether (under 14th protocol, page 59, of Conferences of the Plenipotentiaries at Paris, 1856, relative to the Treaty of Peace) there has been a revision of the stipulations which regulate the commercial relations of the Porte with other Powers, or in the position of foreigners resident in Turkey, and whether (agreeably to the recorded wish of the Plenipotentiaries) a deliberation had been opened at Constantinople since the conclusion of peace between the Porte and other Powers, with the view of attaining the twofold object in such a manner as to afford satisfaction to all legitimate interests; and, if there have been no such revision and deliberation, whether this country, in its commercial relations with the Porte, ranks among the most favoured nations as to fiscal and other duties in all commercial transactions, and the residence of British subjects in Turkey, and whether any beneficial change had taken place since the war; and are negotiations in progress to facilitate the commerce of this country with Turkey.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in answer to the first question which the hon. Gentleman has put to me, I have to state that there has been no revision of the stipulations which regulate the commercial relations of the Porte with other Powers. Deliberation on the subject, however, will probably be soon commenced. The hon. Gentleman also asks what the position of the inhabitants of this country is in regard to the Porte as contrasted with that which is occupied by other nations, and I may inform him that I believe we stand at present in the same line with respect to commerce and civil privileges as the most favoured nations. As to the stipulations which regulate our commerce with the Porte, the hon. Gentleman will permit me to say that he is, perhaps, unaware that by the Treaty of 1834 Commissioners were appointed who were invested with the functions of periodically revising the Turkish tariff. The power of doing
180
that still exists, has been acted upon, and will be acted upon again. The Russian war, of course, precluded the regular and accustomed exercise of the right. I may add, in answer to the question whether any beneficial change in our commercial relations with the Porte has taken place since the war, that there has been no revision of the stipulations of the Treaty of 1834 since that period.

CONFISCATION OF LAND IN OUDE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BRIGHT: I wish, Sir, to ask the Secretary to the Board of Control a question with respect to a Proclamation which has been issued by the Governor General of India—a copy of which document, or what purports to be a copy, appeared in some of the newspapers of this morning. It seems that this Proclamation contains a provision by which the Governor General reserves the lands of certain Rajahs and Zemindars to them in consideration of their general fidelity to English rule; but that he at the same time proposes to confiscate the soil of the kingdom of Oude generally, leaving it to be disposed of hereafter as the Governor General may deem fit. Now, what I am anxious to know is whether the particular provision to which I have referred has been inserted in the Proclamation in accordance with instructions sent out by the Government in England; if not, whether the Government have since issued any directions in reference to it, and what steps generally they propose to take in its regard. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give a full and distinct answer to the questions which I have put to him upon this important subject.
  MR. BAILLIE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government received about three weeks ago a despatch from Lord Canning containing the Proclamation which he stated it was his intention to issue as soon as Her Majesty's troops should have obtained possession of Lucknow. That I believe is the Proclamation to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I have, I may add, seen in The Times a copy of the Proclamation which corresponds with that received by Her Majesty's Government in all respects, with the exception of a single paragraph, which I believe was subsequently added. The Proclamation was, of course, taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government as soon as it was received, and a Despatch was written, expressing the views

  181
  and opinions with respect to it which the Government entertained. That Despatch as well as the Proclamation itself there can be no objection to lay upon the table of the House, and I may add that the Proclamation was not made in consequence of any instructions which were sent out to the Governor General from this country.
  MR. BRIGHT: I hope, Sir, the Government will be good enough to inform the House what the general tenour is of the Despatch which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, in order that the decision of Her Majesty's Ministers upon this subject may as soon as possible go forth to the country.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER; Sir, a copy of the Despatch will, of course, as my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Control, has stated, be laid upon the Table of the House. I think it, however, right to take this opportunity of stating that when we received notice of this intended Proclamation we took the subject at once into our consideration, and the result was that we sent out a Despatch to the Governor General of India, disapproving the policy which he indicated in every sense.

TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND).
MR. GREER, in rising to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of tenant right in Ireland, said he felt very deeply the overwhelming responsibility of the question which he had undertaken to submit to the House, knowing the immense amount of property belonging to his own constituents, and those of the adjoining counties, which depended on the decision of that question, and knowing, also, the great talent and ability with which the subject, in a somewhat different shape, had, on previous occasions, been brought before the House and the country. The particular proposition which he meant to submit to its consideration differed very much from that which was embodied in the Bill which had lately been introduced by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire). That measure dealt with the future improvements which a tenant might make upon his land, and recognised as the property of the tenant any existing improvements which he might have effected by means of his labour and capital, whereas the question to which if successful in his Motion, should invite the favourable attention of the Committee to be appointed, related simply to improvements which had
182
already been carried into effect, with the sanction of the landlord, and which were recognised by him, in accordance with the custom of tenant right in the north of Ireland, as the property of the tenant. It might please the House to legislate solely for the future, or solely for the past; or they might protect by law both the past and future interests of the tenant, as he hoped they would. As to the form of his notice, it had contained, in the first instance, no reference to Donegal. He had, however, been induced to make special mention of Donegal in his Motion, in consequence of the violations of the custom to which he alluded, which, it was alleged, had recently taken place in that county, and in accordance with the prayer of a petition which he had presented from that county, signed by 3,400 of its inhabitants. His reference to that county, however, was more as an illustration of the nature of the grievances of which he had to complain than anything else. The House, however, had recently had under its consideration the occurrences in Donegal of which complaint had been made, and had referred the subject of some of these complaints to a Select Committee. For this reason, and because he had been told that so pointed a reference to Donegal seemed to imply the imputation of greater culpability to the landlords of that county than to those of the adjoining counties, which he was not aware that they, as a body, deserved, he now proposed to alter the terms of his Motion, by leaving out Donegal and confining the inquiries of the Committee which he asked for, to "the alleged recent violations of tenant right in certain northern counties of Ireland." The custom of tenant right prevailed as far back as the Plantation of Ulster by James I., although some authorities even traced it back to the old Brehon laws. In the first documents relating to the Plantation of Ulster, it was clearly proved that the advantage of the commonwealth was as much an object as the benefit of those upon whom lands had been conferred. The "Concise View of the Proceedings of the Irish Society" contained certain articles of the original Plantation, as published by James I., which clearly indicated that it was the design of the founders of the colony that the settlers who should be taken over should themseves be prepared to build their houses, and undertake all needful improvements, such as in this country, at least, the landlords usually provide.

183
The celebrated Pynnar's Survey which was published in 1619, gave a detailed and interesting account of the same settlement. On account of their short comings, the Irish Society's original charter, of 1613, was forfeited in the court of the Star Chamber some twenty years after. However, it was again renewed in the reign of Charles II., in terms of the original grant, so that the entire plantation was still under the original conditions. During all that time as the House would observe, the occupiers had a continuing interest in their own improvements. That was what mainly characterized the custom. The tenants had expended their capital in building houses and reclaiming the waste uncultivated lands, and they were permitted to enjoy these houses and lands the fruit of their own industry at easy rents which left thorn a fair margin of profit. What was true of the Irish Society's plantation in Londonderry was equally true of the other northern districts then planted; and hence the origin of the custom. The Report of the Devon Commission contained a curious document, brought before them by Mr. Beresford, agent to the Irish Society, showing that, in 1766, nearly one hundred years ago, the tenant right custom was well known and understood. In stating the terms on which, alone, the Irish Society would renew the leases of their tenants, they laid down certain conditions, of which the following was first:—
"That the present leases be surrendered upon or before Michaelmas, 1767; in default thereof, no regard shall be had for the future to what is called tenants' right, or shall any such leases be thereafter renewed on any terms whatsoever."
Arthur Young, in his Travels, showed the agricultural condition of the north, as well as other parts of Ireland, the scale of rents and prices which then prevailed. From his testimony, and other records of the last century, it is manifest that tenant right had existed in Ulster ever since the settlement of the country, and the peculiar custom of allowing tenants a continuing interest in their holdings had been acknowledged by landlords, and acted upon ever since that time. To show the vast improvements which had been made, he might state that it appeared from a presentment of the grand jurors of Londonderry, dated in 1697, that the total annual value of the property in that county amounted to £11,800. At the present time, according to Mr. Griffith's survey, the value
184
was over £220,000. He took it that that vast difference was the result of the capital and industry of the tenants; but he did not intend to argue therefrom that the rentals should be calculated upon the original basis of value. In the discussion upon the Tenants' Compensation Bill, it had been argued by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Radnorshire (Sir J. Walsh), and by the noble Lords the Members for Tiverton and Cockermouth (Lords Palmerston and Naas), that because that Bill laid down the broad principle that the tenants' improvements should be held to be the tenants' property, it therefore followed that the tenants desire to reclaim for themselves the value of all their improvements, and to reduce their rents to what the land would be worth in a state of nature. This, he contended, proceeded upon a false construction of that Bill, for it recognized the existing rents, as the measure of the landlord's present rights. And, in the same way, he admitted the gradually increasing rents which had grown up under the custom to be fairly due by the tenant, while they left a reasonable margin, short of a rack rent. In this view there was no desire to reduce the rents which were now paid when these had grown up gradually in conformity with the custom. But the object of the Bill was to prevent any future increase of rent without leaving a sufficient margin to cover the tenants' own improvements. It might not be known to the greater part of the Members of that House that, in the parts of Ireland where the tenant right custom prevailed, there was a well recognized interest at present existing in the tenants. The tenants were permitted to sell their interest when convenient or necessary, but subject, in some instances, to the consent of the landlords; and the custom had been recognized by Courts of law. The tenants' interest in his farm was as marketable a commodity as any part of the produce of the farm, and was admitted by common consent to be as much his property. But that species of property had this inherent infirmity, that it was not recognized by the Courts of law as against the landlords—and the result was that, substantially, nearly the whole of that large property, valued at £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 sterling, was administered, not by the ordinary Courts of law, or by the County Courts in Ireland, but by the landlords, through their agents in the landlords' office—in fact, there was a separate

185
administration of property in the landlords, office, according to the whim or caprice of the landlords or agents, and not according to the rules of law. It depended wholly on the will of the landlord, and not on the rules of law or the decision of competent Judges, whether, for instance, the creditors of a deceased tenant should be paid their just debts in the ordinary way, or whether the farm, constituting, perhaps, his whole property, should be handed over to his family. In this way he had known many instances of what might be called gross injustice committed through the machinery of an agent's office. He apprehended that the House of Commons, which was so jealous of the administration of the law and of the rights of property, would be slow to recognize such a right as virtually set at nought the laws of the land. The copyhold tenure in England was somewhat analagous to the tenant-right custom in Ireland. In the old feudal times, when the occupiers of the soil were mere serfs or villcins, the slaves of their lords, instead of receiving wages for cultivating demesne lands, these serfs or labourers had portions of land assigned to them, out of the produce of which they were to support themselves and their families. These lands they occupied at will. But, in course of time, when they had occupied and improved the same lands for generation after generation, it was held by the courts of law that they could not be removed out of their lands by their lords, as long as they fulfilled the conditions of their tenancy, because, though they held at the will of the lord, it was still according to the custom of the manor: so that here a custom, which the landlord might have altered or violated with impunity at any time before it was held to be binding on himself, was found to prove effectual for the protection of the property which the poor bondsman had created by his own extra labour and industry. From feudal times the tenants of copyhold estates in England held them at the will of the lord of the manor, and according to the custom of the manor. The copyhold system conferred rights by mere custom on men who were not at first even free men, simply because they had cultivated the land for themselves and improved it for themselves. That description of property had been dealt with from time to time by Parliament, and had been recently assimilated to the rest of the tenures of this country. How, then, could it be argued
186
that injustice would be done to the landlords by dealing out to those whose forefathers had been persuaded to settle in a new colony and expend their capital in reclaiming uncultivated lands, the same measure of justice which had been previously secured by mere bondsmen, who had no independent rights when they began to make improvements? He appealed to them earnestly to deal as liberally by the tenant-farmers of Ireland as they had dealt with the villeins and copyholders of the feudal system. Again, in almost all continental countries, the occupier of the soil was to a certain extent, the owner of it, and had all the motives for improving the property which sprang from a direct participation in such improvement. And that was the principle, sought to be introduced into some of the Bills relating to tenant-right in Ireland several years ago. Even in some parts of India, and especially in the Presidency of Madras, the same principle had been recognised by the East India Company in their dealings with the ryots, and he trusted that the House would not be less favourable to the rights of the Irish tenants than the East India Directors had been to those of the ryots in India. The science of agriculture had of late greatly increased; but unless power was given to tenants to apply that science to the increased production of the soil for their own benefit, they would be found lagging behind, and the improvements of agriculture in Ireland would be impeded. It was impossible for the landlord, or any one not in actual occupation, to keep lands up to the highest degree of fertility. That could only be done by the actual occupier; and it would be done only when he bad a right to the full benefit of the required improvements which would give him the necessary motive to expend his labour and capital. But he regarded this not merely as a question between landlord and tenant, but as a constitutional question—as one involving the regular development of the resources of the country and the rights of labour—as one intimately connected with the market for labour in Ireland; so that the population, instead of seeking employment abroad, might be able to find it at home, and he at all times available when required for the service of the State. Instead of that, we had them now seeking employment in the colonies of America and Australia, in numbers varying from 100,000 to 300,000 annually, and leaving their native land destitute of both la-

187
bourers and recruits. The chief objection taken to the claim he now advocated was, that it interfered with the rights of property; but what right of property had the landlord in the possibility of the land being so improved as to yield a greater return; if he so chose, he could borrow capital from the public exchequer and make the improvements himself; and even that was an exceptional privilege given to him, contrary to the ordinary principles by which the supply of capital is regulated. But when he failed to do so, he submitted that to allow him to claim the benefit of all improvements that were made by the tenant, except under the stipulations of a lease, was rather an interference with the property of the tenant than with that of the landlord. He had no feeling of hostility to the landlords of Ireland, although advocating so strenuously the rights of the tenant. On the contrary, he freely admitted that in the tenant-right districts, speaking generally, their moderation and liberality to their tenants were praiseworthy. As a rule, they recognized the right which he now contended for. They had sanctioned it from the first, without any constraint of law, but from a sense of justice. They profess, one and all, to have no desire to encroach upon the tenant's interest, or deal with him harshly; and surely it could be no injury to them to render legal that which they were already accustomed to grant. When he compared the conduct of Irish landlords, permitting a large amount of valuable property to accumulate for generation after generation in the hands of their tenants, outside the pale of law, and wholly unprotected against their claims, and compared it with the conduct of other classes—of merchants and traders, for instance—speculating with other people's money, and ruining their creditors, or even of tenants, as sometimes happened, decamping from their holdings and leaving their rents unpaid, he regarded the tenant-right landlords of Ireland as deserving of their admiration. But though this property in improvements had been recognized by the landlords as one belonging to the tenants, it had from time to time been subjected to encroachments, and evictions had taken place in nearly all the counties of Ulster. He had a long list of evictions and other encroachments with which he would not trouble the House. He would only mention two or three cases of recent occurrence, which had been publicly proclaimed through the newspapers,
188
and had caused much feeling and excitement in various parts of the country. For the evil of these tyrannical proceedings is not to be measured by the loss inflicted upon the immediate sufferers. A painful feeling of insecurity and apprehension is spread far and wide, which it is impossible to calculate, which destroys the peace and comfort of families, and prepares them for leaving their native land. The most inexcusable evictions, however, had taken place in the county of Donegal. Within the last two years there had been evictions on the property of a noble Lord (Earl of Leitrim) of tenants from houses which had cost the occupiers from £2,000 to £3,000. It might be said these persons were to blame for building houses without the guarantee of a lease; but it was well known that in that part of Ulster the landlords, if tenants for life, were not empowered to grant building leases till within the last two years, and also that the tenants had been accustomed to lay out money on buildings with almost the same security as if they had a lease. A passage from the will of the late Lord Leitrim, as published in the Northern Whig, laid down in a very forcible way the kind of intercourse that existed between landlords and tenants in that part of Ireland. It set forth that—
"Inasmuch as his son had all his property in Ireland, and had been born there, he wished him to consider himself as an Irishman, and not to look down on his countrymen; that he should have an affection both for England and Ireland, seeing the interests of the two countries were so closely connected; but he was to remember that be could never be of consequence or be respected in England unless he was respected in Ireland, and that, therefore, he ought to visit his estates as often as he could, and cultivate, to the utmost of his power, the attachment of his tenantry."
These sentiments were, he thought, deserving of the approval of the House. The tenantry believed they had a security equal to leases under the author of this will, and by virtue of their tenant-right claims. He (Mr. Greer) contended that it was the duty of the House to inquire how far it was in the power of the Legislature, consistently with the rights of the landlords, to deal with this grievance of the tenants of Ireland; and he proposed to give the Committee the power to consider the whole question, and to recommend such a measure as would settle it satisfactorily, consistently with the rights of all parties. It would be their duty to examine over what area the tenant-right custom prevailed, and what may be its

189
average value, and what have been its social and economic effects and influences. It was said that the result of appointing a Committee would be to perpetuate the existence of small farms in Ireland. But the landlords were quite as much responsible for the smallness of farms as the tenants, and the landlords had no right to object to that which they had the means of preventing. The law invested the landlord with the right to covenant against subletting, and to enforce that covenant. If he neglected to do so, or if he cut up his estate into small farms to create 40 s. freeholds, the tenants were not to be held responsible for the subdivision of the land, though he did not admit this to be such an evil as was alleged. But even then, the landlord would have full power to consolidate small farms and evict his tenants; but he should do so after giving a fair compensation to the tenants for their existing improvements. The Committee would have many subjects of inquiry referred to them, which had never yet been fully and fairly examined. The Devon Commission in their Report dealt with this subject at considerable length. The question of tenant-right was not specifically referred to them, but the relation between landlord and tenant was, and a portion of their Report referred to the evidence given as to the custom of tenant-right prevailing in some of the northern counties. The Devon Commissioners Report (page 14) was to this effect:—
"In the account given by witnesses throughout Ireland of the mode in which occupiers hold their land the most striking peculiarity is the custom prevalent in the northern counties, called tenant-right."
"The origin of this custom has been the subject of much speculation, but is now rather a matter of curiosity than of present interest. It dates from a very early period, having probably sprung up, as we have already noticed, as a natural consequence, from the manner in which property was generally granted and dealt with in that part of the country. Large tracts having become the property of public bodies, or of individuals resident at a distance, the landlords were well contented to let their farms to those who would undertake the cultivation and entire management, reserving to themselves a rent, but making no expenditure, and exercising little interference with the land.
"Under such circumstances it seems neither extraordinary nor unreasonable that a tenant, quitting a farm, either at his own desire, or from any difference with his landlord, should obtain from his successor a sum of money, partly in remuneration of his expenditure, and partly as a price paid for the possession of land which the new tenant would have no other means of acquiring. From this state of things a feeling of proprietorship appears to have grown up in the
190
tenant, which continues in a great degree to the present day; and the extent to which it prevails may be seen by reference to various parts of the evidence taken in the province of Ulster. Under the influence of this custom the tenant claims, and generally exercises a right to dispose of his holding for a valuable consideration, although he may himself be tenant at will, and although he may have expended nothing in permanent improvements."
In that passage the Report seemed to imply that when a tenant obtains by purchase or inheritance a highly improved farm, his right to sell it again should hardly be conceded, unless he have raised it to a still higher pitch of improvement. Now, such a doctrine seemed to be very unreasonable, because the essence of the custom was the reclamation of the ground and the improvements originally made thereon; and if the tenant had not himself performed those works, it came to the same thing, if the improved value be actually there, having descended from his father or been purchased from a stranger. The Report went on—
"We found that in various parts of that province, sums equal to ten, twelve, or fifteen years' purchase upon the rent are commonly given for the tenant right; and this not only where the rent is considered low, but where it is fully equal to the value."
It is somewhat difficult to receive this statement in its full literal meaning. The farms so purchased must certainly have been considered of some value by the purchasers, who may fairly claim to have some voice in the decision of that point. In another part of this paragraph the Report conveys, I conceive, a very inaccurate impression. It suggests ten, twelve or fifteen years' purchase as the ordinary scale of prices; whereas the evidence they have published shows that the great bulk of tenant right property was estimated much lower—from two or three years' purchase up to six or seven—so that probably the average value would not be found to exceed seven or eight years' purchase of the rent, though in some instances it was up to twenty years' purchase, and even higher. The Report went on:—
"Proprietors generally have been enabled to place a restriction on this tenant right, so far at least as to secure a power of selection with respect to the tenant, and to place some limit upon the amount to be paid; wisely judging that a tenant who pays a large sum of money—part of which he probably borrows—in entering upon a farm, will be crippled in his means for the proper management of it."
This paragraph seems to indicate on the part of the Commissioners a desire to limit, if not ultimately to extinguish this

191
custom. They speak of placing restrictions upon it with manifest approval; and they suggest the idea, without directly asserting, that these purchasers of tenant right, at what they obviously deem insane prices, have usually to borrow money to enable them to pay the purchase-money, and that they are pretty sure ultimately to ruin not only themselves, but those who are foolish enough to lend them money. Now, his (Mr. Greer's) experience led to the very opposite conclusion. He had observed that the purchasers of additional farms were usually those who had already made some profits by their farming, and who sought to employ their industry and capital on a wider field—that they were often the most successful farmers in the district, and if obliged sometimes to borrow money, were soon able to pay it off again. The Report proceeded:—
"Anomalous as this custom is, if considered with reference to all ordinary notions of property, it must be admitted that the district in which it prevails has thriven and improved, in comparison with other parts of the country; and although we can foresee some danger to the just rights of property from the unlimited allowance of this 'tenant right,' yet we are sure that evils more immediate and of a still greater magnitude would result from any hasty or general disallowance of it, and still less can we recommend any interference with it by law."
This is the last paragraph of the Report relating specially to tenant right, and though it bears a strong though reluctant testimony to the good effects which have resulted from this ancient custom, it not only abstains from suggesting any means for strengthening or perpetuating the custom, but darkly hints, without sorrow or alarm, at its ultimate but gradual extinction. A "hasty or general disallowance" might, no doubt, be dangerous, but a gradual and judicious denial of it would, as they were left to infer, be sound policy, and would soon extinguish this troublesome anomaly. This was a doctrine calculated to excite the utmost alarm wherever the custom prevailed. It held out no hope of the sanction of law to protect the tenants' customary interest. It rather deprecated the arm of the law to be employed as an agent in putting an end to the custom, but gave it over to the landlords to be restricted and limited, and at length gradually, but surely, extinguished altogether. Now, the Devon Commissioners had so many subjects to report upon, that this matter of tenant right does not fill the twentieth part of their Report. They took a great deal of evidence on the subject which would be available and exceedingly useful to the proposed Com-
192
mittee. But after dealing with it on the slip-shod and unsatisfactory manner to which he had adverted, he thought their own Report demonstrated that the subject required more thought and investigation than they had deemed it worth while to bestow. The Committee, if granted, might direct their attention to the extent of the area in which the custom prevailed, the average value of the interest which the tenants held under the custom, and the land subject to it, to the desirability of recognising the rights of the tenants, and to the manner in which those rights could be secured. He appealed to the justice of that House on behalf of a suffering and unprotected class, to secure them the fruits of their own industry; on behalf of the country at large, to permit the full development of its industrial resources and its material wealth; on behalf of the working classes to provide an abundant and profitable home market for their labour. That House was then showing a praiseworthy anxiety to better the condition and protect the interests of the Hindoo Ryot in its eastern empire; it had proved its care for the safety and protection of the Chinese Cooly when carried off from his native home. Above all, it had followed, with compassionate regard, the unfortunate negro doomed to a life of slavery, and had sacrificed the enormous suns of £20,000,000 sterling to emancipate the slaves in our own West Indian Colonies. He contended that those who were robbed of the fair and natural fruit of their labours were, to that extent, as truly slaves as the West Indian negroes. It was only a question of degree. He appealed to the well-known generosity of that House to consider the grievances of his fellow-countrymen, and redress their wrongs. He only sought for a Committee to inquire, consider, and report. The House would not be pledged to his views, nor even to those of the proposed Committee by adopting his Motion. The tenant farmers were naturally anxious about their position. He had presented many petitions on the subject. It was gradually becoming better understood in this country, and must soon be dealt with as justice required. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the nature, origin, and extent of the Tenant Right Custom in Ireland, the alleged recent violations of it in various northern counties, and to consider and report how far it may be practicable to protect, for the benefit of the occupying tenants, the property which has been created under that Custom."
LORD NAASsaid, he should not follow the hon. Gentleman over the wide field which he had travelled with reference to the tenure of land in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman asked for a Committee to inquire into the system of tenant right as it existed in the north of Ireland. No doubt that was a question of importance; but there existed in the library of the House ample information on the subject. In the library there were four ponderous volumes the result of the labours of the Devon Commission. That Commission, formed of able and experienced men, had examined landlords, tenants, labourers, and individuals of every class, and had obtained the fullest information from that evidence. The hon. Gentleman, or any other Member who wished for information on this subject, would find every particular stated at full length in those volumes. The tenant right of the north of Ireland differed in this essential particular from any tenant right in England—namely, that it was not limited to claims for unexhausted improvements made at the expense of the tenant, but included payments by the incoming to the outgoing tenant for the goodwill or occupancy of the farm. Much might be said both for and against the custom. It often secured the landlord against arrears of rent, and it also secured the tenant compensation for improvements; but it also often acted prejudicially, for tenants often expended all their capital in buying up the tenant right before they entered on the occupancy, and then they were crippled in their future operations. At the same time it was a right which was so vaguely defined, and a matter so purely of personal arrangement, between the landlord and the outgoing and the incoming tenants, that it would be impracticable to deal with it by legislation. In the Province of Ulster the custom had grown up naturally and was likely to remain in its present form, for he had heard of no attempts on the part of the landlords and tenants in the north of Ireland to shake the custom. The hon. Gentleman had mentioned one or two instances, but he admitted that there was no general inclination to depart from it. What he (Lord Nass) wished to show, however, was, that as the custom existed, it was beyond the power of Parliament to deal with it in any respect. Tenant right varied in different localities. It varied in value from £5 to £20 an acre. Different sums were given for almost the same thing. The
194
value differed whether a lease was given or not, and according to the character of the landlord. It varied with the price of agricultural produce, with the demand for laud, with the amount of population, with the locality, and with the state of the farm when the change occurred. It was impossible for the ingenuity of man to draw up an Act of Parliament to regulate a custom of so variable and changeable a character. Much valuable information could be obtained from the result of the labours of the Committee of inquiry into English tenant right which was presided over by Mr. Pusey. The opinion to which that Committee came was, that it was not possible to legislate satisfactorily for tenant right in England, and how much more difficult would it be to legislate for tenant right in Ireland, which comprised many more considerations in the calculation of its value than it did in England. He did not think that any practical end would be gained by granting a Committee. The information before the House was full and ample; legislation was not only impracticable, but might be most mischievous; for any attempt to legislate would tend to lower the value of tenant right as it existed in Ireland. He should therefore oppose the Motion.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Greer) having referred by name to two landlords in that county who were friends of his, he wished to say a few words. He objected strongly to the practice of introducing the names of persons in that House who were not present to answer for themselves. In no county was tenant right more established than in the county of Derry, and yet there were some landlords who had no tenant right on their estates. Unsuccessful attempts had been made by Governments of different politics, to legislate on the question, and the opinion of most men who had studied it was, that in attempting to deal with tenant right, they would damage the interests of tenants. For while the landlords were now content to let things remain as they were, if they came to legislate, the landlords, especially in an English House of Commons, would recover many rights which they did not now possess. It was not worth while to discuss this subject then, when there was an adjourned debate in the question now before the House; and he thought it would be better to proceed at once to a division, and negative he Motion.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would appeal to his hon. Friend whether it was worth while to press his Motion. He (Mr. Fortescue) had a strong feeling in favour of the tenant right of Ulster. There might be objections to it, but he believed it to have been one main cause of the great prosperity of the north of Ireland. It had been a check on the evil of extravagant competition for land in Ireland. But in the interests of Ulster itself, he objected to the inquiry sought. Tenant right was so various, it was almost impossible to embody it in any scheme of legislation. The probable result of the Committee of Inquiry, if it was obtained, would be that it would come to the same conclusion as that which inquired into tenant right in England—namely, that legislation was impossible.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he also would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, because at present tenant right, as it existed in the north of Ireland, was accepted, and it was not desirable to weaken the efforts of the advocates for a general tenant right by bringing forward isolated cases like the one then before the House.
MR. GREERsaid, although the feeling of the House appeared to be against him, he should not withdraw his Motion. There was a strong desire in Ireland for an inquiry, and he had presented petitions in favour of it. The Devon Commission did not touch on many of the points on which inquiry was wished, and further investigation was necessary to enable the House to legislate on the subject.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 232: Majority 189.

COUNTY FRANCHISE (SCOTLAND).
MR. CAIRDrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to assimilate the county franchise of Scotland with that of England. In seeking to carry that object into effect, he did not wish to create a new franchise, but simply to extend to the former country those electoral rights and privileges which had been enjoyed by the latter ever since the passing of the Reform Bill. A brief statement would serve to show the difference between the two countries in respect of the franchise. He found by certain returns which had been recently laid upon the Table of the House that while in Scotland not more than every thirty-four, in England every twenty persons were in some degree poli-
196
tically represented; and that while in the case of the county electors of England four-fifths were freeholders and only one-fifth occupying tenants, in the counties in Scotland two-fifths were owners and three-fifths occupying tenants. The result of this was, that a majority of the electors in Scotland being the occupiers of other men's property, were a much less independent class than in England. The difference in the classification of electors in the two countries was due to the fact that while in England every proprietor of 40 s. of free income in land enjoyed the franchise —a privilege which might be purchased by an outlay of £40 or £50, in Scotland an expenditure of five times that amount would be required in order to secure a similar privilege. Again, another source of difference between the two countries arose from the fact, that in England a freehold in a borough which did not give a vote for the borough gave one for the county; but in Scotland the soil of the borough was excluded from the county. The result of this was that the great commercial cities in Scotland possessed no influence in the county elections, and as there were thirty county as opposed to twenty-three borough Members, the Government of Scotland was practically in the hands of the aristocracy, while the whole artisan and peasant population of Scotland were disfranchised. At the passing of the Reform Bill, in 1831, a distinction was made in the two countries in this respect; the 40 s. freeholders were continued in England, as were the old freehold superiorities which had existed in Scotland from the time of Charles the II.; but the practical distinction between the two classes was, that England enjoyed the advantage of a 40 s. franchise at the present value of money, whereas in Scotland a 40 s. freehold was the representative of the value of 400 years ago. From this it resulted that the constituencies in Scotch counties were narrowed to the landlords and their farm tenants. The question was seldom put to the different constituencies as to what candidate they would support; but a few landlords selected the candidate, and it was felt and known as a matter of fact, or rule, that the occupying tenants were never referred to for their opinion. He did not complain of hon. Gentlemen on one side of the House more than on the other, for it was notorious that this was the regular rule followed by both parties—Liberals as

197
well as Conservatives. The occupying tenants were expected by all to follow the wishes of their landlords. The truth was the county franchise in Scotland had not really been changed by the Reform Bill, and the system was practically still to allow ten or twenty landlords to return the county Member. That this was so, was proved by the fact that although out of the 50,000 county electors in Scotland 30,000 were tenant farmers, and although that class were remarkable for their intelligence, and had engaged a capital of no less than 50 millions on the agriculture of the country, they had never shown their independence by sending to this House a single Member of their own class. Now, he was ready to admit that the present county representatives of Scotland were most respectable men, so are the Lords Lieutenant chosen by the Crown, but that, he contended, was no good reason why the body of the people should not have a voice in choosing their representatives. The Bill which he proposed to introduce, with the view conferring upon them that privilege, involved no novel principle; and he might add that he had in favour of that principle the authority of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who in the discussion upon the introduction of the Reform Bill of 1832, had expressed it to be his opinion that no alteration should be made in respect of the 40 s, freeholders in counties, who constituted a class well calculated to exercise with advantage the electoral franchise, and took care to protect that franchise in the English Bill—it was only because the Scotch Reform Bill was unfortunately less under the attention of that noble Lord that the same principle was not then carried out for Scotland. It might he said that a reduced qualification would lead to a manufacture of fictitious votes; but the answer to that was, that it was as easy to fabricate fictitious £10 votes as 40 s. votes. The class of persons who under a 40 s. franchise would be entitled to vote for the election of county Members in Scotland would well bear a comparison with the Same class in England. Owing to the absence of small dwellings he found it stated in an agricultural work that the populations of each of 479 Of the 981 Scotch rural parishes had diminished within the present century. The evils which had arisen front the disinclination of landlords to encourage a cottage population upon their estates were so great As to amount to a positive blot upon the
198
agricultural system of Scotland. There was an almost universal preference given to unmarried men as agricultural labourers, owing to the comparative cheapness with which lodgings could be provided for them, This had led to the erection of "bothies" as they were termed, and tile working of tint system had been shown in cases which had recently come before the Scotch law courts, which exhibited a state of things much to be deplored by every Scotchman, In 1857, in Forfarshire, a farm servant wee prosecuted for deserting Ids service, and the defence he set up was that the "bothie," which was allotted for his dwelling was in ranch a such as to render it impossible for him to remain. The magistrate deputed two medical men to visit the "bothie," and they described it as a circular house apart from the other farm buildings, with a puddle of stagnant water in front of the entrance. The diameter was 13 feet, and the unplastered walls were six feet in height. The floor was mud continually damp. The sleeping apartment for the men was above the stables, and was only 5 feet 9 inches in height. The room was 16 feet in length and 6 feet 9 inches in breadth, exclusive of the space occupied by the bedsteads, which were five in number, although only three were in use, being the sleeping accommodation for six men. The medical men added that the whole arrangements were such as must tend to injure the health of the men. Instances such as these exhibited a deplorable state of things, which the assimilation of the Scottish county franchise to that of England would be useful to correct, as it would encourage the labouring population to erect dwellings for themselves—the next great distinction between the Scottish and English systems was that in England property situated in boroughs is capable of conferring a right to vote for the county. There was no such right in Scotland, and when he mentioned that one-fifth of the whole county constituencies of England voted in respect of property situated in boroughs, it would be seen how the absence of that right must limit the franchise in Scotland. Upon taking two Scotch counties and comparing them with one English county of nearly similar extent, and possessing nearly similar resources, the inequality was apparent. In Ayreshire and Lanarkshire the population was 310,000, and the number of electors 7,100. In north and South Staffordshire there was a

199
population of 345,000, and the number of electors 20,738. In the English county there were 13,000 more electors than in the two Scotch counties, the population and annual value of the property being nearly the same in each—At the passing of the Reform Bill grave apprehensions were entertained with regard to the right to be given to boroughs to vote in adjoining counties, and one influential Member (Sir Edward Sugden) said, that the effect of giving freeholders and copyholders in towns the right of voting for counties would be that such towns as Birmingham would invariably carry the county election, and that the county Members would be the representatives of the political unions of Birmingham. Now, after twenty-five years experience, who were the Members for North Warwickshire?—Two hon. Gentlemen who were not at all likely to endeavour to subvert the constitution of the country, or to injure its Protestant establishments—there was another point of some importance, not only with regard to the extension of this principle to Scotland, but also with regard to the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the larger number of county voters as compared with the number of borough voters. According to the census it appeared that a gradual change was taking, place in the occupation of the people of this country. Every census since that of 1811 had shown a gradual decrease of the agricultural population as compared with other classes of the population. In 1811 the agricultural population was 35 per cent; in 1821 it was 33 per cent; in 1831 it was 28 per cent; in 1841, 22 per cent.; and in 1851 only 16 per cent. of the adult population. A fact of great gravity and well deserving the attention of Statesmen both in its causes and its consequences. The Census Commissioners said the union between town and country had become more intimate by trading and other associations than at any previous time. That seemed to him a strong ground for continuing the system which prevailed in England of drawing no marked distinction between the dwellers in the towns and the dwellers in the country. The town and country populations in Scotland were in exactly the same proportion as in England, and if that was a good reason why a mixed franchise should continue in England it was also a good reason why it should be promoted and extended in Scotland. He did not dis-
200
guise from himself the great addition which the extension of the principle that now prevailed in England would give to the county constituencies of Scotland. It might perhaps double the constituencies in the neighbourhoods of the large towns in Scotland—that was his great argument in its favour. Bethought it would be a great advantage that so large a mass of respect, able and intelligent people should no longer be deprived of privileges which were enjoyed on this side of the Tweed. In a moral point of view also, the advantage of giving to the Scotch people an interest in the acquirement of small landed properties was very great. That system in England had been found to conduce to prudence, sobriety, and economy, and he was informed that investments in property of this kind took place in Birmingham alone to the extent of £100,000 annually. He expected that technical objections might be raised to the proposition he was then submitting to the House. It would be said, probably, that they had no similar tenure in Scotland to an English 40 s. freehold. But there could be no doubt that they had the fact of property in Scotland as well as in England, though the tenure might be known under another name. The Scotch feu in its character of perpetuity was equal to the English freehold, and he did not ask the right for leaseholders any more than it was asked for them in England. He asked only for substantially a similar right to that which England already possessed; and if the want of similarity of tenure were a good reason for withholding the franchise, the same principle would disfranchise the whole property of Scotland. Having sketched the objects of his Bill, he might now refer to an event in very recent times, to show the want of sympathy between the people of Scotland and the county Members. He alluded to the disruption in the Church of Scotland in 1843, when one morning 450 ministers of that Church left their manses and glebes, and relinquished stipends amounting in the aggregate to £110,000 a year, inflicting a blow on the Establishment of that country from which it could never recover. Such a circumstance could never have happened if the House of Commons had been kept in intimate knowledge and relationship with the people of Scotland through its county representatives. He appealed to the English Members to support the Motion he was about to propose. He was asking this

201
concession for men who paid the same taxes as the people of England, and who were ready on all occasions to put their shoulders to the wheel in any exigency of their common country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford made an eloquent appeal to the House the other night on behalf of the Dacian peasants on the banks of the Danube. He (Mr. Caird) asked for a re, cognition of the rights of 2,000,00 of his countrymen north of the Tweed. Addressing himself to Scotch Members, he would ask—could they refuse to recognize in their own countrymen those qualities of prudence and that degree of education which certainly they would never say were inferior to those possessed by the same classes who enjoyed the franchise in England? He would ask them to consider how many of the country population were at this moment unenfranchised; how many men of worth in that class from which James Watt and Burns, the poet, sprang? The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to assimilate the county franchise of Scotland with that of England.
MR. COWANsaid that, although he had not had the honour to present any petition in favour of this Bill, and had had no communication with his constituents upon it, he had no hesitation in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend; and he hoped he might appeal with success to English Members to extend to their Scotch brethren the same franchise which they enjoyed themselves. He did not approve of all that had been said by those who advocated this measure, for he was ready to admit that some of the friends of the movement had acted not very judiciously. In saying this he did not allude to Dr. Begg, the originator of the movement, who, although some of his language could not be justified, had by his acts shown an earnest desire and perseverance in improving the condition of the labouring classes. But he referred to a certain number of individuals in the city which he had the honour to represent, who had been aiding in carrying on the agitation for the movement which had resulted in this Bill. Those persons who were seeking to make political capital out of the question, were in the habit of making attacks on the Scotch Members, and had accused him and some of his friends of being tied neck-and-heel to the late Lord Advocate. They had represented them as being unfriendly to this
202
movement; and they had made statements which were utterly false; but he would treat them with that contempt which they deserved. There were only two objections urged to this Bill. One was, that the effect of it would be to swamp the counties. He had no wish to swamp the counties, and certainly the 40 s. franchise had not had that effect in England. Another objection was, that it was likely to lead to the manufacture of fictitious votes. That was a matter which would require the consideration of the House. At the time of the anti-corn law agitation, he purchased a 40 s. freehold in Carlisle, in order to give him a vote for East Cumberland. It was not a very profitable investment. Some time afterwards he saw his name amongst others as that of a fagot voter, and he felt somewhat ashamed of it. He did not think that the obtaining a vote under those circumstances was justifiable, for he had no connection with the county of Cumberland. He regarded with lively satisfaction the great improvement which had taken place in the condition and conduct of the lower classes. He remembered when the Luddites Were banded together to destroy machinery. There was no such feeling now, and he thought the loyalty and good conduct of the people showed that they were well deserving of the franchise. It was his opinion, however, that this extension of the county franchise should be accompanied with measures for simplifying and cheapening the transfer of land, and relaxing still more the system of entail in Scotland. He trusted the Bill of his hon. Friend would receive the support of the accommodating Government that now occupied the Treasury bench.
MR. MONCREIFFsaid, he was anxious to state the grounds why he thought that the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Dartmouth, as far as he could comprehend it, ought not to be adopted by the House. If the Resolution originally placed on the paper had remained there, he should have had no difficulty in giving it a decided negative; but his hon. Friend had, at the last hour, altered his plan, and his Motion now took the ambiguous shape of a proposal to assimilate the county franchise of Scotland with that of England. But even after listening to the speech of his hon. Friend, he still felt some curiosity to know in what way this assimilation was to be accomplished by the Bill of his hon. Friend, whose speech savoured more of agricultural statistics than of electoral law or

203
questions relating to the franchise. As far as he could understand it, his object appeared to be to introduce into Scotland the 40 s. freehold franchise with all its incidents, characteristics, and defects. Now, in the first place, that was impossible, and any equivalent for that franchise would not deserve the name of a reform. Let him explain the difference between the tenure of land in the two countries. The freehold tenure in both countries was originally the same. The freeholder was a vassal of the Crown, bound to give attendance on his Lord, and bound, therefore, to give his attendance in Parliament. Before the reign of Edward I. the superior vassal was entitled to give all his property to sub-holders, and that was the law in Scotland to this day; but these sub-vassals never were freeholders. In Edward I.'s reign a statute was passed, which enabled the superior vassals in England to alienate the fee, and in that way the small freeholders became a large body. The franchise, however, by a statute of Henry VII. was limited to freeholders, whose holding was of the annual value of 40 s. The great mass of property in Scotland was held by the sub-feuars, and the consequence was, that it was impossible to introduce the 40 s. franchise in Scotland, It was a great mistake to suppose that the Reform Bill created the 40 s. franchise in England. The Reform Bill found this franchise in existence, and left it as it found it. The Reform Bill created a £10 copyhold and a leasehold franchise for England and for Scotland, and it was a mistake to suppose that the two countries were dealt with differently in that respect. In the days of rotten boroughs, the spark of liberty in England was formerly kept alive by the 40 s. franchise, and as it was a relic of ancient times and had done good service in its day, Parliament preserved it intact. Scotland, moreover, did not possess the freehold tenure which would give this franchise. To whom, then, did his hon. Friend propose to give it? From the proposed Bill, it was impossible to say who were to be enfranchised. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to enfranchise leaseholders or life-renters, or those who held burgage in the boroughs? The House had not been told; but, if they were not to be enfranchised, he should like to have the hon. Member's reason why any species of property was to be excepted. He had some curiosity to discover who the people were who would be benefited by this mea-
204
sure. It had been said that the whole artisans of Scotland were unrepresented, but one little fact which his hon. Friend had not mentioned was, that the majority of the county Members of England sat upon the Ministerial side of the House, and the majority of the Scotch county Members upon the Opposition benches. Having heard that the rights of Scotland were trampled under foot in that House, he tried to discover who those were who were so injured and oppressed. The result of his inquiries convinced him that there was no great class of the community who would be reached by this franchise, and that the enfranchisement of the 40 s. proprietors in Scotch counties would give a body who were not greatly to be wished for on one hand or trembled at on the other. He had made an analysis of the county of Edinburgh, and he found that there were 4,520 tenements of between £2 and £10 value. It would be, however, a great mistake to suppose that these tenements represented the same number of possible constituents. After deducting the number of those persons who were on, or entitled to be on, the electoral roll, there remained only 290 tenements which were capable of giving the franchise, and from this number must be again deducted the tenements of those who were in their minority or absent from the country. So that in the large metropolitan county of Edinburgh the 40 s. franchise would carry with it comparatively no extension of the suffrage at all. But his hon. Friend said he was going to introduce a borough vote. Now, four or five of the smaller boroughs of Scotland were grouped to elect Members, which was not the case in England. But the material distinction was that, while in England the owner of property must reside within a boroughs to have a vote, in Scotland he had a vote if he resided within seven miles. The result was, that in Scotland there was a large ownership franchise enjoyed by those who did not reside within the boroughs. In the boroughs of Scotland there were no small tenements, or, at all events, a very inconsiderable number capable of giving this franchise. In the city of Edinburgh there were £1,500 tenements valued at £2 and less, and they belonged to twenty-nine individuals. In Leith there were 355, and the number of fortunate proprietors was two. Between £2 and £12 in value the number of tenements in the city of Edinburgh was 22,000, and the number of proprietors 1,000, the

205
great mass being the property of persons already possessing the franchise. The owners of tenements above £12 in value would really be the persons who would be enfranchised. The number of such tenements in Edinburgh was 13,000, belonging to 7,000 persons; and if the law of England were introduced, the result would be to import from the town constituency into the county constituency of Edinburgh 4,000 voters, or four times as many as the existing county constituency. [Hear, hear!] Hon. Gentlemen cheered that statement, but he did not think that such a result would be advantageous. The interest connected with the counties was different from that of the towns, and he thought the measure would be undesirable even if it merely rested upon the fact that such an extension of the franchise would upset the electoral balance, and make it a mere money question, in which the largest purse would insure the creation of the greatest number of votes. A contest would immediately spring up between county and borough. The agricultural interest would not submit quietly to he overridden by votes imported in that way from the towns. As had always been the case, they would eventually succeed in the struggle; the purity of the franchise would not only be endangered but destroyed, and, instead of liberal opinions being promoted, a feeling opposed to them would probably be engendered. The £10 franchise in Scotland had been the cause of fictitious votes to an extent which would now sound incredible; but those votes were now dying out, principally because £10 was rather a high figure. He could scarcely conceive the possibility of such a crude, ill-digested measure passing; but if it were to become law, the system of creating votes—he would not call them fictitious votes—would instantly commence, and he believed no greater calamity could fall upon the system of representation in Scotland. His hon. Friend seemed to think-that this franchise would encourage the working classes to invest in £2 purchases, but it was impossible to suppose that the artisans alone would purchase houses of £2 value, and he did not hesitate to say that acquiring votes in that way, whether by societies or individuals, was not in the true spirit of representative government. The franchise was given to persons because they had an interest in the locality in which they voted, and people who lived in London or elsewhere had no right to go to Edinburgh,
206
and, simply because they had £40 or £50, seek to stifle the independent voices of those who had a real interest in the locality. If the hon. Gentleman really wanted to increase the popular element in the constituencies, he recommended him to turn from a property franchise to an occupation franchise, whereby he would be sure that the right man obtained the privilege. Although he should like to see this Bill, if a division took place he must vote against leave being given for its introduction.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he thought that the number of public meetings which had been held of late in various parts of Scotland, and the number of petitions which had been sent to that House on the subject, indicated an amount of dissatisfaction with the county franchise on the part of the people of Scotland, which did call upon the House to take the matter into their serious consideration. At the same time he was not sure that the hon. Member (Mr. Caird) had hit the real grievance. It struck him (Mr. Baxter) that the real grievance of the people of Scotland was, that the Members for boroughs were not so numerous as in either England or Ireland. The English borough Members represented an average population of 29,000 persons, but those of Scotland represented 44,000. Again, to bring up the proportion of county voters, to those of England, Scotland ought to have 83,000 county electors instead of 40,000, and he believed that the people of Scotland attributed this fact to the absence of the 40 s. franchise. The complaints heard from all parts of Scotland were worthy the attention of the House; but though the representation for Scotch counties did require alteration they could not shut their eyes to the fact that the question had not yet been sufficiently matured. In the present state of feeling in that country, the hon. Member for Dartmouth could not expect to pass his Bill through the House, and he would suggest to him the propriety of withdrawing the Bill and moving the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject.
Mr. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, that he was not unwilling to see an extension of the county franchise in Scotland, for he considered that such a measure might be carried into effect with safety to the Conservative interests in those counties. He could not support this measure, however, because he thought it would have a direct tendency to encourage the creation of fic-

207
titious votes. During the debate upon the disfranchisement of the Irish 40 s. freeholders, a friend of his, Mr. Brownlow, stated that an Irish gentleman, who, like all Irish gentlemen, possessed every virtue except that of residing in his own country, was required by the Government to discharge the duty of high sheriff of the county in which his property was situated. He endeavoured to evade the appointment, but without success; whereupon he exclaimed, "By heavens, if I am obliged by the Government to go to Ireland, I'll become a Member of Parliament to vex them, and I'll make them regret it to the last day of their lives!" He divided his estate into 2,600 divisions, upon each of which a man could only live in a state of beggary, and came to Parliament without asking a vote from a single independent elector in the county. During the same debate the late Lord Dunfermline, who was universally respected as a lawyer of sound constitutional views, and a most liberal man, and whom every hon. Member of that House must regret, said that the 40 s. franchise was a system which must ruin the independence of general elections, and would ultimately exclude persons of the middle classes from all real share in them. He believed that a similar result would follow the introduction of that system into Scotland. The hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Caird) had pointed to the fact that such men as the poets Hogg and Burns did not enjoy the franchise; but he would remind him that that privilege had been possessed by another poet, who wrote a song about a certain celebrated freebooter, recommending the good man to "Steek the awm'ry and lock the kist," because "DonaldCaird's oot agen." He did not know whether Sir Walter Scott had the hon. Gentleman in his mind when he wrote that song; but he thought that he must have had some vision of his endeavouring first to force the Scotch system of agricultural statistics down the throats of the English, and then to extend the English franchise to Scotland.
MR. BOWYERsaid, he wished to clear away a little of the legal mystification which the right hon. and learned Member for Leith (Mr. Moncreiff) had thrown over the question. The learned Gentleman had talked about the Statute of Quia emptores; but he might just as well have talked about the Statute of Limitations, or the Statute of Frauds; for it had really nothing whatever to do with the question.
208
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there were no freeholds in Scotland; and in a technical sense that might be true. The old Scotch franchise depended upon tenure. Those who held in capite of the Crown, the greater and the lesser barons, sat together in one chamber; and there could be no doubt that the process of sub-infeudation had had a tendency to diminish that franchise. Practically speaking, however, the freehold franchise in Scotland was a question not of interest but of tenure, and there could be nothing unreasonable in recognizing that distinction in their legislation. The hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the Bill would give the franchise in Scotland to persons who had the same real interest in the land which was possessed by voters in this country, and it appeared to him (Mr. Bowyer) that that was a perfectly fair proposal.
MR. E. ELLICEobserved that there was something ambiguous in the expression of a 40 s. freehold in Scotland; and it would be more honest to describe the Bill as an attempt to reduce the existing £10 franchise to one of £2. Looking at the practical difficulty of carrying out any reform now-a-days, when that House, apathetic as it was, was nevertheless in advance of the country on this subject, he thought it would be deceiving the people to say that there was the slightest chance of passing a Bill like the present. While opposed to reducing the franchise in Scotland all at once from £10 to £2, he yet believed that the possession of a moderate amount of property would insure a very good county constituency in the country. He was not afraid of the danger of the manufacture of fictitious votes, thinking, if that House were in earnest, and insisted on the conditions of occupancy and residence, that that evil would be prevented. Arguing this question as a borough representative, he asked, was the borough franchise in Scotland to be made the same as in England, for the principle of assimilation went that length? Though as strongly opposed as any one to a £2 franchise, yet as there was a very respectable body in Scotland set in motion by a rev. gentleman who had been alluded to, who were in favour of what was ambiguously called the 40 s. franchise, he regretted that the right hon. and learned Member for Leith (Mr. Moncreiff) had thought it necessary to oppose the introduction of this measure. It would be only courteous to its advocates to allow

209
them to "table" their proposition. He was prepared to support an extension of the county franchise, and if the Bill were brought in it would be perfectly open to him or any other hon. Member to fix that franchise at any other limit than the one now proposed.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would hardly have deemed it necessary to trouble the House at that stage of the debate with any observations, had it not been for what had fallen from the hon. Member who spoke last, and also from the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter). Both of those hon. Gentlemen were opposed to the principle of the Bill as it had been explained by its author, and yet they desired that leave should be given to introduce the measure. It was not easy to understand the reason for that apparently inconsistent conduct, and some very excellent reasons might be assigned why the House should not adopt the course recommended by those hon. Gentlemen. This Bill was the result of an entire misconception existing in the minds of certain persons in Scotland; and while the present discussion might be instrumental in removing that misconception, on the other hand the consent of the House to the introduction of the measure would have the effect of increasing and perpetuating it. The delusion under which the persons who had promoted this movement seemed to labour was, in supposing that it was possible to accomplish what might properly be called an assimilation between the franchise of England and of Scotland. The right hon. and learned Member for Leith (Mr. Moncreiff) had demonstrated that this was an impossibility, and his argument was nut founded on technicalities, but on substance. He (the Lord Advocate) agreed with the hon. and learned Member, for two very plain reasons. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) had said the difference of the freehold franchise in the two countries was this—that in Scotland it depended on tenure, but in England on interest in the land. The hon. Gentleman would have been much nearer the truth if he had reversed that proposition, because the freehold franchise in Scotland depended almost entirely on interest, and not upon the mere technical character of the right; whereas in England the freehold franchise depended so entirely on tenure that, without it, it could not exist. He thought the Reform Act did fair justice to Scotland at the time in the matter of the franchise, and assimilated
210
Scotland to England in that matter, so far as it was possible. That Act introduced the £10 franchise into England, giving votes to all proprietors of land to that amount, including freeholders, leaseholders, and copyholders. The same franchise was given to Scotland, and included freeholders, feuars, and long leaseholders to that amount. So far there was a similarity. But in England there was a franchise which the Act did not create, a franchise unknown to Scotland—namely, a freehold tenure to the extent of a forty shilling income. No such franchise existed in Scotland, and the Act could not have created such a franchise there, for the attempt would have resulted in something very different in character and interest; and he was quite certain that, if no such franchise had existed in England, that Act would never have created it. It was entirely unknown in Scotland, and to attempt now to extend this old franchise over a new field of representation was certainly a strange application of the principle of equality. But the difficulty did not end there. The hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Caird) said that four-fifths of the voters in the English counties were freeholders, and one-fifth occupying tenants. By freeholders the hon. Gentleman must have meant freeholders, copyholders, and leaseholders; and consequently that his proposal, so far as it was applicable to Scotland, must include freeholders, feuars, and long leaseholders, and that these should be entitled to the franchise, if their holdings were of the yearly value of 40 s. Was that a similarity? Was it not a great dissimilarity? Was it not introducing into Scotland, for the first time, a franchise which was not to be found either in England or Ireland? Yet the Bill was entitled "A Bill to assimilate the County Franchise of Scotland to that of England," so that in terms the Bill was a contradiction to its title. The hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr.Ellis) described it truly as a modification of the franchise from £l0 to £2, and like that hon. Member he (the Lord Advocate) was opposed to such a proposition. The Bill would lead to the creation of votes, he did not say fictitious votes, but of real votes. The voter under this Bill would undoubtedly be the real proprietor. It would lead to the creation of estates in order to give votes, and the effect of that would be, as had been described by the hon. and learned Member for Leith, that the person with the longest purse would be at the top of the poll. He need not point out the power

211
which would be vested in a few individuals to create the franchise for the boroughs; for, by spending a small sum of money in conveyancing, a man would be able to overpower the legitimate voters.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he was in a great measure indebted to the people of Glasgow for the honour of a seat in that House as the representative of Lanarkshire, and he could not, therefore, be suspected of entertaining against them any unfair bias. But he did not wish to see the franchise in the Scotch counties so altered that the inhabitants of the great towns would completely swamp the agricultural constituencies. That, however, would, in his opinion, be the result of the Bill, and thus the present distribution of power, between the two great interests of the country, which operated, as he believed, for their mutual benefit, would be overturned. Besides, he did not think there was, after all, much practical difference between the elective privileges of Englishmen and Scotchmen. A person who had a small property might make a very good voter; but if he had to borrow money to acquire the right he was more dependent than one without property at all. On the other hand, he did not think that the introduction of the Bill could be opposed by those hon. Gentlemen who were desirous of seeing the franchise reduced below the existing limits, and he should therefore support the Motion, reserving to himself the right of proposing any alteration which he might think desirable as to the limit to which the franchise should be restricted.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he should vote in favour of the Bill in the event of a division, as he thought an opportunity should be given for discussing the principle of the Bill. This was a step towards a reform of the electoral franchise. The people of Scotland felt it a grievance that they had not the same electoral rights as the people of England. It was said there was no freeholders in Scotland—they were all feuars. But every one knew that in England wealthy men on both sides of politics were purchasing estates, and partitioning them out to create votes; and why should not they do the same in Scotland?
MR. PEASEsaid, that he was obliged to defer to the opinion which had been expressed by the two learned Lords who had addressed the House as to the details of the proposed Bill, but at the same time it was clear that the great majority of the Scotch Members were of opinion that
212
some change should be made in the existing system, and therefore he felt bound to support the hon. Member without saying whether the present time was the best for the purpose, or whether the Bill was the most fitting mode of carrying out the proposed object. In his view it was a proposal to extend the franchise, and that was a step in the right direction, and he did not see why 40 s. freeholders in Scotland should not be placed upon the same footing as regarded the franchise as those in England. The people of Scotland were as good and loyal subjects as those of any other part of the empire; and if the Scotch Members were of opinion that an extension of the franchise was required, he thought it was the duty of the English Members to support the Bill.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the hon. Member opposite appeared to think that because the 40 s. freehold existed in England the people of Scotland ought to possess the same. If that principle were to be admitted they should go further, and extend it to Ireland [Hear, hear!] That observation seemed to meet with a response from some hon. Members. Now he did not know whether those hon. Gentlemen recollected the history of the 40 s. franchise in Ireland. It by no means followed that because a certain system answered in England it would answer equally well in Scotland and Ireland. There was a fallacy in such an argument. When the question of Catholic Emancipation was being carried great discussions arose in that House as to the 40 s. franchise then existing in Ireland, What was the effect of such a franchise? He (the Attorney General) had seen an election in the sister country carried by the 40 s. freeholders, who were a shoeless, shirtless, unfortunate class of men, who were first made use of by their landlords for their own individual purposes, and next by the priests of the country. Those 40 s. freeholders represented neither the intelligence, the industry, nor the independence of the country. After they had been used for the worst political purposes, what happened? Why, Parliament destroyed them at once in their thousands; and in the Emancipation Bill it was provided that that franchise should be abolished, in order to create a counterpoise to the political influence that was then granted. And now hon. Members opposite set themselves up as the advocates of a 40 s. franchise in Scotland; and as champions of equal rights, they would of course have the principle extended to Ireland. But

213
the hon. Members for Ireland had asked for no such thing. Now, of all the blunders ever committed by a legislative assembly, the vote of the Irish Parliament creating the 40 s. franchise was one of the greatest. Why, it covered the country with paupers, and created numberless small farmers, which it was the general policy of late years to annihilate. He humbly submitted that the proposition to create a 40 s. franchise in Scotland was impolitic, unwise, and injudicious. Did those hon. Gentlemen opposite imagine that a class of 40 s. freeholders in Scotland or Ireland could form an independent body of men, qualified to return representatives to Parliament? Then if they said so they ought to go a little further, and establish at once the principle of universal suffrage. Their experience of the results of universal suffrage in neighbouring countries ought to be sufficient to warn them from advocating the adoption of any such system in this kingdom. He, therefore, thought that the attempt to re-open the question now was a movement in the wrong direction, and he would consequently vote with his right hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Moncrieff.)
MR. CALCUTTremarked that he did not believe that Scotch proprietors would, if this Bill were passed, subdivide their estates in the manner apprehended by the Attorney General for Ireland, to create fictitious votes.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the fact of this measure being proposed by a Member for an English borough was primâ facie evidence that there was no great demand for the change in Scotland. This was confirmed by the observations which had fallen from the Scotch Members which, in his opinion, showed that the feeling in Scotland was rather adverse than in favour of the Bill. A party had, however, taken up the question, and tried to urge it at the last election. He was asked at the hustings whether he would support the 40 s. freehold franchise. He answered in the negative, and in justification told his hearers what took place in England with a 40 s. franchise. But, before creating a freehold franchise, they must first get their freeholders; for there was no such class at present. Still, he would not resist the introduction of the Bill, but would allow the question to be fully discussed, prepared to abandon any erroneous opinion he might have formed. The real way to assimilate the franchise of England and Scotland was to extend the franchise of occupancy;
214
and he should move an Amendment in the Bill to that effect.
MR. STEUARTsaid, as the Scotch Members generally spoke against the principle of the Bill he thought it would be absurd to allow the introduction of the measure.
LORD ELCHOsubmitted that, inasmuch as every Scotch Member who had taken part in this discussion had argued against the Bill, the House ought not to grant leave for its introduction. The present and the late Lord Advocate had clearly shown that the Bill would prove a delusion and that it could not effect what it professed—namely, assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England on this subject. Why, then, should the House, for mere courtesy's sake, waste its time and the money of the public about it? [Oh!"] The cost of very printing, merely this Bill might not be very much, but the House should remember what a multitude of Bills were introduced and printed in the course of a Session, of the passing of which there was no probability. As the representative of a county constituency he protested against the Bill, because it would swamp the county constituencies.
MR. BLACKsaid, that although he did not approve the Bill, he hoped the House would permit its introduction. Its author said that it would assimilate the franchise of Scotland to that of England, but that would not be a boon, but in some respects a great calamity to Scotland. Still it was desirable that the amount of qualification should be lowered in the Scotch counties; for there was no more desirable franchise than that which rested upon property. If the Bill were allowed to go into Committee some useful Amendments might be introduced; at all events the discussion would he of advantage.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid that, notwithstanding the efforts in Scotland to obtain the assent of the population to the principle of time Bill, only sixteen petitions, with 2,920 signatures, had been presented in its favour up to the 28th ult. The House would stultify itself by admitting a Bill against which almost every Scotch Member had protested. If the feelings of the people of Scotland were to be gathered from their representatives and from the petitions which they had forwarded to Parliament, it was evident that they cared nothing about this Bill, and his own opinion was that, instead of extending the 40 s. franchise to Scotland, it would be necessary before long to alter it in England if

215
the practice of parcelling out land for the express purpose of conferring votes continued to be carried out to the extent that had recently prevailed. He regarded this as an attempt to get in the thin end of the wedge, with a view to the adoption of universal suffrage.
MR. CAIRD, in reply, said that hon. Members representing the counties of Scotland had spoken against this measure, which was, in fact, an appeal from those who were unenfranchised. Last year he presented a petition from Edinburgh, which was signed by 10,000 persons, and between 13,000 and 14,000 other persons had sent petitions in favour of the Bill. The practical question they had to consider was this, that while in England a 40 s. freehold gave a man the franchise, in Scotland a freehold must be of the value of £10 per annum, or five times the English amount to give the same right. Now, if the arguments of the hon. Members who opposed the Bill were good for anything, they went this length—that the House ought to pass a measure to disfranchise the 40 s. freeholders of England. With respect to the objection that had been taken to the word "assimilate" in his Motion he stated that the definition of that word, according to Johnson, was "to bring to a likeness or resemblance." It clearly expressed, therefore, his object, which was to bring the Scotch county franchise to a resemblance with that of England, his desire being to increase the basis of representation in the county constituencies of Scotland.
Motion made and Question put,—
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to assimilate the County Franchise of Scotland with that of England."
The House divided: Ayes 84; Noes 103: Majority 19.

FISHERIES.—PAPER MOVED FOR.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he rose to move an Address for Copy of the Order in Council of the 6th day of April, 1858, approving certain rules made by the Lords' Committee of Privy Council for the more effectual observance of the convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French concerning the fisheries in the seas between the British islands and France. The object of his Motion was to induce the Government to use its influence with the Government of France to obtain the permission of the latter for English fishermen to dredge in mid channel for oysters in the months of
216
May and June. It was a vulgar error, he said, to suppose that oysters lost their flavour in those months, especially those which were dredged for in deep water.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would consent to the Motion. The draft Order in Council had been prepared in consequence of an attempt on the part of the crews of the fishing boats to conceal their numbers. He could not hold out any hope to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the law would be relaxed so long as the treaty with France was in existence.
MR. REBOWsaid, that as a Member for the town most interested in oysters (Colchester), all the fishermen asked was, that a fish which was very nourishing might be allowed to be caught at the season when it was at the highest possible perfection. He could vouch for the flavour of the deep sea oysters at Midsummer. They spawned two months later than those bred in shallow waters.
Motion agreed to.
Address for,—
"Copy of the Order in Council of the 6th day of April, 1858, approving certain Rules made by the Lords' Committee of Privy Council for the more effectual observance of the Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French, concerning the Fisheries in the Seas between the British Islands and France."

VOTERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he wished to move for a Message to the Lords for a copy of the opinions of the Judges on the 15th day of February last, in the case "Cooper v. Slade." He had no doubt that every hon. Member was aware of the decision in the case of "Cooper v. Slade," on the subject of payment of the expenses of a voter in going to the poll to vote. Great injustice was done to thousands of electors by delaying the promised Reform Bill, and by not making some provision with regard to the expenses which voters were put to in travelling to the poll to record their votes.
  MR. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, he could not admit that the law, as laid down by the learned Lords, was in accordance with the opinions of that House or of the public at large. By the decision of the House of Lords an interpretation had been given to the Corrupt Practices Act which was entirely different from that intended by its framers. Before the Act was passed there was very little doubt, if any, as to the legality of payments of travelling expenses

  217
  of voters. The point had been decided by that house in the Southampton case, by Lord Lyndhurst, when Chief Baron, and by the late Lord Chief Justice Tindal; but, in order to remove all doubt, when the Corrupt Practices Act was under consideration, the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) proposed in Committee to introduce a clause declaring that such payments were lawful. It was objected that the clause might encourage exorbitant demands on the part of voters, but the then Secretary of State for the Home Department said the clause was in strict agreement with Lord Lyndhurst's definition of the law. The late Attorney General was also of opinion that candidates might lawfully pay the travelling expenses of voters. The clause was introduced, but was struck out in "another place," for some reason which he did never understand, and the noble Lord the Member for London, in recommending the House to agree to the omission of the clause, said it would only leave the law as it then stood. How had that expectation been justified? In the very same Session a new writ was moved for Cambridge, then under a cloud, as Galway was at the present moment. A distinguished Member of the English bar, Mr. Slade, became a candidate, and, believing on the opinion of those high authorities that he was justified in paying the travelling expenses of voters, issued circulars bearing the significant postscript, "your railway expenses will be paid." Some person then chose to bring an action against Mr. Slade to recover £100 penalty, under a section of the Corrupt Practices Act. The action was tried before Mr. Baron Parke (now Lord Wensleydale), and he directed a verdict for the plaintiff. Exceptions were taken to the charge of that learned Judge, and the question came before the Exchequer Chamber; when all the Judges present, with the exception of Mr. Justice Williams, decided that the direction of Mr. Baron Parke was incorrect in point of law, and that the verdict ought to have been for the defendant. In the meantime the question had been raised on several occasions before Committees of that House, and the universal and unanimous decision of those Committees was that payments for travelling expenses made bonâ fide were lawful. An appeal from the decision of the Exchequer Chamber was lodged, and came on for hearing in the House of Lords, and there that decision was reversed by Lord Cranworth and Lord Wensleydale, the
  218
  latter being the Judge whose ruling had been appealed from in the first instance. Whether or not that was a proof of the satisfactory constitution of the court of ultimate jurisdiction he would not then take upon himself to say. He wished, however, to call attention to the effect of that decision, both as to the past and the future. With respect to the past, it was clear that every candidate who had paid travelling expenses of voters, or who had provided carriages or been in any way a party to the conveyance of voters, had been guilty of bribery within the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Act, and was liable to fine or imprisonment. Such would be the case with many Members of that House, were it not that, fortunately for them, twelve months had elapsed since their elections. It was necessary that some measure should be adopted which would relieve many hon. Members front the predicament in which they were at present placed. Perhaps the recollection of their own position would induce hon. Members to deal leniently with the Galway freemen. With respect to the future, it was, he conceived, absolutely necessary to pass some legislative enactment to relieve Members, candidates, and constituents, from the present difficulty. The practical result of upholding the recent decision would be to place the elections, in counties especially, in the hands of the voters residing upon the spot, and virtually to disfranchise the poorer voters residing at a distance. There were but two remedies—either to arrange the polling places so as to enable the humblest voter to have the power of recording his vote, or by legislative enactment to reverse the decision of the House of Lords. He would not say which course should be adopted, but the matter was one of such pressing urgency that he hoped the Home Secretary would take the subject into his earliest consideration, and introduce in the present Session sonic measure to prevent the serious inconveniences which he had pointed out.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought it desirable that the opinions of the Judges on the case in question should be in the hands of hon. Members, in order that the House might know the reasons on which the decision proceeded. He would not have troubled the House with any further remark on this subject, except for the observations which had fallen from the hon. and learned Serjeant, so pertinent to the matter in hand, and for which the House ought to feel indebted to him. The hon. and learned Serjeant had treated the

  219
  question in two points of view, with reference to the past and to the future. As he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, a year having elapsed since the last general election, there was now no fear of any hon. Member being prosecuted for a misdemeanour in respect of any infraction of the existing law at that election. Hon. Members might, therefore, feel pretty comfortable on that score. With regard to the future he (Mr. Walpole), might state that the question of the Corrupt Practices Act was now under the consideration of the Cabinet. One of two courses was open to the House. That Act would have either to be simply renewed this year, or it might be brought in with such amendments as the experience of last year in election Committees might enable the Government and the House to make. Now, simply to propose its renewal in its present shape, with so many palpable defects upon the face of it, would be a piece of clumsy legislation. He was now engaged in collecting information as to the decisions under that Act, and as to any defects that might have been pointed out in it; and he thought it best, after receiving that information, to move for leave to bring in a Bill embodying such Amendments as experience in the working of the Act might have suggested. He need scarcely tell the learned Serjeant and the House that the decided opinion he (Mr. Walpole) had formed on the question under consideration was that travelling expenses at elections, unless paid with the view of corrupting the voter, were as legal as any other payment. He thought, at all events, the time had arrived when the question must be settled one way or the other, and he hoped the House would think the course he had suggested was the best way of dealing with it.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to express his satisfaction that this question was to be finally settled. He recollected when the noble Lord the Member for London brought in the clause in question, and he had stated his objection to it as being merely declaratory of the state of the law. In legislating in 1854, the House proceeded on the assumption that they were not interfering with the then existing law. The ease of "Cooper v. Slade," however, was one that arose out of the Corrupt Practices Act entirely, and therefore he confessed that he felt gratified that the Act was to be amended. It was certainly his opinion that when travelling expenses were bona fide it was legal on the
  220
  part of the candidate to pay them, and if it was desirable in England to allow a candidate to pay the bona fide travelling expenses of electors, much more so was it in Ireland where the polling places were at a greater distance, and the electors not so rich as in England.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he wished to point out that if the law was to be altered, it would be expedient to bring in the Bill to which the right lion. Gentleman had alluded as early as possible, because election Committees might sit in the interval, in which the decision of "Cooper versus Slade" would naturally have great weight. As the question had been opened, he would ask whether the right hon. Gentlemen would not introduce a clause extending that Act to municipal elections, the present Act respecting which was so loosely worded that it was impossible, in the event of their being made a medium of bribery for Parliamentary elections, to convict the persons engaged in that bribery.
  Motion agreed to.
  Message to the Lords for a Copy of the Opinions of the Judges on the 15th day of February last, in the case Cooper v. Slade.

CASE OF THE CAGLIARI.

  POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.
  MR. KINGLAKE, who had given notice of his intention to move "That this House trusts that in the demands made by Her Majesty the Queen and by the King of Sardinia, in relation to the capture of the Cagliari and her crew, Her Majesty will be advised to act in cordial concert with the Sardinian Government," was understood to say, that until he was made acquainted with the very important papers which he understood had been recently received at the Foreign Office, in reference to the steamer Cagliari, it would not be desirable that he should proceed with his Motion, and he should therefore postpone it until a future day.
  MR. HUTTsaid, he wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to lay on the table of the House the papers relating to the Cagliari, to which the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs referred on Tuesday night.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: At the present moment, when negotiations are being carried on, nothing could be more inconvenient than to lay the papers on the table. When, on Tuesday night, my hon. Friend the Under Secretary referred to the receipt of a

  221
  despatch, he gave the general result as a matter which might be interesting to the House. But that is quite a different thing to laying it upon the table. Of course, when the proper time arrives, which I hope will not be long, it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to lay all the papers upon the table in relation to this subject; but at present nothing could be more injurious to the public service than to do so.

CHURCH RATES.—MOTION WITHDRAWN.
MR. LYGONsaid, that inasmuch as the Bill on this subject, introduced by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny), would come on for discussion next week, it would be impossible, even if leave were given to introduce his (Mr. Lygon's) measure, that it could be printed and circulated in time to progress with the other, and he therefore begged leave to withdraw the notice he had given; at the same time, he would express a hope that some amicable settlement of the question would be come to in the present Session.
Notice of Motion withdrawn.

DURHAM COUNTY PALATINE JURISDICTION BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. A. SMITHcomplained that by the use of the term "freehold" in the Bill, it would appear that the foreshore to which the measure referred was the freehold of the Crown. If such a principle were sanctioned by Parliament, the whole shore of the kingdom might become vested in the Crown, by which it would be held not as the guardian of public rights, but as private property, to the great detriment of private interests and of the rights of usance possessed by the public. He suggested that these jura regalia ought to be vested in the Crown merely as the guardian of the public rights, and that they should be transferred, not to the Commissioners of Land Revenue, as was proposed, but to the Commissioners of the Admiralty. The Bill also provided that two-thirds of the produce of the sale of any rights of the Crown were to go to the Treasury, and the remaining third to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He considered that this was reserving too great a benefit to the Crown.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that the observations which the hon. Gentleman made referred to alterations that could only be introduced in Committee, and not
222
on the second reading of the Bill. He would not, therefore, undertake the discussion at present; he would only say that the object of this Bill was merely to remove some doubts which had arisen in consequence of the wording of an Act formerly passed, which was intended to transfer to the Crown the palatine jurisdiction of the Bishop of Durham. A question had since arisen whether or not the foreshore had also been transferred. A good deal of discussion took place, and it was ultimately decided by agreement that the right should be transferred to the Crown. The object of the Bill was to carry out this agreement; and when it was in Committee he should be ready to answer the observations of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, whatever rights were possessed by the public, they were not interfered with by this Bill. The doubt resting on the statute of IV. was very inconvenient in many ways, and it was therefore desirable that the Bill should be passed.
Bill read 2°, and committed for Friday, 14th May.

PROPERTY QUALIFICATIONS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LOCKE KINGobserved, that a statute requiring a property qualification for Members of Parliament was first passed in the reign of Queen Anne with the avowed object of excluding the trading classes from Parliament and admitting only persons connected with the landed interest. Fictitious qualifications became so common that in the reign of George II. this statute was followed by another which made it necessary for Members to make an oath that they possessed the required qualification. The qualification was fixed at £600 a year for counties and £300 a year for boroughs, and in both cases it was confined to real property. It became matter of notoriety that persons in taking the oath made false representations, stating that they had incomes from and interest in real property which they did not really possess. Since her present Majesty ascended the Throne the oath was repealed, and a declaration substituted, allowing personal property to be used as a qualification where real property did not exist. The practice of making false representations was, however, very common, and he was told that after every general election there were usually from fifty to

  223
  sixty cases in which persons declared themselves qualified who were not so. The anomalies of the system were very great. The Scotch Members, who certainly were not the least respectable Members of that House, required no qualification. The Members for the Universities required no qualification; the eldest sons of peers and of persons qualified to sit as Knights of the Shire, that is to say, of persons who had £600 per annum in real or in personal estate were also privileged to sit without a qualification. It was a remarkable fact that, since personal property had been substituted for real, the eldest son of a person who had £20,000 in the funds was entitled to sit without producing a qualification. There were other anomalies. The Members for Liverpool, for example, were qualified if they had £300 a year, while the Members for the smallest county in England—say the county of Rutland—must have £600 a year. There were some Gentlemen who thought it necessary to retain the property qualification, with all its anomalies and absurdities, because it excluded Chartists and other persons holding extreme political opinions. He would not enter into the question of Chartism, but he might observe that it was the opinion of many that it would be better as a safety valve to give Chartists the opportunity of expressing their opinions in that House than compel them to do so out of doors. While they excluded Chartists they compelled the younger sons of peers and landowners to come to their table and declare they had a qualification of which it was notorious they were not the bonâ fide possessors. In most instances these younger sons had from their parents an allowance of so many hundreds a year, but in law that was no qualification for a seat in that House. It was high time to do away with this kind of legislation, which encouraged Members to make false declarations at their table, and to recur to the old practice of giving to the electors the freest choice of their representatives. He hoped the Government would not offer any opposition to this Bill, but that they would show, by giving it their support, that they were really in earnest in their desire to give useful reforms to the people. The hon. Member then moved the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that he did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill in the then condition of the House, and at that late hour of the evening (eleven o'clock) but he could not allow some of the
  224
  remarks of the hon. Member to pass unnoticed. The hon. Member had misrepresented the object of the existing enactment when he stated that that object was to exclude from the House all but landed proprietors. There was a broad distinction drawn between landed representatives and borough representatives, inasmuch as in the case of the former the qualification required was double that of the borough Members. [Several hon. MEMBERS: "The qualification for all was a landed one originally."] The original object of the law was sound and rational. It was to prevent persons being Members of that House whose financial position was not such that they could devote their time exclusively to the business of the House, without prejudice to their personal affairs, or could be free from the dictation to which it was said, however unfairly, that Members were sometimes subject. Nor did he think it would be without prejudice to the public interests, or to the character of the House, if the alteration of the law should have the effect of introducing such persons. The exceptions to which the hon. Member referred only proved that the original object of the law was what he had stated. He would not go into the question whether or not it was desirable to introduce into that House persons of extreme opinions, but he was inclined to agree with the hon. Member on that point. He thought that in respect to such persons that House would act as a safety-valve, for it was found that persons who had distinguished themselves out of doors by extreme opinions were apt to modify them in that House. If, however, this Bill was passed, he must say that, taking human nature as it was, and admitting, as they must admit, that men under certain circumstances were open to certain temptations, they ought to insure the purity and patriotism which it was evidently the object of that House to attain, by doing away with all salaries to public officers, so that no hon. Member, whose position was not such as to place him above the suspicion of temptation, might be exposed to imputation by his acceptance of office. He feared that that proposition would not be acceptable to hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House; but if they did not adopt it, they would place Members in a position in which they should not be placed.
  MR. MILESsaid, that at present either landed or funded property to the amount of £300 enabled a man to stand for a borough. Did any one suppose that because

  225
  a man had £300 a year, he was placed beyond the reach of temptation? Had not the House been long acting on a falsehood, for had every Member really the necessary qualification? He believed not. If so, let them not mix this subject up with the Reform question, which was only an internal reform of their own House. If the £10 householders found amongst themselves a person of ability who had not £300 a year, and chose him as their representative, they ought to have the power of sending him to that House. He looked to Scotland. Hon. Members for that country had no qualification, and he was sure the House had no reason to be ashamed of those hon. Members who represented Scottish constituencies. Last year he (Mr. Miles) had supported a Government winch had promised a Reform Bill, and he voted against the proposition of the hon. Member for Surrey; but now he was at liberty to express his opinion. This was not a question to be introduced into a Reform Bill, but it was a question whether a gentleman who had not £300 a year should or should not represent a constituency. He had not
  the slightest difficulty in assenting to the Motion, and he hoped and trusted that among the millionaires whom the hon. Member for Norfolk wished to introduce into Parliament, they should have men of humble means, but great ability, returned by such constituencies as selected them.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid, he had no objection to the Bill, but if it passed, he thought they ought to recommend to the mercy of the Crown the unfortunate gentleman who was now suffering under a condemnation for having sat in that House without a qualification. He apprehended that his legal delinquency was not greater than that of others who had walked up to that table, and he might mention as one instance, since it was a matter of public notoriety, that one of the hon. Members for Greenwich could scarcely have been qualified when he took his seat.
  MAJOR EDWARDSsaid, he must express his concurrence in the suggestion of the hon. Member with reference to the gentleman who was now undergoing punishment for having sat in that House without a qualification. He was placed in a peculiar position, politically speaking, with regard to Mr. Glover; but as the present representative of that constituency which returned him to Parliament, he could without hesitation affirm that no act on the part of the Government would be
  226
  so acceptable to his supporters as their now discharging him from his sentence. The punishment inflicted upon him was a very severe retribution for what might have been an error in judgment only; and the House must recollect that the jury strongly recommended Mr. Glover to mercy. Should the Bill become the law of the land, acting in concert with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he would spare no effort to induce the Home Secretary to remit the sentence the ends of justice have already been fully satisfied.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that this question had often been before the House, but he was not aware that its merits had of late years been much discussed. Last year it was brought before the House, and its postponement was urged on the ground that it ought to form part of a larger measure of Reform, and that all questions of Reform should be put off till the following Session. The House had now to consider whether it was advisable to continue the property qualification, as originally introduced in the reign of Queen Anne, and as subsequently modified in the reign of the present Queen. There were two reasons which had always been forcibly urged in favour of the maintenance of the existing law. In the first place it was supposed that by requiring Members to possess a certain income as a test of their eligibility, an amount of independence on their part might be secured. The second reason urged in favour of the law was that it would prevent speculative candidates coming forward, and putting their opponents to unnecessary expense. With regard to the independence of the Member that was to be secured, he very much doubted whether the law in question secured that at all. The mere circumstance that a man had a qualification of £300 a year for a borough Member, and £600 a year for a county Member, would not necessarily make him so independent as to place him above any inducement that might shake his independence. But, apart from that question, there were two great reasons against the first argument which had been urged in favour of the existing law. The first related to the inconsistency of requiring the Members from one part of the country to have a property qualification, and those from another to have none. It was utterly indefensible to maintain the law in that state; and if we were to have a property qualification at all it ought in justice to be extended to the Scotch Mem-

  227
  bers. The second reason which had always weighed on his mind was that, whatever know the law was evaded. Qualifications were given to Members in order to enable them to sit in the House of Commons, and it ill became Parliament to maintain what in those cases might be called a great sham. Those two reasons convinced him that the existing law did not answer its purpose and ought not to be continued. The second argument urged in favour of the law was that it prevented speculative candidates from putting bona fide candidates to unnecessary expense at elections. There might be something in that argument, but we might set against it the necessary expenses which candidates must incur, not merely the fees paid to the election auditor under a recent Act, but the cost of the hustings, to which every candidate must contribute. Even if that reason did not prevail we should bear in mind that by the operation of the present law we prevented able men with large professional incomes from taking their seats in the House of Commons, merely because they did not possess realized fortunes of £300 a year, and thus deprived Parliament and the country of the services of such men. For these reasons it seemed to him that the law could not be maintained in its existing state, and thinking that upon the whole much good would be gained by leaving elections perfectly free to those who might be willing to offer their services, and by allowing the constituencies to choose such candidates as they might think best able to represent them in Parliament, he had arrived at the conclusion that the Bill of the hon. Member for East Surrey had much more to recommend it than any of the arguments used against it could outweigh, and therefore, that it ought to be read a second time.
  Bill read 2° and Committed for Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Hopetoun.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Chief Justice of Bombay; Exchequer Bonds (£2,000,000).
2a Customs Duties (No. 2); Excise Duties.

LORD CANNING'S PROCLAMATION.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I wish to ask the noble Earl the President of the India Board a question which, though somewhat irregular, I hope he will be able to answer. It has come to my knowledge that, in "another place," the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Government in that House has stated, in reply to a question, that Lord Canning's Proclamation, which appeared in some of the journals of this morning, has been disapproved of in toto by Her Majesty's Government. I shall be glad to know whether this answer was given after communication with the noble Earl, and with his sanction?
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: Of what has occurred in "another place" I know nothing. No communication has taken place between me and the right hon. Gentleman, or the other Members of the Government, as to the answer which has been given on this subject, or as to the terms of the answer. The right hon. Gentleman, I conclude, gave the answer after having read the letter which was written with respect to the Proclamation alluded to by the noble Earl.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Does the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman correctly describe the opinion of the Government respecting the Proclamation?
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I shall remove all difficulty on the subject by laying the papers on the table to-morrow.

REVISION OF THE LITURGY.

  ADDRESS FOR A COMMISSION.
  LORD EBURY:*My Lords, I think myself fortunate in being able, through Her Majesty's gracious favour, to bring forward this Motion in your Lordships' House rather than in the House of Commons, where I first gave notice of my intention of dealing with this question; because, although doubtless it would be possible on most questions to obtain in that House a more accurate estimate of public opinion, yet I cannot but recollect that I am now addressing an Assembly composed, proportionably, of a much larger number of members of the Established Church, and that not only Lords Temporal, but Lords Spiritual, form part of this Assembly, who are so specially qualified to take part in a discussion of this nature, and whose opinions will unquestionably exercise on this matter so great an influence on your Lordships' decision. I feel that I am more in facie ecclesiœ. But if this is a satisfactory reflection, it is the only one of that nature in which I can at this moment indulge. Your Lordships will readily believe that I rise under feelings of deep embarrassment. So recently a Member of this Assembly, I find myself confronted with all the learning, the ability, the experience, and the oratorical talent for which your Lordships' House is so remarkable. I am about to bring forward a question, the gravity and importance of which it is impossible to exaggerate; and in addition, it is one to which Parliament is so unaccustomed that it has, with few and incidental exceptions, almost lain dormant for a century and a half. As if that were not enough, I fear (though I hope to be able effectually to dissipate it) that I labour under a prejudice on the part of some of your Lordships for venturing to bring forward this Motion, in the teeth, as it were, of an opinion supposed to have been pronounced by right rev. Prelates at a recent Session in the Upper House of Convocation. Your Lordships will easily understand that it is not the timidity of youth which oppresses we, but a keen sense

  149
  of the responsibilities of maturer years, and of the imperfections which I bring to the performance of an arduous duty. I desire to speak as little as possible of myself, but I have been so sharply rebuked for my presumption in making this Motion, that I am anxious to explain the motives which have influenced me in so doing. No one can justly impute to me that I am a lukewarm member of the Church to which I belong, and I appeal with confidence to the right rev. Bench, in whose presence I now stand, whether, in the humble efforts I have endeavoured to make to promote the great cause of our common Master, I have ever failed to seek episcopal authority, or to act otherwise than by the means and through the system of that Church of which I am a member. Those who know me best know that for many years the subject has occupied my anxious attention; but it was only when I found such very high episcopal sanction for this course of proceeding, and a preponderating concurrence of suffrage in regard to an alteration of our liturgy, provided it could be done with safety, that I thought I might, without incurring the reproach at your Lordships' hands of undue haste, rashness, or precipitancy, venture to ask for a discussion on so grave and serious a question. So great has been the length of time since this subject has been in debate before Parliament that, in order to do any justice to it, I fear I shall be compelled to trespass at greater length upon your patience than can be agreeable either to the House or to myself; but I trust that, considering the extreme importance of a right decision, and the difficulties under which I labour, your Lordships will overlook the defects of which I am painfully conscious, and extend to me that courteous indulgence for which this House is so eminently distinguished.
  My Lords, I desire in the outset to declare that, in making the present Motion, I am acting entirely independently of any party in the Church. The word "party," indeed, as it is understood in a Christian community, grates sadly on my ear. I am happy in enjoying the friendship, and, I hope, the good opinion, of many of the clergy holding very opposite opinions; and I believe they give me credit—which I heartily reciprocate—of being sincere, and of having but one object in view—namely, the advancement of the work which it is equally the duty both of the clergy and laity to promote to the utmost of their power. Allow me to give your Lordships a brief
  150
  outline of the position of this question. At the period of the Reformation such modifications of the Romish liturgy as were thought desirable were variously adopted in different dioceses. So the matter remained till the reign of Edward VI., when a Royal Commission was appointed, of which Cranmer was the head, to collect the most popular liturgies of the day, which were those of York, Hereford, Bangor, and Salisbury, then called "Uses." From these the First Book of Edward VI. was compiled, and, having been sanctioned by Convocation and Parliament, became the law. Two years afterwards a revision was considered necessary, and accordingly took place by the same means. Thus the Second Book of Edward VI., and the Second Act of Uniformity, were substituted for the first. All was again confusion during the reign of Queen Mary, though, singularly enough, it does not appear that the Act of Parliament was repealed. On the accession of Elizabeth another Royal Commission was issued, and the Third Act of Uniformity passed; and at a subsequent period of Elizabeth's reign another alteration of the liturgy was made by the Royal Will, upon the report of a Commission, but without the sanction of Convocation or Parliament. In the commencement of the reign of James I. took place the celebrated Hampton Court Conferences, which resulted in another alteration, carried into effect in a similar manner. Soon after the Restoration, the Savoy Conference was held, and a further alteration was made in the Prayer Book, and the Fourth Act of Uniformity was passed. That was, in fact, the last alteration made. In 1689 a Royal Commission recommended several changes in the Liturgy, but they failed to obtain the assent of Convocation, and were not carried into effect. Having given this brief sketch of the history of the Prayer Book, let me proceed to say that, in order to induce the House to assent to my Motion, I think I am bound to demonstrate three positions:— 1. That a Revision of the Liturgy is desired. 2. That it is desirable. 3. That the method by which I propose to effect it is both constitutional and expedient.
  In regard to the first point, that alteration is desired, I can honestly say that, in the whole of my conversations and correspondence on this subject, extensive as they have been, although many have not approved the discussion of the question, I have not met with a single person, lay or

  151
  clerical, who has not desired some alterations of the Liturgy. I am now going to try and do that which I just now stated I hoped to be able to do, namely, dispel a prejudice which might exist against me, as being in supposed antagonism to the right rev. Prelates recently assembled in Convocation. Those of your Lordships who merely consult the ordinary sources of information, the daily papers, may reasonably have come to that conclusion; but as it was my duty to ascertain exactly what passed in that right rev. Conclave, I wrote to the editor of the Guardian, a paper conducted with ability and fairness, and which concerns itself in these matters, for assistance, and I received from him a report which he assured me I might with confidence rely upon; and I am happy to have it in my power to say, that I shall be able to draw from the addresses of every one of the speakers upon that occasion some of the strongest evidence in favour of the proposition I am now endeavouring to establish. The first who spoke was a right rev. Friend of mine, who presides over the diocese of Lincoln. He said that though he would make no alteration on the Sunday, he desired to "curtail the daily service by at least two-thirds." Then came another right rev. Friend of mine, the Bishop of Winchester, who said that "he should greatly rejoice if special services could be added to those we already have, composed of prayers already in our Liturgy and sanctioned by authority." Next followed the right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of St. David's, who said that "improvements of considerable value might be effected in our services by little changes, which would remove a number of not very important, but still well founded objections." Another right rev. Friend, the Bishop of London, desired "greater flexibility in the performance of our services," an opinion in which the Bishop of Hereford concurred. The right rev. Prelate of Llandaff declared that "he must conscientiously think that, when the Holy Communion is administered, shortening the service would be of great advantage." The most rev. the Primate, of whom I never can speak without at the same time declaring the great reverence and respect with which I regard him, whose opinions expressed on other occasions I shall have occasion to lay before your Lordships somewhat later, thought "the Lord's Prayer was too frequently repeated in the morning service," My right rev.
  152
  Friend the Bishop of Oxford was so intent upon the special alteration he desired, namely, that of dispensing with the Prayer Book altogether in certain cases, and having preaching only, that he had consulted all the legal authorities he could get at upon the subject, in order to enable him to burst the fetters of the Act of Uniformity. Among others he had invited the opinion of a learned Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench, whose opinion was so characteristic that it deserves to be presented to your Lordships. It was to the effect, that "upon consideration he took a favourable view of the case presented, but that it would not be safe to hazard an opinion until he knew what effect an argument upon the opposite side might have upon his mind." I now hope that I have shown your Lordships that, although we may differ as to the best means of obtaining them, there is no difference between the right rev. Bench and myself as to a desire for some alterations. But I hope still further to strengthen my proposition, by reading to your Lordships a Report made by a Committee of its members appointed by Convocation upon this very subject. That Report is as follows:—
  "1. That some modification of the Church rules is needful to enable her adequately to minister to the spiritual necessities of the people of this land.
  "2. That the length of the morning service upon Sundays and holidays, especially when the Holy Communion is administered to a large body of the people, renders it desirable to allow of its being divided into different services and used at various hours.
  "3. That where there are both afternoon and evening services, then, that for one of the two, either different proper lessons or an occasional service be authorized.
  "4. That in the present state of our population, the Church would be better able to minister to their wants if some well considered relaxations of the absolute strictness of her services, as prescribed by the Aet of Uniformity, were admitted by authority.
  "5. That a shorter order for daily prayer be compiled from the Book of Common Prayer, with a prescribed lesson or lessons of Holy Scripture, which might be used instead of the present order of Daily Morning and Evening Prayer."
  When I add to the foregoing, that between three and four thousand of our clergy have petitioned for a specified alteration in our Burial Service, and that there exist Associations for procuring a revision of our liturgies, composed of clergy and laity, in eleven of the great towns of this country, I think your Lordships will concur that the desire for some alteration in our Li-

  153
  turgy is almost universal. And let me ask, is it surprising that such should be the case in reference to liturgies and services compiled and arranged for a totally different state of society, since which our manners and customs, our hours, our mode of living, even the expression of our ideas, and the amount and locality and spiritual wants of our people, have entirely changed? Is it probable that just at the termination of a bloody civil war, in which religion had at least been as much in question as politics, when the old dominant party was just returned to power, a fair adjustment of differences should have been made in a manner never again to require a review? I will now, with the permission of the House, proceed to the second part of my case—namely, to endeavour to show that alteration is not only desired, but that it is also desirable. In order to do this, I must be allowed to define a little my position, and ask your Lordships to consider what a liturgy is. A liturgy is a form of prayer, and should be a form of sound words. Our Prayer Book is made up of various forms of prayer, and I am sure any one who examines it with a candid and impartial mind will say that as a whole it fulfils those conditions. It has stood the test of hostile criticism for centuries, and has extorted praises from quarters whence they could have been least expected. It is so beautiful and at the same time so copious that I believe there is not a liturgical reformer in the land who desires anything but a very few omissions, substitutions of expression, and re-arrangements. No one—no one, at least, whom I have heard of—desires to make any addition to it. We must, however, by no means omit from our consideration that a form of prayer is not devotion, it is merely a help to it; and any one compiling a liturgy ought surely to keep in view that sentence from the writings of Lactantius, a quotation on which I stumbled the other day—"Nihil est tam voluntarium quam religio, in quâsi animus sacrificantis absit, jam sublata, jam nulls, est." Bearing that in mind, he would naturally frame it as simply and with as few repetitions as possible.
  But how stands the case with us? By these ancient arrangements we have four or five services crammed into one; the result of which is, wearied congregations, jaded attention, compulsory absence, and, instead of proving a help to devotion, it is the means of producing a great amount of that very formality which is the danger of
  154
  all forms of prayer, and against which our blessed Lord himself directed some of his sternest rebukes. Nor is this all, for this state of things may be indefinitely prolonged, according to the peculiar ideas or physical temperament of the officiating Minister. At one end of the scale we have the man who laboriously emphasizes every syllable, and seems to think the efficacy of the service dependent upon the length of time he can dwell upon it; in the middle we have the individual who has been so well described by the Right Rev. Prelate of Lincoln as the "monotonous mumbler;" and at the opposite end there is the chanting intoner, who often makes a painful exhibition, and always greatly prolongs the service. Let me here read to your Lordships a letter which I received last year from an hon. Baronet, a friend of mine, which gives a graphic account of what probably at some time or other has happened to all of us. My Friend writes—
  "July 12, 1857.
  "I have just returned from our church. The clergyman was for sixteen years a missionary or the Church of England in British Guiana, known and loved by many of the best of the clergy. With a broken constitution he has come to take the work of this comparatively easy district. But yesterday the services lasted from eleven to 20 minutes past 2:—1. The morning service; 2. The Litany; 3. The ante-communion service; 4. The sermon; 5. The Communion; besides giving out hymns to the congregation. This is enought to kill even a strong man. And cuibono? The people are wearied to death by the repetitions, and I can conceive no party whatever gaining by it except Dissenters, whose shorter services commend themselves to many persons."
  I will now read to your Lordships a list of the repetitions in the morning service, from which the evening service too, combined as it so often is with baptisms and churchings (from which I hope it never will be disjoined), is by no means free. When there is a full service and sermon, with the administration of the Lord's Supper (which is the case now in several of our town churches every Lord's Day), there are—Two creeds (with almost every article of belief forming part of the Te Deum and Litany); two general exhortations; two general confessions; two absolutions; three final benedictions. The Sovereign is prayed for three times; the Clergy three times; the Civil Ministers twice; this House twice; the Magistracy twice; and, finally, we have the Lord's Prayer six times. I will make no comment upon such a state of things, except to remark that, in my belief, if we had no liturgy, and any one were to propose such a scheme,

  155
  it would be instantaneously rejected. As to the occasional services, I have already told your Lordships that in regard to the Burial-service nearly four thousand of the clergy have petitioned for alteration, and that there are changes asked for in others besides, which, though small, are of great importance, inasmuch as many of the clergy feel their consciences burdened by expressions which are used; and, though a latitude of interpretation is permitted, they are considered too dogmatic, and to some minds not susceptible of such expanded meaning. As to what are called the four Order-in-Council Services, because they were first annexed to the Prayer Book by an order in Council at the commencement of the reign of George III., I know it is the fashion to say that they are not a part of the Prayer Book, and therefore might be dispensed with, if not approved, by the same means which attached them to the Book of Common Prayer. Such, however, is by no means the case. Every one of those services is founded upon statutory enactments quite as binding as the Act of Uniformity, and can only be got rid of by the repeal of those Acts. I find in Burns' "Ecclesiastical Law," under the head of "Holy Days," that the services of the 5th of November, the 30th of January, and the 29th of May, are solemnly enjoined by Act of Parliament; and people refusing compliance with those Acts are liable to be indicted, fined, and imprisoned for contempt. The office for the 5th of November was twice revised by Convocation—in 1662 and 1688. The House of Lords altered the title by the Act of the 5th of November, 1664. The service for the accession was enforced by a canon in 1664. In 1721, before those services were attached to the Prayer Book, a Kentish clergyman named Johnson, who refused to perform one of them, was compelled to submit. Had I not already trespassed at so much length upon your Lordships, I should be tempted to offer you in some detail an account of a dilemma into which the other House of Parliament was brought by one of the services in question. As it is, I will merely give the outline. On the 29th of January, 1772, Parliament was sitting, and the House of Commons adjourned over the following day to attend divine service, and listen to the discourse of the Rev. Dr. Nowell, who was appointed to preach on the occasion. Subsequently, when the House met again, a vote of thanks was passed to the Doctor
  156
  for his excellent discourse, nemine contradicente, with a request that it might be printed. When, however, after a while it appeared in print, it was found to contain matter so extremely offensive to the prevailing notions of civil and religious liberty, that on the 2nd of March it was moved by Mr. Boyle Walsingham, and seconded by General Irwin, that "the vote of thanks should be expunged," and it was carried without a division. Unquestionably the Reverend but somewhat indiscreet Doctor was right, and the House was wrong, because the Rubric directs the minister either to read the homily on Obedience, or to preach in conformity with the tenor of the service. It will, however, serve as an illustration of the inconvenience, not to use a stronger term, of leaving these statutes unrepealed. I will now proceed to lay before your Lordships the documentary evidence with which I hope to prove my case. It is so extremely voluminous that I can only make a small selection, and I have thought it better not to go back to former times, and cite the opinions of the great luminaries of our Church, but merely to confine myself to the speeches and writings of those now living, or who have only recently passed away from us. The first to which I desire to call your Lordships' attention is from a very able man, the late Bishop Coplestone, of Llandaff, whose testimony is the more valuable, inasmuch as he is a very cautious and somewhat unwilling witness:—
  "Lapse of time has rendered some phrases obsolete, strange, or improper. Condemnation of heretical opinions may have been expressed in stronger terms than are necessary or convenient. The selection of lessons might certainly be improved, and better adapted to the customary times of attendance on public worship. Above all, it would seem to be productive of many advantages if the limits of that discretion already given to the officiating minister in certain parts of the service were extended, subject only to the interference of canonical advice and authority whenever it might be thought expedient to check too great a latitude."
  The next opinion I will quote is from a charge of the Bishop of London (Bishop Blomfield), delivered in 1834. It is as follows—
  "If I were asked what my opinion is as to the expediency of attempting an alteration of the Liturgy, I should be deficient in candour if I did not acknowledge that I think the Liturgy capable of improvement. It would be little short of a miracle were it not so; and I know not why I should be ashamed or reluctant to avow an opinion which was entertained by Sancroft, and Stilling-fleet, and Tenison, and Wake, and Secker, and Porteous. I heartily pray that a season may come

  157
  when the question may be looked at with calmness and fairness."
  My next extract will be from a speech of the Archbishop of Dublin, delivered in this House in the year 1840. His Grace said—
  "He was for remedying those changes of that great innovator Time, who, as it was said by Lord Bacon, was insinuating imperceptibly many alterations, and was changing things for the worse if they were not changed for the better; and he would ask whether, in the alterations made by the first Reformers, they intended that their amendments should never be changed—whether they were like the laws of the Medes arid Persians, unalterable—and whether it were their intention that the door should be locked and the key buried and lost for ever?"
  My next extract is from a work of the present Bishop of St. Asaph, published in 1836. In his History of the Church that right rev. Prelate says—
  "There were many things in 1689, there are some things which do now, offend the true friends of the Church of England, who willingly comply with the Liturgy and services because they esteem the Common Prayer Book, as a whole, a most excellent composition, but who nevertheless regard it as a human composition, requiring from time to time verbal alteration; and the quiet friend of reform cannot but feel sorry that this attempt was dropped in' 89, and has never since been carried into effect. And, if there be faults but too visible in the Establishment, let us pray God that it may be reformed by the steady hand of legal authority; and that neither the dilatoriness nor half measures of its real friends may transfer the task of reformation to those who are hostile to its interests."
  In 1845 the present Lord Bishop of St. David's delivered in his charge the following opinion, which in substance he repeated last year—
  "We are not bound to shut our eyes to the need that exists for a revision of the Liturgy; we may well maintain that it is excellent in its parts, and good even as a whole; that it is better suited than any other we know of to the purpose of public devotion, and affords no ground or fair excuse for separation, and yet believe it capable of some important improvements, and earnestly desire that it should receive them."
  Within a very recent period—namely, on the 1st of February, 1854—the present Archbishop of Canterbury spoke as follows—
  "Alterations might be advisable in many things connected with the Church. There might be improvements in some parts of our excellent Liturgy, and he had lamented the existing divisions, because they tended to place improvement and the amendment of inconsistencies and imperfections at a greater distance; but the whole constitution must be changed before the Church would have of itself the power of settling and determining these things. The matter must be decided by Parliament. The Act of Uniformity could only be regulated by Parliament; and his own impression was that a smaller body than Convocation—a Commission selected by Her Majesty of ten or twenty persons, clergymen and laymen—might well consider the matters requiring attention."
  158
  I shall conclude these quotations with a passage from the charge of the Lord Bishop of Limerick, delivered in the course only of last year—
  "Such, then, are my reasons for considering that the time has now arrived when increased knowledge, increased intelligence, and, in consequence, increased spirit of inquiry, have rendered such a revision necessary, seeing it may fairly be hoped that discussion may now be conducted with calmness and forbearance, which, if discontents be allowed to gather, might end in a disruption of that amity of spirit which alone can impart vitality in the connection between our Church and its Blessed Head, with Him who will in vain have broken down the wall of partition between his followers if our own discussions and divisions were to rear them up again."
  When to all this I add that those who ought to set us the highest and most scrupulous example of obedience to the laws are compelled to break the Act of Uniformity—that there is not a single right rev. Prelate sitting upon the bench who has not broken that Act of Parliament hundreds of times, and will not be compelled to break it for the rest of his life, I think your Lordships cannot but be of opinion that I have established the second part of my argument—namely, that a revision is not only desired, but desirable. I now come to the third and last point—namely, that the measure which I propose is both constitutional and expedient. That it is constitutional no one will deny, for, although alterations have been made in our Prayer Book, sometimes without the intervention of Parliament, sometimes without the intervention of Convocation, they have invariably been preceded by a Royal Commission. As to its expediency there can be as little doubt either, because before submitting a measure to a deliberative assembly it is the invariable practice, recommended not only by precedent but by common sense, and as indeed I have shown you, recommended by the Primate himself, that, where a matter is new, and involves a great collection of opinions and variety of details to be arranged, it should be referred to some smaller body of persons whose previous attention has been specially directed to the subject in question, and whose character commands the repect and confidence of the public. Having now stated why I think revision desirable, and how great a weight of authority I have upon my side, I will proceed to notice some of the objections which have been raised against it. They really are, however, of so general and intangible a nature that I hardly know how to express them. It is

  159
  said by some that if once we commence alterations there is no saying where they will stop. That is an objection your Lordships will hardly require me to reply to. But do those who say so really believe that our Liturgy is made of such perilous stuff, that it is a wall daubed with such untempered mortar, that at the slightest touch it will fall to pieces so that we shall be buried beneath its ruins? I, my Lords, hold no such opinion of it; I believe that it has struck its roots deep into a heavenly soil; that it is founded upon a rock; but that, being merely a human work, it partakes of human infirmities, and from time to time requires careful revision. If your Lordships will not believe me, perhaps you will not refuse your assent to what is found in the very forefront of the Prayer Book itself, like a beacon warning us against fatal delays, where it is said, "There never was anything by the wit of man so well devised or so surely established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted." But I think I may fairly define the principal objections by saying that they consist in this—that the present formularies being a sort of standing ground where parties holding different opinions may meet, if we alter them, they may, by narrowing the ground, become more exclusive, and so cause a disruption of the Church; that the present moment is not propitious; and that the appointment of a commission would rekindle the flame of religious discord. It is difficult at all times to prove a negative, but is there any reason to apprehend that a commission of inquiry, composed as it is sure to be, is likely to recommend such alterations? In the second place, are we certain that by standing still we shall avoid the supposed danger? As, however, one example is better than an hundred arguments, let me call your Lordships' attention to some historical facts which bear directly upon the point at issue. We have the experience of two great branches of the Church of Christ, one of which is an established church within our own knowledge, both of which desired alteration. In the Church of Scotland great differences arose, and your Lordships will remember how the Government of Lord Melbourne was importuned over and over again to interfere and endeavour to effect a compromise between the contending parties; that Government as constantly refused; nothing was done; and yet that Church was "rent in twain from the top to the bottom. The other was a branch of our
  160
  own Church—the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, receiving orders from ourselves. The Members of that Church desired a revision of the Liturgy. They made several very important alterations, most of which are, in my opinion, improvements, and not only no disruption took place, but—what is much more to the purpose—the American Church contains within her fold at the present moment men differing quite as much in opinion as any in our own communion. But when we are talking of disruption, do allow me to call your Lordships' attention to the history of another much more important Church, which we must not by any means omit from consideration. Two centuries ago it pleased the Legislature to pass an Act, called 'The Act of Uniformity,' in the preamble of which its paramount object was declared to be "to promote an universal agreement throughout the country in the worship of Almighty God." One hundred and eighty-eight years after it occurred to us to take a census of religious worship, and it was then discovered that, although the vast majority differed with us neither in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures nor the Divinity of our Saviour, nor in the triune nature of Jehovah, nor in justification by faith and sanctification by the Holy Spirit, nor in the general necessity of the two sacraments to salvation—we yet found that, out of ten million worshippers, five millions no longer belonged to our communion. What claim then has the Act of Uniformity to such a title? How does it not point out the utter inefficiency of Acts of Parliament or human devices, to bind the consciences of men! Talk of disruption! why, my Lords, was ever disruption more complete? I confess that it does appear to me not a little extraordinary that those who talk with so much earnestness of the apprehension of some future remote contingent disruption, should appear so utterly to ignore the fearful separation which has already taken place, and omit altogether the expression of desire for the healing of some of those deadly breaches which I am sure we all deplore. My Lords, I am aware that the statistics of religious worship to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention have been controverted. Upon the merits of the controversy I am unable to offer an opinion; but I think the public generally consider that, upon the whole, they are sufficiently accurate. But whatever may be the case in reference to those numbers in the

  161
  religious census, the fact is unquestionable that, notwithstanding the vast State endowments and the prodigious private wealth of the members of our communion, to our shame be it spoken, the Nonconformists of England have as large sums contributed and as extensive agency employed as we have for spreading the knowledge of a Saviour in the benightened and heathen regions of the world. Have we then parted company for ever? Are Euodia and Syntyche never to be reconciled? Are no attempts ever to be made in that direction? Is a closer unity a thing not worth contending for? My Lords, I do not assert that it is certain that by alterations in our Liturgy this will be effected; but I say that many whose opinions are well worthy of attention expect it. It cannot have escaped your Lordships' observation how great an approximation has been made of late years between Churchmen and Nonconformists—that there is among the latter a growing desire for a liturgy. Your Lordships will, then, I think, agree with me that, though we might not meet with success, the object is, at least, worth the attempt. I desire, my Lords, to abstain altogether from invidious comparisons, but I must say that among our Nonconformist brethren are to be found men of as great piety, ability, learning, self-denial, high-mindedness, and loyalty as are to be found among any class in the empire: and I am quite certain that there is not one of your Lordships who does me the honour to listen to me, who would not rejoice if, by the omission or alteration of some phrases of doubtful import in our Prayer Book, we should be able to include in our communion a Livingstone and a Havelock. But it is said by some that the moment is not propitious. My Lords, if we are to wait until all our differences are stilled, we had better abandon the idea of revision as hopeless. But it is added that if this Commission were granted it would greatly inflame religious differences. If such be the effect, all I can say is, it will be contrary to all history and all experience. I have just finished thirty-six years of Parliamentary life; and though my humble abilities have not enabled me to take any prominent part in public affairs, I have not been an inattentive observer; and I can most sincerely declare that I have never known a single instance where the granting of inquiry by a fair tribunal, has done otherwise than mitigate the mutual asperity of those whose difference of opinion caused
  162
  the investigation to be set on foot. But is there, in truth, any real danger? Surely there are interposed more than sufficient cheeks to prevent the possibility of any crude or hasty legislation upon the subject? Let us look at the ordeal through which any propositions of the Commissioners must pass. In the first place, they will be submitted to Convocation, then to the two Houses of Parliament, and then to the Sovereign for confirmation. I know that some persons have an objection to Convocation. Some think that it has too great a leaning in one direction, others look back with dissatisfaction to the history of its proceedings on former occasions of a like nature; but, my Lords, we are living in different times and differing circumstances, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me in thinking that any attempt to force alterations upon the clergy of the Established Church which are distasteful, I will not say to the majority, but even to any considerable minority of them, would be as foolish as it would be fruitless. Rightly or wrongly, the bulk of the clergy look to Convocation as their representative and guide, and will never willingly consent to anything which has not their previous sanction. I have now, then, I trust, shown that revision is both desired and desirable, and that the method by which I propose to accomplish it is both constitutional and expedient. I have the fullest confidence that, if your Lordships shall be pleased to adopt this proposal, my expectations would not be disappointed, because I am convinced that no sooner shall this commission commence its sittings than the united prayers of the whole Church of Christ in this country will be offered up for a blessing upon its deliberations; and if that be so, it would be infidelity to doubt that a gracious answer would be vouchsafed. My Lords, at the outset of my address I said that I thought this question, to be one the gravity and importance of which could not be exaggerated. I said so because I believe that, just in proportion as the Church has the means of delivering the Gospel message with fidelity, will be the safety of the institutions under which we live, and the welfare and happiness of every individual among us.
  I conclude by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for a Commission to consider whether the Liturgy of the Church of England be not capable of such Alterations as may render it more profiable than it now is for the Religious Instruction and Edification of the People."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, it is with great reluctance that I rise in opposition to the Motion which the noble Lord has submitted to your consideration. That reluctance, however, does not arise from any doubt of the duty which I owe to the Church on this occasion. It solely arises from the conviction which I feel that my noble Friend is acting in the full belief that he is consulting the interests of religion, and promoting the efficiency of that Church of which he is a conscientious member. Holding, my Lords, a very different opinion, in concurrence, I believe, with my right rev. Brethren, I shall briefly state the grounds of my opposition, and in so doing shall endeavour to imitate that spirit of candour and moderation of which the noble Mover has sot so eminent an example in the speech which he has made. My Lords, my noble Friend has entered upon a very wide field, proving the interest which he feels upon the subject and the pains which he has employed to make himself acquainted with its various bearings. Into that field it is not my intention to follow him, or to discuss particularly the several alterations, some of a verbal and others of a doctrinal nature, which he desires to see made in our Book of Common Prayer. I shall not enter upon these details, because my opposition is directed against the object itself which the Motion has in view. My objection is to the introduction of a measure which would agitate the minds of Churchmen from one end of the kingdom to the other. The noble Lord proposes that Her Majesty shall be requested to issue a Royal Commission to consider what alteration shall be made in our Liturgy. I will not stop to inquire whether a Royal Commission is the most proper method of instituting such an inquiry or no; but is the noble Lord aware that this would be the first apple of discord which his Motion would cast into the Church? I will not inquire whether a Royal Commission is the proper body from which alterations in the Liturgy should emanate, if alterations were to be made; it appears that I have already expressed an opinion to that effect. But I am aware at the same time that in the opinion of a large section of the Church it is not the proper body, and that any recommendations which they might agree to make would derive no advantage from the quarter in which they originated. But, to leave this question, the noble Lord passed very lightly over the fact that the most
  164
  trifling alterations in our established formularies can only be authorized by an Act of the Legislature, and, from whatever quarter they come, must be submitted to Parliament for its sanction. My Lords, the objections to subjecting our devotional formularies to Parliamentary discussion are so obvious that it would be superfluous to specify them. The noble Lord has treated the various subjects which he has brought forward with the prudence and moderation which were to be expected from his character. But can he guarantee the same discretion, the same forbearance, on the part of the members of a popular assembly? The doctrines involved in our formularies are doctrines on which there is a great difference of opinion; on which men think strongly and speak warmly; and the introduction of such topics into a Parliamentary debate would be likely to lead to a theological controversy of which it would be more easy to foresee the beginning than the end, but of which we might certainly foresee that it would be most unsuited to the place and the occasion. The necessity ought to be great indeed before we venture to encounter so obvious a danger. At the same time, my Lords, while I deprecate the proposed revision of the Liturgy, I do not take upon myself to say that if we were in the circumstances in which the compilers of our Liturgy were placed three centuries ago—if, unhappily (for I think it would be a serious misfortune), we were forced to frame a Liturgy de novo—I do not affirm that it would be, word for word, and sentence for sentence, the same as our ancestors have bequeathed to us. But, my Lords, we are not so placed; we possess a form of prayer sanctioned by the usage of 300 years and venerated by our people, who would be slow to understand the reasons of a change and apprehensive of what further changes might succeed. The necessity should be far greater than it is before we depart from this vantage-ground or surrender the position which we now occupy. Two conditions at least, my Lords, should be established before the attempt were made. The advantage to be gained should be so clear and manifest as to overbalance the danger and the risk; and there should be a general agreement upon the subject among the Members of the Church. My Lords, I contend that neither of these conditions is fulfilled at present. My noble Friend insists that certain alterations and omissions in our present Liturgy, are both desired and desirable. But he has abstain-

  165
  ed from saying what alterations are generally and expressly desired, and would find, if brought to the experiment, that there would be as many objectors as advocates with regard to every amendment he might propose. The noble Lord has laid great stress upon the advantages which he expects from shortening the Morning Service. But without altering the whole framework of the service the amount of gain would not, exceed five or at most ten minutes. In the course of my ministerial experience, I have heard many excuses from time to time for non-attendance at public worship, but I confess that 1 never remember that the length of the service has been alleged amongst them. Something, however, has been already done in that direction. The use of the litany alone, on special occasions, has been already approved by the Bishops, and has proved a valuable suggestion. The noble Lord, perhaps, is scarcely aware how many of the alterations and omissions which appear to himself evidently desirable would be vehemently opposed by others. Many things which he treats as blemishes others consider beauties, and even the repetitions which he objects to as imperfections, others defend as constituting the perfection of the whole; so that, instead of that general agreement which alone would justify the risk of change, the proposal of the noble Lord would be the signal of controversy throughout the land. My Lords, we have a bond of union now which it would be more easy to forfeit than to regain. All who officiate in our churches have declared their assent and consent to our Liturgy as it stands. I might defy the noble Lord to obtain the same assent and consent to any alterations which he would propose; and therefore I prefer retaining the good we have to risking evils which we know not of, and earnestly hope that your Lordships will see fit to negative the Motion of the noble Lord.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, that as no other Prelate had risen, their Lordships would perhaps allow him to express the sentiments which he felt with respect to the Motion of the noble Lord. He must confess that he had come down to the House with considerable curiosity to learn the grounds on which the noble Lord would rest his Motion. He knew, from various sources, the grounds on which many persons in the country approved it; but he had no idea of those which the noble Lord had to urge in support of it.
  166
  He also came down without the slightest feeling of prejudice on the subject, and, in fact, with a prepossession rather favourable to its general object. The noble Lord had done him the honour of referring to an opinion which he (the Bishop of St, David's) had expressed on a former occasion, to the effect that the Liturgy as a whole was not on absolutely perfect Work; and that it was susceptible of improvement. He did not deny having so expressed self—it was not an inspired work, and therefore might well be capable of amendment: but when he was asked to agree to a Motion for a Royal Commission, it did not appear to bins to be sufficient to consider simply whether the subject was one in which some improvement might be effected through the medium of such an agency, but whether there was any probability, or possibility even, of such an improvement resulting as would warrant so important a measure as the issuing of a Royal Commission. In his opinion, the noble Lord had not done justice to one part of his subject, while he had greatly exaggerated the force of another part. The noble Lord proposed to prove that some alteration in the Liturgy was desirable, and in support of that view he referred to a large mass of correspondence from various persons who expressed themselves strongly in favour of some alteration. It appeared to him that the noble Lord might very much have strengthened that part of his case; because there could be no doubt that there were large classes of men to whom the noble Lord had not in the slightest degree adverted, who must, be strongly in favour of an alteration. In the first place, of course, there was that numerous body of persons who conscientiously dissented from the doctrine and discipline, of the Church, and whom it would be impossible to reconcile to the Church without very material changes in the Liturgy. There was another very large consisting of those who, though not dissenting from the Church in matters of doctrine or even discipline, had an aversion to any form of prayer and to any Liturgy whatever; it being more conformable to their feelings and habits to enjoy that kind of intellectual excitement which proceeded from a perpetual novelty in the prayers offered up in places of public worship. That was a class also whom it would unfortunately be hopeless to attempt to conciliate by any such change as the noble Lord could possibly have in view. Then, again, there

  167
  was within the Church itself a considerable difference of opinion upon this point; and there were those who would prefer to give a preponderance to that part of the service which at present occupied the smallest portion of time—the preaching of the Word of God; whereas, according to the system and whole theory of the Church of England, it was an unquestionable fact that the liturgical element had always preponderated over the other. This difference of opinion was not peculiar to the Church of England. It prevailed in the Lutheran communion abroad, and precisely the same contrast existed between the Lutherans in the western provinces of Prussia and those in the eastern. That, again, was a difference of opinion which never could be removed by any such change as the noble Lord appeared to contemplate. Therefore, although it was perfectly true that an alteration was desired by a much larger class of persons than the noble Lord had adverted to, it was for their Lordships to consider whether, by any change of which they could encourage the remotest hope, any of those classes could be conciliated or brought nearer to the doctrine and discipline of the Church. With respect to the desirableness of the measure proposed, he thought that the noble Lord had as much exaggerated that part of his subject as he had failed to do justice to the other. When they were told that a measure was desirable, it was necessary that they should be informed for what purpose it was desirable. On that head he had experienced great difficulty in understanding the precise nature of the noble Lord's views, and he must say that the only clear, plain, and palpable reason which the noble Lord had assigned for thinking an alteration desirable appeared to be very slight and insufficient for a measure of such importance. Although there were other reasons to which the noble Lord had slightly alluded, and, indeed, had rather indicated than distinctly expressed, the only objection which he had clearly enunciated appeared to resolve itself into this, that on certain occasions the service of the Church occupied an amount of time which was perhaps wearisome both to the minister and the congregation. He (the Bishop of St. David's) did not deny that, and he was sure that there were numerous clergymen who experienced very considerable inconvenience from that cause. The instance on which the noble Lord rested the whole case was one in which the service
  168
  lasted, on a Sunday when the Holy Communion was administered, from eleven o'clock to nearly half past two. He admitted that that was an inconvenient length, and that there were few who would not feel some degree of fatigue at the end of a service so prolonged; but the noble Lord had entirely overlooked the question as to the amount of relief which would be afforded in such cases by the alterations that he had suggested. The noble Lord had recommended the retrenchment of some repetitions in the existing service; but even if two out of the three services which were usually performed together were on some occasions to be omitted, he believed that the time saved would not exceed half an hour, for that was in ordinary eases about the length of the Wednesday and Friday services. This must very much abate the interest which persons might be inclined to feel in the question; because, if that inconvenience, which was the greatest that the noble Lord had distinctly pointed out, was of such a nature that it really did not admit of a remedy, what was there remaining of such importance as to call for the extraordinary step of a Royal Commission? If it could be proved that the restrictions of the Act of Uniformity were of so unbending a nature that they entirely excluded any exertions on the part of the Church for the benefit of those classes of the community who could not be expected to give their time and attention to the full services of the Church, or that there were in the existing regulations of the Church any obstruction to those special services which had been recently established for the especial benefit of the working classes, he should have admitted that the noble Lord might have made out a very strong case for a Royal Commission; but, so far as he could see, the only result which could be reasonably anticipated from such a measure under existing circumstances was one which would not in the slightest degree affect the spiritual interests of the great mass of the community, and would to the smallest possible extent affect the convenience of a very small portion of ministers and congregations, and those only on certain rare occasions. Then, if such were the case, what could be the result of the issue of such a Commission as was proposed? The excitement of hopes which were certain to be disappointed, and the creation of dissensions which it was better for the Church and for

  169
  religion itself should not be raised. He did not recede in the slightest degree from any opinion which he had ever expressed upon this subject; and, so far as inquiry was concerned, he should be quite favourable to any measure which held out a prospect of really ascertaining the feelings and wishes of the great body both of the clergy and the laity with respect to it. He doubted very much, however, whether such would be the effect of a Royal Commission, for he thought it would be a delusion which would disappoint the hopes of those who expected that it would be attended with any satisfactory result, It would, therefore, leave us, in the main, precisely where we now are—a position in which there were large parties to whom you could give neither complete satisfaction, nor hold out reasonable hopes.
  EARL GREYsaid, that beyond doubt this was a subject in which a deep and general interest was taken, and was one of great public importance. He certainly concurred in many of the observations of his noble Friend who had brought this subject before their Lordships, and was decidedly of opinion that the Liturgy might be revised in such a manner as to render it much more acceptable than it was at present to the general body of the people. He would, however, earnestly press his noble Friend (Lord Ebury) not to ask the House to come to a vote upon this question. He did not make this request because he differed from his noble Friend either as to the propriety of inquiry or as to the mode of inquiry which he suggested, but simply on the ground that, in the present state of opinion in the country and in the Church upon this subject, he did not think there would be the general assent anticipated by his noble Friend to the course which he recommended, and which was necessary to the attainment of any useful result. The most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had very justly said that any alteration in the Liturgy, although it might be of great importance in itself, was not desirable if it did not carry with it the assent of even the great body of the Church, and that the dissent of any considerable minority would destroy the value of the concession. He believed there was much truth in what he understood the moat rev. Prelate to assert—that those alterations which some persons might deem moat desirable would be regarded by others as highly objectionable. He (Earl
  170
  Grey) was aware that some alterations for which he was himself most anxious would meet with the most strenuous opposition. As, in such a state of things, there seemed to be no prospect of arriving at any agreement upon the subject, he thought it would be most prudent to postpone any action upon a matter of so much importance to a period when it was likely to be attended with more success than could be anticipated at the present moment. He could not refrain from adding, however, that it seemed to him a great reflection upon the members of the Church, that with reference to a subject of this kind, when seine improvement was admitted to be urgently required in order to secure the increased efficiency of that Church, men could not agree to give up their own individual and peculiar opinions so far as to arrive at some general arrangement. He certainly thought it a reproach to the Church that its members were unable, by mutual concessions, to arrive at some common understanding, which would doubtless render the services of that Church more acceptable to the great body of the people. He trusted the time would come when—if the Church was to stand—the necessity of securing for it a stronger hold upon the attachment of the people would induce its members to waive those points of difference which there was now so much disinclination to abandon. It was unquestionably of extreme importance that some such improvement as that to which his noble Friend had adverted should be effected; he must, however, again express a hope that his noble Friend would not on the present occasion press his Motion to a division.
  THE BISHOP OF CASHELsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord who brought forward the Motion, that the Liturgy, as a human institution, was not unsusceptible of improvement. Since the Act of Uniformity was adopted, however, and since the changes in the Liturgy were adopted in 1662, the Churches of England and Ireland had been united, and while he admitted that improvements might be effected the question arose, "By whom shall such an Amendment be made?" The noble Lord had stated that Convocation was the legal and proper authority for effecting the improvements required; but no Convocation now existed which was qualified to legislate for the whole United Church of England and Ireland. The Address to Her Majesty ought to be

  171
  framed in such terms as to request Her Majesty to devise means by which a Convocation which would really represent the United Church of England and Ireland might be assembled, and such a body might properly be intrusted with the task of sanctioning the improvements considered desirable. It must be remembered, however, that all changes were not improvements; and, if Convocation were empowered to consider what alterations were necessary, some members of that body might desire to render the services of the Church more conformable to those of the Roman Catholic Church, while others might think that the services of the Churches of England and Ireland in their present form approached too nearly the ritual of the Roman Catholic Church. An eloquent historian of the present day (Lord Macaulay) referred in these terms to the changes which were proposed in 1698:—
  "The English Liturgy, indeed, gains by being compared even with those fine ancient Liturgies from which it is, to a great extent, takes. The essential qualities of devotional elequence, conciseness, majestic sympathy, pathetic earnestness, of supplication, sobered by a profound reverence, are common between the translations and the originals; but in the subordinate graces of diction the originals must be allowed to be far inferior to the translations. And the reason is obvious. The technical phraseology of Christianity did not become a part of the Latin language till that language had passed the age of maturity and was sinking into barbarism. But the technical phraseology of Christianity was found in the Anglo Saxon and the Norman French, long before the union of those two dialects had produced a third dialect superior to either. The Latin of the Roman Catholic services, therefore, is Latin in the last stage of decay. The English of our services is English in all the vigour and suppleness of early youth. To the great Latin writers, to Terence and Lucretius, to Cicero and Cæsar, to Tacitus and Quintilian, the noblest compositions of Ambrose and Gregory would have seemed to be not merely bad writing, but senseless gibberish. The diction of our Book of Common Prayer, on the other hand, has directly or indirectly contributed to form the diction of almost every great English writer, and has extorted the admiration of the most accomplished Infidels and of the most accomplished Nonconformists—such men as David Hume and Robert Hall. The style of the Liturgy, however, did not satisfy the Doctors of the Jerusalem Chamber. They voted the Collects too short and too dry; and Patrick was intrusted with the duty of expanding and ornamenting them. In one respect, at least, the choice seems to have been unexceptionable; for, if we judge by the way in which Patrick paraphrased the most sublime Hebrew poetry, we shall probably be of opinion that, whether he was or was not qualified to make the Collects better, no man that ever lived was more competent to make them longer."
  As he had before said, all changes were
  172
  not improvements, and he might mention that the Presbyterians and other Dissenting bodies found it a matter of difficulty to correct the evils which some of them believed to exist in the forms of their respective services. There was no such thing to be found as anything that pleased everybody. In reference to the Liturgy of the Church of England he would read a quotation from an article in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review:—
  "The Prayer Book of the Church of England is nothing else than the old service of the Church reformed. The Church of England did not need a Liturgy, nor was the man living that could have composed a Liturgy that would have been received. Her Liturgy had been the growth of centuries; it was rooted in the affections of her people, its words were as music in their ears, its varied festivals and fasts had hallowed the whole Christian year. With the reformation of religion there was, of course, a revision of the Church's Liturgy, but that revision was conducted on the principle of retaining all, in substance and in form, that could be retained. This, which was the great offence in the eyes of the Puritans, was the special excellence and glory of the English Reformation. The Mercersburg Reviewer is astonished at the immeasurable superiority of the Prayer Book to the Liturgies of Calvin, Knox, and Baxter; and the Edinburgh Review is forced to say that 'the Liturgy of the Church of England, notwithstanding some faults, is, perhaps, the most perfect of existing Liturgies.'"
  "This Prayer Book of the Church of England, after all the changes that it underwent through a long period of revision, gave still to her sons and daughters the old creeds, the old psalms and hymns and spiritual songs that their souls loved; they still heard the voice to which they had been accustomed to yield glad submission, and hence while the Liturgies of the Reformation, as the Edinburgh Review declares, are probably less known to the Christians of England and America than the Liturgies of Antioch and Cæsarea, and many persons know not that such Liturgies were ever used, the Prayer Book of the Church of England has lost nothing of its hold on the affectionate reverence of the millions who now find its ancient and time-hallowed forms a fit expression of their most profound religious feelings."
  He said he would not detain their Lordships any longer by citing other very striking testimonies from Presbyterians and others, who, seeking reform and improvement in their own services, admitted that there was no Liturgy like the Liturgy of the Church of England. It was not asserted that no reform, no improvement was required; but the desideratum was, that any necessary alteration should be effected by a body that was legally and properly qualified to do it, such as a Convocation of the Church of England and Ireland. They did not object to any improvement; they did not want length in lieu of brevity;

  173
  semi-Popery instead of pure episcopality and unadulterated Protestantism; they did not want the Socinian to give them less of Christ, or the worldling to give them less of spirituality of feeling; but what they wanted was, the retention of all the excellencies, and, above all, the evangelical truths of our beautiful Liturgy, removing its blemishes and retaining its sublimities and truths.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Your Lordships, who know as well as I do the character and ability of the noble Lord who has brought this Motion before you, who are acquainted with the sincerity of his religious belief and his anxiety for the welfare of the Established Church, will not for a single moment doubt the good motives and objects be has in view, in bringing this matter before your Lordships' consideration. My Lords, I feel that I could not be altogether silent on this subject, and undoubtedly from the position which I have the honour to occupy, I consider that it is almost my duty to take up a few moments of your time. At the same time, my Lords, I feel that all I can say on the subject has been already so fully stated before by the noble Lord and the most rev. and right rev. Prelates who have addressed you, and whose observations I think, appear to have received the general sanction and approval of your Lordships' House. At the same time, my Lords, while I confess on the one hand—what it is impossible to deny—that in the beautiful Liturgy of our Church,—and a more perfect Liturgy I believe never was devised—that in our beautiful Liturgy there are undoubtedly here and there imperfections and blemishes; that there are casual and not perhaps carefully considered expressions, which are not exactly suited to the greater refinement of modern times; that there are ideas expressed here and there with a carelessness and coarseness repugnant in some degree to our more modern feelings of refinement; that occasionally there are superfluous and therefore injurious repetitions; that some of the lessons for the day, or of the week-day service, are not, perhaps, precisely so orthodox in expression as they might be, and different from that which the present times require:—yet, the question which we have to consider is, not whether in a work like our great liturgical work of the Church of England—a work of the utmost possible importance, and of the greatest beauty and perfection—there are some slight de-
  174
  fects and some slight blemishes which we would fain see altered or removed; but the question, my Lords, is whether, for the purpose of removing these blemishes and defects, it is desirable to take a step so authoritative and extensive, and in my mind so hazardous, as that which is proposed by the noble Lord in proposing that a Royal Commission be appointed to ascertain what alterations should be made in the Liturgy. My Lords, in the first place, I beg to say that a Commission of this kind would, in my opinion, greatly prejudice the confidence of the public mind as to the opinion which the Legislation and the country entertain of the general merits of the Liturgy; and I think, moreover, that the public mind would be slow to discriminate between the objects which my noble Friend has, I know, so sincerely in view—namely, the removal or erasure here and there of casual and insignificant blemishes—and the far wider construction that would be put upon your Lordships' vote—namely, that you were issuing a Commission for the purpose of inquiring generally into the merits of demerits of the Liturgy. My Lords, if such a misapprehension should arise in the public mind it would, in my judgment, be a most serious injury, and have the worst possible effect. But, my Lords, my noble Friend founded a portion of his argument in favour of this Commission on the fact that a very considerable portion of the population of this country at present absent themselves from the services of the Church on account of their dissent from seine of the formulæ of the Liturgy. Now, I ask my noble Friend whether he really thinks that any such alterations as he may devise—that any such alterations as he may recommend—although they might possibly satisfy the desire and wishes of some of the anxious friends of the Church—I would ask him whether he really contemplates that the Commission he recommends should enter on such a course of amendment and revision as would satisfy the conscientious scruples of those Dissenters and Nonconformists who differ from the doctrines of the Church. If the proposition of the noble Lord has reference only to the removal of slighter blemishes and defects, then I think the work would be a hazardous one. I believe it is not the intention of the noble Lord to advocate a wholesale or concentrated revision of our Liturgy; but the noble Lord would find that if this Commission were appointed it would not

  175
  confine itself to the consideration of mere casual or inconsistent expressions and repetitions, or to a mere chance superfluous expression here and there, and matters de minimis, but that in all probability it would be the doctrines and principles of the Liturgy that would be made a subject of discussion by the Commission; and if the noble Lord seeks to bring back to our flock those who dissent from the Church of England, he would have to go to a length that he does not intend in proposing to employ the Commission to inquire only into casual expressions, or into the greater or lesser length of the services. Nor indeed might the consideration of the Commission on the question be confined to the combination of the different services into one, but they might also examine whether in the Liturgy there were expressions used which confirmed and strengthened certain doctrinal opinions, and which would constitute points for consideration, and be anxiously contended for by one party, and as anxiously repudiated and opposed by the other. And the result of this would be to embarrass the proceedings of the Commission itself. In the present state of the Church, I do not see how it would be possible, in view of the different religious denominations that exist, that differences of opinion should not arise, not only amongst them, but amongst the members of the Commission itself; but I am sure that the result of it would be, that every person, nominally in the Church or not, who sought to dissent from the doctrines of the Church, would come forward with propositions for changing some particular prayer or some specific expression in some particular sentence in the Liturgy, which in their opinion it was very inconvenient to retain and inconsistent with the doctrines and unorthodox with respect to the views which they were desirous to have expressed. Therefore, my Lords, if in the appointment of this Commission you mean to deal with the suggestions and ideas of those who differ and dissent from some of the forms and doctrines of the Church, and if you wish to satisfy their scruples, depend upon it their scruples will not be satisfied by the mere changing of terms and technicalities of expression, but that they will stipulate for a change in doctrinal truths and matters, some of which would be found to be among the most fundamental doctrines of the Church of England. My Lords, I think the professed object to be
  176
  attained by my noble Friend in proposing this Commission is not adequate to the risk, inconvenience, and embarrassment it would occasion; because, instead of having a tendency to remove differences of opinion on doctrinal truths, it would only have a tendency materially to increase them, as well as to embitter denominational differences among those who might possibly be of opinion that it did not tend to a revision of doctrine. The Commission would lead to no useful results and subserve no useful purpose; and if, on the other hand, it did tend to a revision of doctrine, it would be found perhaps to shake the confidence of the people in the Liturgy as a whole. It is, my Lords, because I entertain these opinions that I earnestly hope my noble Friend—now that he has had an opportunity of bringing forward and giving publicity to the proposition that he has made, and which he has submitted with great moderation, temper, and clearness, for the consideration of your Lordships' House—will not press his Motion to a division on a question which is opposed to the opinion not only of the whole of the episcopal Bench—a not unimportant consideration on a question of this nature—but to the feeling of a great majority of your Lordships, and I believe, if the whole question were put before them, of all sincere and reflecting friends of the Church.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he must be permitted to join in complimenting the noble Lord who had moved the Address on the admirable manner and sincere tone in which he had brought forward his proposition. It appeared to him that a large part of the noble Lord's arguments had not been answered. The noble Lord had shown conclusively that there was nothing in the Liturgy in itself that showed it should not be altered. He had shown that it had undergone various alterations, and that some of the most eminent men and divines had concurred in making them, and that since the last alterations many eminent divines had expressed their desire to make further changes. However much we might admire our liturgical service, it was impossible not to see the defects pointed out by the noble Lord. The real difficulty in the matter was, that neither the noble Lord nor the right rev. Prelates had been enabled to lay before the House any plan or proposition as to the mode in which these alterations should be made, or as to the nature of those alterations, He (Earl Granville) had no doubt that the dis-

  177
  cussion that had taken place would produce a beneficial effect on the public mind; but the subject was one that ought to be carefully considered before any positive step was taken. After the declaration of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, he thought the noble Lord would not persist in or have a chance of carrying his Motion, and that it had better be withdrawn, leaving the discussion to have its due weight on the minds of the public at large.
  LORD ABINGERthought that identified as the personal habits of the people and the constitution of this country were with the Liturgy, it was a difficult and delicate subject to deal with; but in his communications with some of the clergy, he found that they were in favour of a change. They did not advocate any change in the doctrines of the Liturgy, but what they did desire was a shortening of the services; and he had heard that in consequence of the long readings, hoarseness and sore throat were not uncommon among the clergy.
  LORD EBURYsaid, that after the opinions expressed by the two noble Earls who led the two different parties in the House, and the opposition of the spiritual Peers, he should not persevere with his Motion. He would adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl, and not put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn,

LORD CANNING'S PROCLAMATION.
EARL GRANVILLEhoped that the despatch sent out by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Control with reference to the Proclamation of Lord Canning would be laid at once on the table of the House. He was not aware that he should take any course on the question, but very possibly he might call the attention of the House to the subject.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.