Sitting of 17 February 1859

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Marylebone, v. Viscount, Ebrington, Manor of Northstead.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Greenwich, Alder-

471
man David Salomons, being a person professing the Jewish Religion, took and subscribed the Oath required by Law, and in pursuance of the Resolution of the House of the 16th February;—for Galway Town, John Orrell Lever, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1oReal Estate Intestacy; Juries (Ireland); Edinburgh, &c., Annuity Tax; Newspapers, &c.
2o Registration of County Voters (Scotland).

THE PERSIAN EXPEDITION.—THE INDIAN ARMY, &c.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESbegged to ask the Secretary of State for India whether extra Batta will be given to the Troops of the successful Persian Expedition, having reference to the privations and inconveniences to which the force was exposed on board ship, particularly the Native portion of the force; whether the recommendations by Brigadier General Jacob, dated Bushire, 13th of July, 1857, of certain Officers and Men for the Victoria Cross, is to be carried into effect; whether the Civilians who have distinguished themselves in a military capacity during the Mutiny in India are to have any specific mark of the approbation of Her Majesty's Government; whether the Report of the Commission upon the Reorganization of the Indian Army will be laid upon the table of the House; and whether, as the maintenance of a Standing Army under the Crown, independently of the Annual Mutiny Act, involves a Constitutional question, time will be given to the House to consider any recommendations in the Report before they are carried into effect?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that with reference to the first Question, he understood that it was not usual to grant such indulgences as those to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, except upon the recommendation of the Government of India, and in the present case no such recommendation had been received. With regard to the second Question, he had made inquiries for the list of officers and men recommended by General Jacob for the Victoria Cross, and he was told that it had not been yet officially received from India. With regard to the third Question, two despatches had been sent to the Governor General of India—the last in September, but as yet no answer had been received—to inquire for a list of civilians who had distinguished themselves by military services during the mutiny. It was undoubtedly proper that they should be rewarded; but with regard to the manner the Gover-
  472
  ment would wait until they had received the recommendations of the local Government. With regard to the fourth Question the Report would undoubtedly, as a public document, be laid on the table of the House. To the last Question, he felt some difficulty in giving a more definite reply than that he thought it would be an ill-advised step on the part of any Government to take any decisive steps in so important a matter without giving time for the full and free expression of public opinion.

TELEGRAPH TO ALEXANDRIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORDbegged to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was true, as reported, that Her Majesty's Government had concluded a Convention with the Austrian Government for the establishment of a line of Telegraphic Communication with Alexandria, on the principle of a financial guarantee on the part of this country; and, if so, when a Copy of the said Convention will be laid on the table.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was not true that Her Majesty's Government had entered into a Convention with the Austrian Government; but the terms on which such a Convention would probably be concluded had been settled, and when the Convention was concluded it would, of course, be laid on the table of the House. If it were carried out on the terms which had been agreed upon it would include a financial guarantee, but not an unconditional guarantee.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Her Majesty's Government intend to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the people in Ireland this Session; and, if so, whether he can state about what time?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that with the permission of the House he would propose to defer answering questions respecting future Reform Bills until the 28th instant, when he should make a general statement on the subject.

CHINESE TARIFF AND TRADE REGULATIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. GREGSONasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs if the Copies

473
of the new Chinese Tariff and new Trade Regulations published in the North China Herald are correct?
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he had had the tariff and trade regulations compared with the documents which the Government possessed at the Foreign Office. The tariff was correct, and the trade regulations were substantially correct also.

THE BALLOT IN NEW SOUTH WALES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Bill or Act, establishing the Ballot at elections in the Colony of New South Wales, and passed by the Legislature of that Colony, has been sent over by the Governor for the Royal Assent; and, if so, whether such Assent had been given?
  SIR E. BULWER LYTTONsaid, that such a Bill had been received. The Royal Assent had not been given. It was under consideration.

LAND TRANSPORT CORPS.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether the rank given, "pending Her Majesty's pleasure," to Officers of the Land Transport Corps, by general orders in the Crimea, was to be confirmed to them; and, if so, from what date?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he had mentioned on a former evening that he had recommended the Treasury that the rank should be confirmed to them, and he was in correspondence with the Treasury on the subject.

THE COLONIES.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Return, ordered last Session, of the cost of the several Colonies to the Imperial Exchequer will be laid upon the table of the House?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was a Treasury question. Immediately after the Return was ordered circulars were sent to the different departments for information; but as the Address asked for a Return in a different form from what was usual, there was difficulty in getting the details. Two Returns had not been received, and one other required some alteration; but he hoped shortly to have them laid on the table.

REAL ESTATE INTESTACY.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. LOCKE KING:* Sir, It is now some time since I asked the House to take into consideration, the propriety of altering the law of succession to real estate in cases of intestacy, and to make a law more in accordance with the age of progress in which we live. My reason for not having brought this subject under the consideration of the house during the last two years is simply this, that having introduced a variety of other measures which I felt confident would be attended with success, in which I have not been disappointed, I was unwilling to trespass too largely on that kind indulgence which the House has invariably shown me; not that I think any question can be of much greater importance than that a uniform, and above all, a just law should settle the estates of intestates.
  When I first brought this question forward, I was indeed surprised to find the vast amount of ignorance which prevailed generally among all classes, as to the state of the law which settles how the real and personal estates of intestates shall descend. I also found there was something even worse than ignorance on the subject to contend with; for, after all, one may easily inform those who are unacquainted with the working of a law as to its consequences. They then frequently become warm advocates of a change in that law, when they see that it is unjust and cruel. I found, however, there was such a deepseated prejudice in favour of the existing law of succession to real estate, not supported by argument, or even by common sense, wrapped up and shrouded as it were in itself, that it seemed next to impossible to uproot it. I am happy to say that this prejudice is dying out, and that the present state of the law is beginning to be understood by those whom it injuriously affects, namely, the small owners of land or houses; they see that a change in the existing law is essential for the happiness of the families in the class to which they belong. On the other hand, the owners of large landed estates see the proposed alteration in the law will not affect them; it will not diminish the size of their estates, or compel them to divide those estates where they had rather not do so. They will be as free as they are now.
  I shall endeavour to explain to the House, in a very few plain words, the state of the law, the complaint I make against it, and the alteration I propose. If there are

  475
  honourable Gentlemen who are still in favour of the existing law, I ask them for a few moments to give me their attention; and I think I shall be able to convince them, that the Bill I ask leave to introduce is just, and that the times we live in really do require that laws which were intended for a very different state of society, should now at all events be modified.
  The Statute of Distributions, which passed in the reign of Charles II., "for the better settling intestates' estates," is, on the whole, a satisfactory law, simple in its operation, well understood, and, above all, it is just.
  We have now, as far as personal estate is concerned, since the Bill which I had the honour to introduce for abolishing the customs of London, York, and other places, has been placed on the Statute-book, an uniform law throughout the kingdom. The law, on the other hand, which regulates the descent of the landed estate of an intestate, is founded on the very opposite principle, if it has any principle at all. It is a perfect chaos, inconsistent with itself, and generally admitted to be oppressive and unjust, whenever it comes into operation.
  Under the Statute of Distributions, where a parent dies intestate, leaving a widow and children, his property being personal is distributed in a very equitable manner; one-third goes to his widow, and two-thirds go to his children. Or in the event of a person leaving a widow and no children, then one half goes to the widow and the other half to the next of kin.
  If we turn to land, in a similar case, we find that where a parent dies intestate, leaving a widow and children, if his estate be freehold land, the whole of it descends to the eldest son, and the remaining children and the widow are, under the sanction of the law, left destitute.
  Such is the law where the intestate dies possessed of freehold land; but where the land is leasehold, and there is a great deal leased for 99 years, 500 years, or even 1000 years, or 10,000 years, in value quite equal to freehold,—here a most happy quibble of the law steps in and distributes it as personal estate.
  Again, leasehold differs from leasehold; for if the leasehold be for lives, and not for a term of years, then a most unhappy quibble of the law steps in, and determines that such a leasehold shall descend as real estate does, and not as personal estate. I have only as yet mentioned the anomalous,
  476
  absurd, and inconsisent state of the law, as far as freehold and leasehold estate is concerned; I will now call the attention of the House to a series of other most glaring anomalies, which affect the landed property of intestates. As I am not a lawyer, and always tremble lest I should be caught up by those honourable Gentlemen who belong to that learned profession, I will read the description which was once given in this House by one of its brightest ornaments:—
  "Is it fitting or consistent with reason, or indeed with justice, that merely crossing the river, or travelling a distance of some miles in this neighbourhood, should make so great an alteration in the law of real property, as that to the eastward of us all the sons inherit equally,—to the westward the youngest alone,—and here the eldest? But these rules of the Common Law, of Gavelkind, and Borough English, are better known and operate within more defined limits. What shall be said of the Customary Tenures in a thousand manors, all different from the Common Law that regulates freehold estates, most of them differing from each other? Is it, I ask, fit that this multitude of laws, this variety of codes, the relics of a barbarous age, should be allowed to exist in a country subject to the same general bonds of government. … In some manors the eldest daughter succeeds to the exclusion of her sisters, as the eldest daughter (in default of male heirs) succeeds to the Crown of England; in other manors, all the daughters succeed jointly, as copartners after the manner of the Common Law. In some manors, the wife has her dower one-third of the tenement, as in the case of freehold; in others, she has for her 'free bench' one half; and again, in some she takes the whole for life, to the exclusion of the heir. The fines on death and alienation vary; the power and manner of entailing and cutting off entails vary; the taking of heriots and lord's services varies. There are as many or more of these local laws than in France, in the Pays de Coutume, of which I have seen four hundred enumerated, so as to make it the chief opprobium of the old French Law, that it differed in every village. Is it right that such varieties of custom should be allowed to have force in particular districts, contrary to the law of the land?"
  Now, the Bill which I ask the House to allow me to introduce would, in cases of intestacy, do away with all these absurd distinctions; it would make one uniform law for all the property of intestates, whatever that property is, whether real or personal; and it would, above all, be founded on a principle, and would be in its nature just.
  It has been the habit with persons in favour of the present law, to accustom themselves to believe that it was a part of the ancient institutions of the country. This is quite a mistake; for in those days of freedom, of which we are justly proud, our Saxon forefathers not only had no such law, but the very opposite was in force, for

  477
  all the land was divided equally among all the sons and daughters. The present law was introduced by the Normans, the more effectually to subdue and break the spirit of a conquered nation. I admit that, in those days, there may have been reasons which made it expedient to have such a law, and not to be unjust. It was expedient then that the descent of land should form a part of a vast military system. But I ask, do you want the descent of land to be so ordered for such a purpose now? We do not require now great lords and knights, with their retainers and vassals, as a part of our military system. Those laws show what were the habits of a people who knew not the true principles of legislation, and who were ruled in such a way as to make them seek to be conquerors abroad rather than to be happy at home.
  Adam Smith remarks with great force:—
  "When land was considered the means not of subsistence merely, but of power and protection, it was thought better that it should descend undivided to one. In those disorderly times every great landlord was a sort of petty prince.
  "Laws frequently continue in force long after the circumstances which first gave occasion to them, and which could alone render them reasonable, are no more. In the present state of Europe, the proprietor of a single acre of land is as perfectly secure of his possession as the proprietor of a hundred thousand."
  Certainly this law has continued in force long after the circumstances which first gave occasion for it, and alone rendered it reasonable, have ceased.
  I ought to say, that, from my having repeatedly brought this question forward, I have become acquainted with a vast number of cases of real hardship and suffering to widows and fatherless children, through the state of the law, and solely from the father not being acquainted with it. I make bold to say, that among the middle classes there is scarcely one in a hundred who knows the law; they always imagine that land descends as money does. I am able to say that the discussions in this House have done good, for I know of several cases where fathers have made wills, and felt most happy that they have rescued their children from the cruelty of the law, from misery and ruin.
  It must not be thought that these cruel cases occur only where there are children
  I myself have had, among many others, a case of peculiar cruelty to a widow, brought under my notice. A small tradesman married a woman with some money; no settlement was made on the marriage,
  478
  he would not invest her money in his business, lest it should run any risk of being lost. After they had lived very happily together for some years, the house they resided in was for sale; he told his wife that it would be a very good investment for her money, and accordingly he bought it. He died intestate, ignorant of the law; his own nephew, his heir-at-law, claimed and took the house, and the widow is now destitute, a menial servant.
  Such was the barbarous state of the law in this civilized country only a year ago, that the wife was deprived of her honest earnings. The wife even now is obliged to have a settlement made, because, unless that is done, her husband may rob her of all the property she had. The husband again, the owner of freehold land, is obliged to make a will, solely because the law would rob her and all her children, except one, of perhaps their all.
  It is the fashion with some to say, for want of better argument, that this Bill should do away with what they call the law of primogeniture. Now I think this is altogether a mistake; for, seeing that there is no law which compels a man to give all his property or land to his eldest son, there cannot be a law of primogeniture. Under the Norman dynasty there was, no doubt, a law of primogeniture, for no man could leave land by will, or even alienate it, or part with it in any way. Kent in his "Commentaries on American Law," shows us pretty plainly what was the feeling in the feudal times. He tells us:—
  "This restraint on alienation was a violent and unnatural state of things, and contrary to the nature and value of property, and the inherent and universal love of independence. It arose partly from favour to the heir, and partly from favour to the lord; and the genius of the feudal system was originally so strong in favour of restraint upon alienation, that, by a general ordinance of the 'Book of Fiefs,' the hand of him who knowingly wrote a deed of alienation was directed to be struck of."
  The stringency of these laws was modified about 300 years ago, when Henry VIII., for the first time, allowed by statute land to be devised by will.
  It was then that the law of primogeniture was repealed; from the Norman Conquest up to that time it had been in full force. It was then that the first inroad was made on this great military system. All I ask is, in the event of a person dying without a will, a uniform and just law should apply to all property, that land should not differ from land, that land

  479
  should not differ from all other property. It is the duty of society in such cases to make a just law, and to see that those who have a natural right to be provided for, out of the property of a deceased, should not be left to starve, solely because he has not made a will: society is bound in such a case to make a will, founded at all events on the principle of justice.
  I hope, hon. Gentlemen, the possessors of landed estates will not be alarmed at this proposed modification of the law, for it cannot affect them. Their estates are almost invariably settled or entailed in such a way that they have not the trouble of making a will; their wills are generally made for them, not uncommonly before they were born. But in any cases where they happen to be free, they can always enforce the present law; they can make their own law, by merely expressing that wish in writing,—their alarm is after all imaginary.
  There always have been in Parliament great difficulties in making any change in the laws relating to landed property. I would refer in proof of this to the difficulty the great Romilly had to contend with when he proposed to make freehold estates assets for the payment of debts. A man could incur simple contract debts to any amount, and yet his freehold estate was in no way liable for their payment. The alarm was so great that for ten years Parliament actually refused him this simple and just proposal. All that this great man could do, after ten years' labour, was to get Parliament to make the freehold estates of traders liable for the payment of their simple contract debts. The remark in his "Diary" is very forcible. He says:—
  "Many of the objections which were made to the former Bill are applicable to this—that it is an innovation; that it is to affect land without evidence in writing; that it holds out a delusive credit, &c. There has not however been a single word uttered in opposition to the Bill in any stage of it. Country gentlemen have no objection to tradesmen being made to pay their debts; and to the honour of men in trade—of whom there are a good many in the House—they too had no objection to it."
  And we have long since acknowledged the principle that the personal estate of intestates should provide for the maintenance of children; but we maintain the law that one child should, where real estate is concerned, as it were rob all the other children, as well as his own mother. The debtor, the owner of freehold land sanctioned by law, could rob and defraud all
  480
  his creditors, in the same way that a son and a brother can now rob the whole of his family and make them dependent upon charity—perhaps on the Union workhouse. It was not until 1827 that freehold estates were made assets for the payment of debts of all classes generally. The Act was passed by the present Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly. The law is so cruel, and so much in favour of the heir-at-law, that where a person has only contracted to buy land, intending to make a will when the purchase is completed, but dying before the purchase is completed, his executors would be obliged to complete the purchase and hand the estate over to the eldest son. I take the following illustration, as to the unsatisfactory state of the law, from a work published some years ago by Lord St. Leonards, when Sir Edward Sugden.
  "A moment's reflection will show what serious consequences may follow from a neglect on your part; for suppose you purchase an estate with the £50,000 in the Funds which you have given by your will to your younger children, and which constitutes the bulk of your personal property, and should neglect to devise the estate, the money must go to pay for it, at the expense of your younger children, who would be left nearly destitute, whilst your eldest son, to whom the estate would descend, would have an overgrown fortune."
  He says that distressing cases of this kind are continually occurring. There appears also a difficulty as to how the person who is about to change his property from personal into real estate is to make a will.
  I myself have had some experience as to the alarm that exists among certain persons when it is proposed to alter a law respecting real estate; for two or three years ago I brought in a Bill, to effect a change with regard to mortgages, that a mortgaged estate should descend with the burthen, the debt, imposed upon it. That Bill happily has become law; but, although it only carried out the principle of Sir S. Romilly's Bill, that freehold estates should be assets for the payment of debts, it only passed the other House by a majority of three.
  Sir, I hope we shall not have that very trite saying adduced, that the effect of this Bill will be to destroy the House of Lords. The House of Lords stands on something better, I hope, than an unjust law; if it is to be supported by injustice, it will very soon fall. You could not say anything harder, or more cruel, of that august assembly than that the present law of succession is necessary for its support.

  481
  In point of fact, this law could not affect the Peers in any way; for I must repeat, their large estates are in almost every instance entailed in such a way, that they have no power to make a will. I would remind the House that this absurd objection of injuring the House of Lords was used against Sir S. Romilly, when he brought in his Bill to make owners of real estate pay their debts, and was refuted by him in a masterly manner.
  I hope also that I shall not be told that I seek to introduce the law of Succession as it is in France. No such thing; I disapprove of the law as it exists; the parent has there a very limited power of willing. I propose, on the contrary, that he should have the fullest possible power of willing his property; but that in those cases, and those only, where he has made no will, all his children should be provided for.
  There are other reasons of a special nature which ought to induce the House, and above all Her Majesty's Government, at the present moment, to pass this Bill. You are by degrees applying the principles of free trade to land. You have broken down many of the barriers which existed between real and personal property. You have, during the last few years, because it was convenient, applied the legacy-tax, under the name of succession duty, to the soil. The Solicitor General is about to break down and remove the difficulties which exist in regard to the alienation of land. He is about to carry out the principle of giving a Parliamentary title to the land, and tread in the footsteps of the present Master of the Rolls, to whom we are so much indebted for having originated the plan, and who in times of great difficulty established the machinery, which has been beyond measure successful in Ireland. If then you are about to apply the commercial principle to the soil, and to make land as easily transferable as money in the Funds; if you show by your doing so, that you have no respect for those laws which made alienation difficult and almost impossible, how can you, with any consistency, refuse to let land descend in the same way as other property does, particularly when, by refusing to do so, you cause great distress and suffering? All that I ask by this Bill is, that, in the event of a person dying intestate, a uniform, and, above all, a just law, should apply to all property.
  Depend upon it, the day is not far distant when a demand will be made upon you to pass this Bill; the people are beginning
  482
  to feel that, having submitted to the authority of this feudal law, it is time that it, in its turn, should be submitted to the authority of reason; that, having been hitherto the slaves of it, and suffered from the consequences of its injustice, they in their turn will also become its judges.
  I beg to move, for leave to bring in a Bill for the better settling the Real Estates of Intestates.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had but very imperfectly heard the observations of the hon. Member in introducing the Bill, but so far as he could gather he understood that the hon. Gentleman did not wish in any way to interfere with the disposition of landed property by will, but that he merely desired to provide for cases in which no will had been made by the owner. [Mr. L. KING: Hear, hear!] That sounded a very plausible proposition when so put; but he thought that the hon. Member would find that he would have to consider a great number of cases which had found no place, so far as he (the Solicitor General) had heard, in the observations which the hon. Member had offered to the House. He would suggest, however, that the hon. Member should be permitted to lay his Bill upon the table, in order that they might see how he proposed to deal with difficulties which, in his mind, presented themselves by the score to any measure such as had been proposed. With this view he should offer no opposition to the introduction of the Bill; but he hoped that the hon. Member would not suppose that the Government wished in the slightest degree to lend any countenance to the idea that the order of succession to landed property in this country was to be changed, or that on the death of a person who had made no will the landed property would be divided among all the family, as was the case on the Continent, instead of descending, as at present, to the eldest son. When, however, the hon. Member said that he did not desire to prevent the free disposition of real property he did so in effect; because, whereas at present a man knew that if he died intestate his freehold estate would go by natural descent to his eldest son. he would under the proposed Bill be required to make a will to effect that same object. He believed when the hon. Member came to consider the various difficulties that arose in this matter, he would see that it was by no means so simple a thing as he appeared to think. However, until the Bill was before

  483
  them, it was impossible to know how these questions were dealt with, and therefore he should offer no opposition to its introduction.
  LORD H. VANEsaid, that he had no difficulty in gathering from the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey that his object was altogether to alter the law with respect to the descent of real estate in cases of intestacy. He (Lord H. Vane) contended, in opposition to the principle sought to be established by his hon. Friend, that in providing for cases of intestacy they were bound to look to what in all probability would have been the wills of the individuals, supposing them to have made wills; and if they found that in the great majority of instances settlements were made in a particular manner, they were bound to infer that such was the opinion generally prevalent among all classes. He believed that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken as to the law on this subject. If a man died intestate, leaving landed property, his widow was entitled to a third of it. She could not be deprived of that unless her husband had by a special bar taken it away from her. In the case of a man without children dying intestate, leaving personal property. his widow was entitled to half of it. He had no great confidence that the hon. Gentleman would produce such a measure as would meet the case, or receive the approbation of that House or of the country; but he should offer no opposition to the introduction of his Bill.
  MR. MELLORsaid, his hon. Friend did not propose to interfere with settled estates. His hon. Friend simply proposed that where a man had omitted to make a will for himself the State should make a will for him, by distributing his estate according to the principles of equity and justice; and he (Mr. Mellor) hoped that Her Majesty's Government would find them selves able to support the Bill. He thought when they came to consider it they would find it had been most accurately described by his hon. Friend, He wished to correct an error into which the noble Lord had fallen, and he was sure the Solicitor General would agree with him. There was scarcely a conveyance in modern times in which the property purchased or acquired was not conveyed to uses to bar dower. Therefore the widow could scarcely ever derive benefit from such property; and where it was not so conveyed, and was small, just conceive what was her position. Suppose the pro-
  484
  perty was not worth £300, and the yearly income derivable from it only £9, the widow would be entitled not to a third of the property, but merely to one-third of the £9 during her life. He believed that many petitions had in former Sessions been presented in favour of his hon. Friend's proposition. He did not believe that intestacies arose because people were content with the existing law, but because, fancying they would never die, they continually postponed the making of their will, and at length died suddently without having made it.
  MR. HADFIELDapproved the Bill, because it would go a great way towards accomplishing most desirable object—namely, the doing away with all distinction between real and personal property. It was idle to say, as an argument against the Bill, that there would be great inconvenience in distributing real property, because, even at present, leasehold property was distributable like moveable goods.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the better settling the Real Estates of Intestates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOCKE KING, Mr. MASSEY, and Mr. MELLOR.
  Bill presented, and read 1à.

NEWSPAPERS, &c.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. AYRTON, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal certain Acts, and parts of Acts, relating to Newspapers, Pamphlets, and other publications, and to Printers, Type Founders, and Reading Rooms, said, that although, as he believed, no opposition would be offered to the introduction of his Bill, it was the wish of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he should clearly know what were its objects. The subject was one which went back a number of years in the annals of legislation. The statutes which he sought to repeal were the growth of evil times, and it was necessary to recur to them to discover how they had been placed upon the Statute-book. So early as the reign of Queen Anne the Ministers of that day imagined that the periodical press was injurious to the interests of the State, that it might be applied to seditious objects, and that it was therefore necessary to take steps to repress what they deemed to be a great public grievance. He had taken the trouble to look at the current literature of that day, and he found that it was the

  485
  sentiment of the House of Commons and of the public men of that time, that whatever was written and whatever was published, however temperate and however learned it might be, if it was adverse to their opinions, if it was written with strength and purpose, ought to be regarded as a wicked and seditious libel. If it touched upon the affairs of religion, if it was adverse to the opinions of the dominant party in the Established Church, then it was also an impious and blasphemous libel. Such was the character of the Resolutions of that House on publications which any one who read them now-days would regard as the most innocent and perhaps the dullest publications he could read. At last the Members of the House were aggravated to the highest degree because a document was printed which was simply a translation of a State paper of the States General of Holland. They assumed that it was fictitious, they condemned it as a wicked libel upon the House of Commons, and they immediately resolved themselves into a Committee of the whole House for the purpose of suppressing so great an evil. Consequent upon that a Bill was passed, appealing rather to the pecuniary interests of the country than to any public principle, to impose very heavy duties upon paper, upon newspapers, upon pamphlets, and upon advertisements. In order to facilitate the collection of these duties it was provided that every publication should be registered at the Stamp Office. That was the origin of the registration, which had been kept up to the present day. The next year an attempt was made to extend this registration to the authors of writings; but it was abandoned, and further duties were imposed instead of it. The press being thus deemed sufficiently weighed down was left alone until 1798, when the country became involved in war, and the insurrection broke out in Ireland. This was the occasion of further law, by which the restrictions were increased, the registration was made more minute, a form of declaration was required of the ownership of every newspaper, and a declaration whether any Foreigner was interested in it—then, perhaps a reasonable precaution against the State receiving any injury. That measure had been repealed; but most of its provisions had been re-introduced into the existing law. In 1799 another Bill was proposed by the Executive, the apology for which was the dangerous state of the country, the treasonable de-
  486
  signs said to be entertained of subverting Government, the plots and conspiracies existing at home and abroad,—to suppress these further powers were demanded by the Executive, and readily conceded by an overwhelming party, backing the Minister, Mr. Pitt. They went even to the extent of preventing men from reading news papers except in places licensed by a justice of the peace. Alehouses were, however, considered privileged places for reading journals, tapsters were made the guardians of public morals, but ultimately it had a very bad moral effect, as it associated the current literature of the day with drinking and intemperance. This law enforced the custom which existed throughout the country till a comparatively recent period, to resort to a publichouse for the purpose of reading the public journals. Printers, and even type-founders, and every person, however indirectly connected with literature, were brought under the notice of the Government, and required a Government
  licence to carry on their callings. It might be imagined that these restrictions died out with the times for which they were enacted; but the statute remained unrepealed to the present day. The only measure of relief had been to place the power of enforcing these provisions in the hands of the Crown, instead of those of the common informer. But ought such exceptional laws, framed for exceptional times, to be kept dormant on the Statute-book, leaving to the Government the right to enforce them whenever it thought fit? With these restrictions one would have thought the constitution was sufficiently protected against its imaginary enemy—the Press. But when the Continental war was brought to a close, and mens' minds were diverted from its great events to affairs at home, to the change from the past to the factitious prosperity resulting from loans, and the enormous expenditure of the country, and to the necessity of economy and a reform in Parliament, then again the Government, in 1819, resorted to extreme measures of restraint against the Press. At that time there were, no doubt many publications of so extravagant and extreme a character, as to call for repression by the arm of the law. But the Government, instead of prosecuting all journals and pamphlets really injurious to the welfare of the State, endeavoured to bring odium on the whole press, so as to be able to ask Parliament to lay still

  487
  further restrictions on its liberty. The Government introduced another measure, which required every person undertaking to print a newspaper or pamphlet—in short anything less in quantity than might be called a volume—or anything published at a cheap rate, to enter into recognizances, and find two sureties to the Crown of £300 in London, and £200 in the country, in case the publication should contain any matter held to be a seditious or blasphemous libel. That law further enacted severe and extravagant penalties on any persons twice convicted of such an offence. Two years afterwards, as a measure of mercy, they brought in a Bill mitigating the severity of the penalties in cases of conviction, but at the same time aggravated the pressure on publication by increasing the amount of the security from £300 to £400 in London, and from £200 to £300 in the provinces. That security was also further extended, and enforced not merely in cases of seditious and blasphemous libel, but anything that might be deemed a libel on a private individual. The security was made available, not merely for the protection of the State, but of any individual who might prove himself aggrieved by a publication. That was the extreme limit of restriction. The House would thus see that the trade of printing and publishing was considered so totally different from every other calling in the country; that these measures against it could only be justified either by the exigencies of the times, or by assuming that every man connected with literature was to be held a public delinquent, or common barrator, to be put under restraint before he could be allowed to carry on his calling. He thought the House would not accept the latter alternative. After some time, when the reform of Parliament had been accomplished, and the dread of the dangers that were anticipated from it had entirely passed away, an agitation began for relieving the current literature of the day from the difficulties in which it was placed, the enormous taxes imposed on it, and the restrictions by which it was fettered. When the duties were reduced in 1836 the statutes above noticed, with some exceptions, were repealed, but many of the most vexatious restrictions respecting registration and security were reenacted. In the course of several years the direct taxes were diminished. In 1836 when the right hon. Gentleman who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr.
  488
  Gladstone) proposed the abolition of the stamp duties on newspapers, he intended, at the same time, to repeal nearly all the statutes then in force; but in consequence of the objections which were taken to such a course, the right hon. Gentleman, to obviate any delay in the settlement of the fiscal question, relinquished his design, and almost all the most obnoxious provisions of the law were left on the Statute-book. The object of his (Mr. Ayrton's) Motion was to sweep away all those vexatious statutes, and to limit the laws affecting newspapers and pamphlets to the general enactments that regulated all publications. There was no principle that entitled them to draw any distinction between a large book and a small one, a dear book or a cheap one; but, under the existing laws, the press was made liable to an exceptional legislation. The public had ample protection in the law that required a copy of every work, large or small, even a single sheet to be delivered to the Trustees of the British Museum, and provided, in any ease of omission of such delivery, that the publisher could be summoned before a justice of the peace, and fined. The Copyright Act also required every publisher desiring the protection of the laws relating to literature to register his publication at Stationers' Hall. Thus we had sufficient means of knowing who was the proprietor of any work printed in this country, whatever its character. We had other statutes directed expressly against criminal publications. One of these enabled the authorities, when any publication was adjudged to be a seditious or blasphemous libel, to have all the impressions of it seized, and prevented from circulating to the injury of the community. Another Act passed two Sessions ago provided for the suppression of obscene and other improper books. The latter measure was an excellent illustration of the soundness of his views against vexatious restrictions on trade, for in its original form, it contained several very extravagant provisions, interfering with the convenience of legitimate trade; but at his instance the objectionable clauses had been expunged, and in its amended shape the Act had worked satisfactorily. This showed the adequacy of the law to protect public morality, without infringing the rights of honourable traders. The statutes, however, which he sought to abolish imposed vexatious restrictions on honest men who had no wish to violate the law, but placed no effectual restraint on those who had

  489
  made up their minds to embark in a criminal career; for the person who meditated committing a crime was not likely to go and inform the Government, or to furnish them with evidence by which to secure his own conviction. On that ground alone the House ought to repeal these obnoxious statutes. It might have been thought, as these enactments were only passed to facilitate the collection of the revenue, that when the duty was taken off periodical publications, the executive officers would have ceased to enforce them. They were not, however, suffered to fall into abeyance. The late Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Humphrey Brown) moved no doubt by a very high sense of morality, in 1856 addressed a remonstrance to the Commissioners of Stamps, pointing out that, in the borough which he represented, publications were issued which tended to demoralize the people, and calling for the enforcement of the penalties of the law against them. The Commissioners there upon consulted the Attorney General, and afterwards sent out a circular informing those connected with the press that they had been advised that it was their duty to enforce the law, and requiring publishers to comply with its provisions, or they would be subjected to its penalties. Upon this, innocent publishers in the country, who had hitherto thought the proceeding unnessary, were obliged, in several instances, at great inconvenience, to appeal to their friends to become security for them, thereby incurring a great deal of annoyance and trouble; while some of their brethren in London, understanding these matters much better, took no notice whatever of the circular. To test, however, the determination of the Commissioners, a publication called the Free Press was thrust upon their attention, accompanied by a challenge to them to prosecute it; but fearing they would find in that journal something like a hornet's nest, the Commissioners answered with much dignity, "that they would deal with it as seemed to them meet." It was also pointed out to the Commissioners that pamphlets, equally with newspapers, were by the statutes they were putting in force subject to registration, and that the publishers of them were required to give security, and somebody sent them a pamphlet, asking them to register it. Now, the Commissioners committed themselves to a fatal error; for they replied, that before they could say whether it ought to be register-
  490
  ed or not they must read it; whereupon they received a host of other pamphlets with a request that they would be good enough to peruse them, and then say whether they would register them. He found by returns presented to Parliament, on his own Motion, a wise note of the Commissioners, "that no answer was given to these applications." There was great uncertainty about this matter, the fact being that the Commissioners seemed to have authority either to enforce the law or not, as they pleased; but if it were a necessary precaution against libels, then these very stringent provisions should be enforced against every publication without reference to its being a few pages in length or low in price. Why should these statutes be kept in existence for the amusement of a body of gentlemen whose functions had been practically done away with by the repeal of the tax on newspapers? He hoped the Government would arrive, like himself, at the conclusion that these enactments were potent for mischief and powerless for good. They treated the bare idea of publishing a periodical as an incipient act of sedition, and put all persons connected with the current literature of the day without the pale of that common law to the protection of which they were as much entitled as any other class. On these grounds he asked the leave of the House to introduce his Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had called their attention to a number of Acts at present on the Statute-book relating to the publication of pamphlets and newspapers. Some of those enactments might now safely be said to be obsolete, while in regard to others, considering the date of their origin, the term obsolete could not be justly applied to them. They were still among the modern statutes of this country, and it was apparently to these that the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion was principally directed. Whatever opinion might be entertained as to the necessity for these enactments at the time they were first passed, most people would agree as to the utter absence of any necessity for continuing them at the present day. He did not wish to commit himself as to all the enactments in those statutes. Many of them were in this position, that no law officer of the Crown would be found willing to put them in force. The consequence was that the Statute-book contained threats of penalties which were practically

  491
  disregarded every day, the law never being put in execution. He held it to be a sound principle for the House to proceed upon whenever they found a statute containing penalties which were never enforced, and which they never meant to enforce, that that statute should be removed from the Statute-book as speedily as possible. He therefore did not intend to offer any opposition to the introduction of this Bill. When it had been brought in they would see more precisely the particular enactments to which it would apply. Several of those to which the hon. and learned Member had referred it was desirable either wholly to repeal or greatly to modify. Others, or some portion of them, it might be expedient on the other hand to retain. With this explanation he would not offer any opposition on the part of the Government to the introduction of the measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to repeal certain Acts and parts of Acts relating to Newspapers, Pamphlets, and other publications, and to Printers, Type-founders, and Reading-rooms, ordered to be brought in by Mr. AYRTON, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, and Mr. COLLINS.

EDUCATION.—RESOLUTION.
VISCOUNT MELGUNDrose to move that the annual vote of money for Education in Great Britain should henceforth be divided into two Votes—one to be taken for England and the other for Scotland. His object, he said, was twofold. He desired, first, that information of a detailed character should be laid before Members at the time the Estimates were voted; and, secondly, he wished that better opportunities should be given to Scotch Members to discuss questions of education in Scotland at the proper moment for doing so. He should probably be asked why the Vote for Scotland should be separated from England any more than the Vote for the county of York. The educational history of the two countries was, however, very different. It must always be recollected that in Scotland there had always been an educational establishment supported by Government grants under Acts of Parliament; but that in England it was not so. In fact, that always up till now national education had been considered a matter of so much importance in Scotland that Acts of Parliament had been thought necessary to provide for it, whereas in England the whole matter had been under the control of the Privy Council, afforded some evidence that the
492
two countries were in a different position with regard to the question. There were other points with regard to the matter which showed that England and Scotland should be kept separate. All parts of Scotland were not in a similar condition. There were some districts where the population was extremely sparse, and in others again where it was very crowded. He found that a large part of Scotland had not been benefited at all by these grants, and that the counties of Edinburgh and Lanark had had by far the largest share of the grants that had been made. He found that one-half of the parishes had never had any grant at all from the Parliamentary fund. Explanations were required as to the principle on which the grants were made. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that he based his calculations on the amount of population. He thought that Scotland was entitled to a fair share of the sum that was granted. He found that since 1839 England had had as much as £2,500,000, while Scotland had only had £353,000. If the same proportion had been given to Scotland there would be owing to her not less than £360,000. Another point of difference was this. Scotland was taxed locally to support the schools, and England was not. If England had been taxed for this purpose locally to one quarter of the extent Scotland was, he found that in seventeen years we should have paid the amount of £4,500,000. As far as he could make out, England had received a much larger amount than she was fairly entitled to, and Scotland very much less. There was a great difference in the habits of the Scotch people and in the manner of their education when compared with England. The system of education now existing in England would never have been introduced if it had not been for the example of the Scotch parochial system. He desired that the Vote as regarded Scotland should be kept distinct from that of England. The object he had in making the Motion was to put matters in a more satisfactory state, and he thought that that object would be achieved if the Motion were agreed to.
MR. A. SMITHsaid, he would second the Motion, for he thought that the only way we could have a check on these educational grants was by dividing the Votes as much as possible. The present system of education had become quite denominational, and he hoped that in future these

493
estimates would be presented in such a form as that they might know how much had been expended in England, how much went to the Free Church, how much to the Established Church, and how much to the Episcopalians or any other denomination. Why the schools belonging to the Established Church and those belonging to the Free Church were separated quite surpassed his comprehension. There was no difference in the doctrines that they taught, and surely the children could take no harm by being educated together. Under the present system there were double expenses incurred in every respect, and with no reason for it.
Motion made and Question proposed,
"That the annual Vote of money for Education in Great Britain be henceforth divided into two Votes; one Vote to be taken for England, and another for Scotland."
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he had anticipated that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was going to ask him to separate the Vote for the Scilly Islands from that for the rest of England; and, certainly, it would be much more reasonable to bring in a separate estimate for the Isle of Man, the Legislature of which had levied a rate for educational purposes, and imposed a fine upon all parents who did not send their children to school, than for Scotland, the system in which country was precisely similar to that which obtained in England. The noble Lord's proposition seemed to amount to this—that the Education Vote should be divided into two, one for Scotland and another for England. Now although it was with great reluctance that he opposed any proposition which came from the noble Lord, who had always shown so earnest and honourable a zeal for national education, and although he must admit that there would be no difficulty, as far as the office was concerned in carrying out his proposition, yet its object and its ultimate tendency were so dangerous that he could not accede to it. If the object of the noble Lord was to obtain information as to the distribution of the Parliamentary grant, and by a separate debate to bring under the notice of the House the peculiar bearing of the existing system upon his own country, he would have ample opportunity of discussing the question—he could give notice of any Motion he chose on going into Supply, and he could then bring the educational grant for Scotland separately and singly before the
494
House; or he could bring in a Bill on the subject, which he was sure would receive every attention. The tendency of this Motion, however, must be, if it had any practical effect, at all to introduce a diversity between the Scotch and English systems of national education. At present there was no diversity in principle between them, and it was, in his opinion, desirable that there should be none. The noble Lord had tried to draw a distinction between the two, but he had entirely failed to show the existence of any real difference between them. It was true that there had long been a tax levied on landholders of above a certain rental for the purposes of education; but it must be borne in mind that owing to change of circumstances this was quite insufficient for the general purposes of education, and that in Scotland as in England the chief means were derived from voluntary contributions subsidized by Government grants. The heritor's tax, though at one time, no doubt, an important provision, had, by the lapse of time, become only analogous to the school foundations in England; and the other circumstances noticed by the noble Lord—namely, sparseness of population in some parts of the country, and the absorption of the major part of the grant by the towns—were common to both England and Scotland. The system in both countries were essentially the same—namely, a denominational system resting mainly upon voluntary contributions. Another objection to the noble Lord's plan was, that if the estimate were brought forward in two divisions instead of one, it would be almost impossible to prevent its creating an erroneous impression that Scotland was unfairly dealt with in the distribution of the grant. A great part of that grant was expended upon the staff expenses of the office in London, the benefit of which was common to both England and Scotland; and under the noble Lord's scheme how was that expenditure to be divided between the two countries? The only way to carry fully out the noble Lord's idea would be to have another rental office at Edinburgh, which, as the office in London was quite sufficient for both kingdoms, would be a needless and gratuitous waste of money. That there should, under the existing system, be any partiality in the distribution of the Parliamentary grant was utterly impossible, because it was distributed according to fixed rules which were embodied in Minutes and annually presented to that House. There was at

495
the central office a staff of officers who, both from knowledge and ability, were quite capable to distribute the grant according to these Minutes, and no one had ever complained that they were inefficient to discharge their duties. For all these reasons he must, although exceedingly unwilling to differ from the noble Lord, oppose this Motion, and advise the House not to assent to it.
MR. BUCHANANsaid, he regretted that, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there would be no difficulty in separating this Vote, he did not accede to the Motion of the noble Lord. A considerable amount of misunderstanding existed as to the motives on which the noble Lord's Motion was founded. In stating the reasons for that Motion, he, for one, would make no secret of his wish to do away with these Privy Council grants altogether. His reasons for supporting the Motion were that they were superinducing a new system on an old system which was totally unsuited for it; they were also forcing upon them a denominational system which was narrow in its conception and contracted in its foundation. The effect of this denominational system thus forced upon them was a mere waste both of public and of private money, for schools were planted in unnecessary localities. A school of one kind in a district was sure to be rivalled by another of a different denomination next door. The locality did not require both, but voluntary contributions were raised, and a public grant was obtained to no good purpose. The effect of separating the Vote would be to enable the Scotch Members to place on record every Session anything they might object to, and so force it on the notice of the Board of Privy Council. He wished the House would refuse the Vote altogether for Scotland, as that would compel the Government to bring in a Vote for Scotland alone.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid he was disposed to regard any difference in legislation between Scotland and England as an evil, and thought therefore that the Vote should not be divided in the manner proposed. Even the bribe which the noble Lord had offered himself and other hon. Members, that they were likely to have a larger sum in consequence for Scotch education, would not induce him to support the Motion. He neither wished to get nothing at all for Scotland, nor did he wish that Scotland should have more than its fair share. He
496
hoped the Government would maintain the rule already laid down—continue to take the vote in one, and apply the same principle to both countries.
MR. BLACKmaintained that the objections which had been urged against the Motion by the Vice-President of the Council for Education were inconsistent with each other, because, while the right hon. Gentleman had told the Scotch Members that if they wanted to know how much money was voted to Scotland in each year they had only to look at the returns embodied in the minutes of the Education Committee; he had also dwelt upon the difficulty of keeping separate accounts for the two kingdoms. The annual statement which was laid before Parliament, as he had ascertained last Session, showed not the amount which was to be voted for Scotland for the ensuing year, but the sum which had been granted in the previous year. He regretted that the denominational system was to be perpetuated by a continuance of the Privy Council grants. The people of Scotland did not want Parliamentary grants; they wished to be left alone, and to be allowed to educate their
own children at their own expense. It had been said that the Motion would lead to a diversity of system in the two kingdoms. He regarded that as one of its chief recommendations, because he believed the Scotch system to be better than that of England, and he was not without hope that if the people of Scotland were permitted to pursue their own plan of education, it might ultimately come to be adopted in England.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsuggested, as a mode of meeting the views of all parties, that one Vote should continue to be taken, as hitherto, for the two kingdoms, but that the statement laid before Parliament should show how much was intended for Scotland and how much for England.
MR. DUNLOPobjected to the denominational system as strongly as the hon. Members for Edinburgh and Glasgow; but until Scotland was provided with a national plan he could not consent to give up the Privy Council grants. As long as supplementary grants were necessary, it would be injurious and wrong to separate the Vote.
MR. W. WILLIAMSopposed the Motion, because it would lead to annual contests for increased grants to Scotland, which had already fully more than her fair share.
THE LORD ADVOCATEstated, that in the Estimates for the Civil Services there was, under the head "Education," an explanatory table showing the precise sums applicable for the purposes of the grant to the schools connected with the Established Church in Scotland, the Free Church schools, and other schools.
VISCOUNT MELGUND, in reply, said that he had made no attack against the officers for Education; and with respect to the central office he had not proposed a division, as it might be important that there should be only one office for the distribution of the Privy Council grants.
Question put, and negatived.

EDINBURGH, &c., ANNUITY TAX.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. BLACK MR. BLACK moved for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the Ministers' Money or Annuity Tax, levied within the city of Edinburgh, the parish of Canongate, and the burgh of Montrose. He had had the honour of introducing the Bill last year, when it was defeated on the second reading by a majority of only one. This odious impost had been the cause of much acrimonious dispute, and even of tumult, and ought to be abolished.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEdid not intend to object to the introduction of the Bill, but the hon. Proposer must not be surprised to find him opposing the measure in its future stages.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to abolish the Ministers' Money or Annuity Tax levied within the City of Edinburgh, the Parish of Canongate, and Burgh of Montrose, as Vacancies occur among the present Ministers, and to make provision for their successors, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BLACK, Mr. BAXTER, and Mr. COWAN.

REGISTRATION OF COUNTY VOTERS (SCOTLAND).

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR E. COLEBROOKE SIR E. COLEBROOKE moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the Amendment of the law for the Registration of County Voters in Scotland. He said that the Bill was substantially the same as that introduced last Session, and the principle of which had already received the sanction of the House. He had endeavoured in the present measure to meet the objections which had been entertained by some hon. Members on the other side of the House,
  498
  and which resolved themselves principally into matters of expense.
  MR. BLACKBURNregarded the measure as must unnecessary. There was going to be a Reform Bill, and it seemed a mere waste of time to discuss a Registration Bill before it was known what there would be to register.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the Amendment of the Law for the Registration of County Voters in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE and Mr. DUNLOP.
  Bill presented and read, 1o.

MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he desired to call the attention of the promoters of this Bill to the effect of tins clause being inserted. It would make bigamy lawful, for an Irish landowner having property in this country might come over to England and marry his deceased wife's sister, and then go back to Ireland, where that marriage would not be lawful, and marry another woman. Thus he would have one woman his lawful wife in England, and another his lawful wife in Ireland. He did not put this case on his authority only; he had consulted several legal friends of acknowledged ability to form an opinion on such a point, and they had not been able to see any escape from such a consequence.
  Bill considered in Committee on Clause 5.
  Bill reported without Amendment; to be read 3a on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Ecton and Walton Exchange.
3a Law of Property and Trustees Relief Amendment.

THE IONIAN ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the account which has recently appeared in the newspapers of certain proposals for a change in the constitution of the Ionian Islands having been recommended by Mr. Gladstone, Her Majesty's Lord High Commissoner to the Ionian Parliament, is authentic; and, if so, whether those proposals have met with the approval of Her Majesty's Government; and, also, whether there will be any objection to lay on the table of the House the correspondence which has passed upon the subject.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, in answer to the question which the noble Earl has put so briefly and distinctly, I have to say, first of all, as regards the report which appeared in the newspapers two days since of the Message communicated by Mr. Gladstone in his capacity of Lord High Commissioner to the Ionian Islands, that that report is per-
464
fectly authentic and correct. The noble Earl also asks whether the reforms embraced in that Message, and in the communications attached to it, were sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government. Just let me remind the House first of the position and circumstances of this question. Last autumn, serious difficulties having arisen—difficulties threatening to make themselves felt in the internal administration of the Ionian Islands—my right hon. Friend at the head of the Colonial Office felt that the first step to be taken in this matter was to obtain accurate information on the points connected with the alleged grievances and anomalies. Accurate information could only be obtained by local inquiry in the Ionian Islands themselves; and, knowing the importance of obtaining an impartial judgment on the subject, he proposed to Mr. Gladstone to undertake the task of a special mission for that purpose. Mr. Gladstone accepted that task, and received before leaving this country full instructions and communications, many of them of a confidential nature. On his arrival at Corfu he addressed himself with extreme ability and with indefatigable patience to an inquiry into the alleged grievances; and after a very full investigation he communicated to Her Majesty's Government first of all those facts with which he conceived it necessary for them to be acquainted; and, secondly, recommendations of a remedial character which he thought it necessary to propose. Both those reports were taken into serious consideration by Her Majesty's Government, and the recommendations of Mr. Gladstone were approved. About that time circumstances took place, into which it is unnecessary for me to enter, which occasioned a vacancy in the office of Lord High Commissioner. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Colonial Department—feelling the weight and authority of the proposals which Mr. Gladstone had recommended for adoption, and which had been concurred in by Her Majesty's Government, and feeling also with how much greater weight and authority those proposals would come from a person possessing the confidence of the Ionian people and one who had made himself completely master of the subject—proposed to Mr. Gladstone to undertake provisionally the duties of Lord High Commissioner, and to that proposition Mr. Gladstone consented, in order to give substantial effect to his own recommendations. This has been done, and the

465
Seventeen Resolutions and the Message to which the noble Earl has alluded embody the formal expression of the recommendations which he made to the Government, and which the Government has approved. I pass now to the last part of the noble Earl's question, as to the laying the correspondence on the table of the House. I regret very much that I am unable to give the noble Earl an answer in the affirmative. The whole Correspondence, with some few exceptions, bears on those questions which are at this very moment submitted to the consideration of the Ionian Assembly; and I cannot conceive anything more likely seriously to prejudice the issue of those deliberations, and to affect unsatisfactorily the whole proceedings in this matter, than the publication of these papers at this moment. I therefore trust the noble Earl will not press that point. I can assure him that as soon as the Ionian Assembly have pronounced their decision, and have either accepted or refused the propositions made to them, and that the matter is in a condition to be brought before Parliament, there will be no delay on the part of Her Majesty's Government to present to the House any papers which may be necessary for the due consideration or discussion of the subject.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I think it is quite reasonable, when serious questions of this sort are pending, that no demand should be made for the production of papers relating to them; but we cannot disguise from ourselves that in respect to this matter there is a possibility, at all events, of steps being taken—and if once taken they will be irrevocable—that may lead to very serious consequences. Before these steps are taken, I think it necessary that this subject should be discussed by your Lordships' House; and, therefore, though I certainly will not press for papers which Her Majesty's Government on their responsibility declare cannot be produced, I shall on Monday next move an Address to the Crown for the production of papers in order that with such information as we now possess we may discuss this very important subject, and that Her Majesty's Government may state more clearly than they can do at this moment their grounds for objecting to the production of those papers. I hope that before I make that Motion a certain portion of those pagers may, at all events, be produced.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I think it right to say that the same motives which
466
render it, in my opinion, highly impolitic that the papers connected with this subject should be laid on the table of the House will equally apply on the part of Her Majesty's Government with regard to a discussion of the question at the present moment. Although of course it rests with the noble Earl opposite to say whether he will be satisfied with the explanation that has been given, I must not only on the part of Her Majesty's Government refuse the production of these papers, but I must, under present circumstances, decline to enter into a discussion of this matter.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: It is admitted that the papers in question, under present circumstances, cannot be produced, and that discussion may be dangerous; but I wish to ask my noble Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies in what manner, supposing the constitution to be accepted, the Lord Commissioner is to be enabled to dismiss the Ministry if the Ministry should not be willing to go out? Under the Constitution every Act must be countersigned by the Minister, and therefore, unless the Ministry consent to their own elimination, it is quite impossible to remove them. Nor is it possible for the Lord High Commissioner either to prorogue or dissolve the Parliament without the consent of the existing Ministry—prorogation or dissolution being the only means of enabling him to extricate himself from their power. I perceive, also, that one of the recommendations, as I understand them, of the Lord High Commissioner is, that the Senate shall have a longer duration than the Assembly; and, if that be the case, it may be impossible to dissolve both the Senate and the Assembly simultaneously. There is another point. The majority of the Senate is to be elected by somebody different to that which elects the Assembly, the result of which would in all probability be that the Ministers will always obtain a majority in the Senate; and as it is only by means of the Senate that alterations in the law could be introduced into the Assembly, the Senate being elected for a longer period than the Assembly, if the Ministry had a constant majority there they would possess more power than I think will be at all convenient.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I think your Lordships must see the inconvenience of discussing, in the very partial manner in which it is possible to discuss them, questions on which we have very imperfect and inadequate information. My noble Friend

467
seems to forget that if we are to enter upon this subject we shall be going into the discussion of questions which, in the form of Resolutions, are to come for consideration before the Legislature of the independent Republic of the Ionian Islands. In that Legislature all these questions are about to be discussed, and the recommendations brought forward by Mr. Gladstone are to be considered, for the purpose of eliciting the opinion of the people of the Ionian Islands. When that opinion has been ascertained it will be the duty of that Legislature to embody it in an Act according to the constitution of the country, and that Act can be of no force until it has received the sanction of the Crown, For these reasons it appears to me to be inconvenient to discuss these questions before the Legislative Assembly of the Ionian Islands has come to some decision respecting them. I think that by doing so we may place the matter in a very false position. Her Majesty's Government have no control over the Ionian Islands. By treaty Her Majesty is the protecting Power, but also by treaty those Islands form the independent Septinsular Republic. Their legislation is not subject to the control of the British Parliament, although it requires the sanction of Her Majesty; and upon that sanction being given or withheld it is open to Parliament to pronounce an opinion upon the propriety of the course thus adopted.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I understand distinctly from the published account of Mr. Gladstone's speech, which, is no doubt, authentic, that these propositions have been laid before the Assembly, to be adopted or rejected by them en bloc, and that that body is not to be allowed to alter them in any way, but must take the whole or none.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I think my noble Friend is under a misapprehension; but this is a proof of the inconvenience of discussing this matter now. No doubt, Mr. Gladstone's statement is, that these propositions are to be considered as forming a whole, and that it is not competent to the Ionian Legislature to give their assent to such portion of the plan as may secure the attainment of their special objects, while they reject that portion of it which affords securities for the maintenance of the authority of the Crown. Full permission, however, is given to the Ionian Legislature to suggest any modifications in the details of the scheme which they
468
may think desirable, and it will be for Her Majesty to decide whether She will accept or reject such modifications.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I hope the noble Earl does not mean to contend that it would not be competent to the Imperial Parliament to express an opinion on the propriety or the impropriety of the course pursued by Mr. Gladstone, with the sanction of the Government, in submitting such Resolutions to the Ionian Legislature.
THE EARL OF DERBY: It will be perfectly competent to the Members of either House of Parliament to pronounce an opinion upon that point if they shall think fit. But I must, in the performance of my public duty, oppose any attempt to raise any discussion in this House upon proposals which are still under the consideration of the Ionian Legislature.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: These are the expressions which I found in Mr. Gladstone's speech:—
"The points which I have now named to you are those which appear to be essential to a beneficial readjustment of your constitution. It is requisite that I should give you fully to understand that the few but important provisions I have recommended as guarantees for tranquil and stable government are tendered to you as a whole."
THE EARL OF DERBY: You have not read the whole.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I will. He proceeds to say:—
"Any vote impairing any of these would be fatal to the entire plan; and I must add, with respect to all the leading points I have touched, that England has kept nothing in reserve; and that, if you do not approve the outlines she has laid down, you may find advantage in dealing with them generally, and declining to accept them. I feel certain that in any case the Assembly will meet the question frankly; and that, mindful of its dignity, it will discountenance any attempt to evade by indirect measures the duty of uttering a clear and intelligible opinion upon proposals of such great moment to the Ionian people. In that spirit I act when I inform you that any vote, such as to alter materially their character, would shake the whole fabric to its base, and might at any stage annul the labours previously spent by rendering it needful that the whole subject should be reconsidered."
It appears, therefore, that the Assembly are not to be allowed to introduce any modification into the scheme.

LAW OF PROPERTY AND TRUSTEES RELIEF AMENDMENT BILL.
LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS moved that the Bill be now read a third time.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not wish to offer any impediment to the passing of the measure, but he thought it right to

469
state that his attention had been called to one of the clauses, which, in the opinion of the Board of Customs, would materially interfere with the securities given for the due collection and transmission of the public revenue. The 25th Clause provided in general terms that no judgment or security upon land shall be valid against a bonâ fide purchaser, whether such purchaser have notice of such bond or not, unless execution shall have been obtained before the disposal of the property. Up to 1839 all obligations to the Crown were binding upon purchasers of land under charge; but in that year his noble Friend (Lord St. Leonards) introduced a measure relieving a bonâ fide purchaser from liability unless the charge had been duly registered according to a form prescribed by the Act. Under that Act the Commissioners of Customs had proceeded in taking bonds from collectors charged upon land; but if the proposal in the Bill were adopted such bonds would become personal only. He should not oppose the third reading, but thought it unlikely that the clause would pass the other House.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, the Bill passed this House, and had been in the other House last Session, when no objection had been taken to the 25th clause, although another clause was struck out. The tendency of present legislation was to give a clear title to a bonâ fide purchaser, even at the risk of barring existing charges upon land. It was upon this principle that Her Majesty's Government had themselves proceeded in drawing the two Bills which, much to their credit, had a few evenings since been introduced by the Solicitor General in the other House. This measure had been favourably received by the other House as well as by the general body of solicitors. He had a strong opinion that no fiscal law ought to impede the creation of a clear title between one man and another. A judgment was one of the greatest impediments, because it was a floating kind of security; but the Bill was not intended to deprive the holder of the judgment of any of his rights against the person giving it. Those rights remained the same as at present; but upon a sale the judgment creditor would have his claim upon the purchase money. He saw no reason why any exception should be made in the case of the Government to the disadvantage of a bonâ fide purchaser of property.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of suggesting to the
470
Government the propriety of altering that provision under which government property was at present exempt from the payment of local rates. That state of the law was productive of great hardship and injustice.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that notice of the introduction of a Bill to remedy that grievance had already been given in the other House.
Bill read 3a (according to order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ECTON AND WALTON EXCHANGE BILL.
THE EARL OF DERBYlaid upon the table a Bill to effect en exchange of Ecclesiastical Patronage between Her Majesty the Queen, and Miss Sophia Broadley. No such exchange could, under the present state of the law, be effected without the sanction of Parliament, and the propriety of altering that law was a point which he would not then undertake to discuss. The particular occasion which had given rise to the framing of that measure was an offer made by a lady to exchange an advowson in her possession for two advowsons held by the Crown, her intention being to build new schools and to effect other improvements in those properties. He might add that the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Rochester, in whose dioceses these two livings were respectively situated, had given their assent to the proposal, and that in introducing a public instead of a private Bill upon the subject he was but following the precedents of 1848, in the cases of Lord Leigh and Lord Leicester, between whom and the Crown a similar transfer had taken place.
LORD BROUGHAMwas of opinion that it would be of the greatest possible advantage not only to the interests of the Church, but of private individuals, that such transactions as that to which the Bill related should be made the subject of a general law.
Bill read 1a.
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow half past Ten o'clock.