Sitting of 17 February 1862

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Great Grimsby, John Chapman, esquire.
PUBLIC BILL.—2o Parochial Assessments.

REFORM OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COCRTS.—QUESTION.
MR. HENRY D. SEYMOURrose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Govern merit have received from the English and Irish Prelates any heads of a measure for the Reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He wished to know also whether, if the Government have received the heads of the proposed measure from the English Prelates alone, they intend to communicate with the Irish Prelates on the subject?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that the Bishop of London had informed the Lord Chancellor that a measure was under the consideration of some of the Bishops for the amendment of the Church Discipline Acts, and on Saturday Dr. Twigs, the Vicar General for the province of Canter
374
bury, had communicated to the Lord Chancellor the copy of a Bill which he informed him had been approved by the two Archbishops and fifteen of the Bishops, I and which would be communicated to the remainder of the Prelates; but as the Bill had only been in the hands of the Lord Chancellor forty-eight hours, it could not of course have yet been considered by the Government. He (Sir George Grey) had previously been in communication with the Lord Chancellor on this subject, and his lion, and learned Friend the Solicitor General had given much attention to the subject during the recess, and he hoped I that a Bill dealing with the question would be proposed during the present Session. He was unable to give a specific answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question as to communication with the Irish Prelates.

LAW OF BANKRUPTCY.—QUESTION.
MR. MURRAYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Laws relating to Bankruptcy?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had to state that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government during the present Session to introduce any measure for the amendment of the Law of Bankruptcy.

ATLANTIC ROYAL MAIL COMPANY.

  QUESTION.
  LORD DUNKELLINsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether be has received any communication from the Atlantic Royal Mail Company relating to the present position and prospects of the Company; and, if so, whether he would have any objection to state the purport of such communication to the House?
  Viscount PALMERSTONSir, I have received a written communication from that Company, but I had rather not state its substance, because one is always apt or understate what parties may think important. If my noble Friend will move for the production f the Paper, I shall have no objection to lay it on the table.

EXHIBITION OF 1862—ROAD THROUGH KENSINGTON GARDENS.

  QUESTION.
  Mr. DAMERsaid, he wished to ask the

  375
  First Commissioner of Works, Whether it would not be expedient to save expense by opening the road through Kensington Gardens from Bayswater to the Iron Gates in Rotten Row, nearly opposite the Exhibition building of 1862, to carriages, as it was to equestrians during the period of the Exhibition of 1851?
  MR.COWPERsaid, that very often inconsiderate attempts at economy led to extravagance, and he was afraid that in this instance the economy would not be as great as the hon. Member supposed. The gravel walk to which the hon. Member alluded was a walk only made for the use of pedestrians. It would not bear the wear and tear of carriages during the five months of the Exhibition, and it would cost as much to make a sufficient road for those five months as for a longer period. Therefore, he believed that there would be economy in combining a temporary road with the permanent communication required for access to the Horticultural Gardens and the buildings on the Gore House Estate.
  Afterwards,—
  Lord FERMOYsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any plan has been adopted for the formation of the Road to connect Bays-water with Kensington; and, if so, whether it will pass through Kensington Gardens or take the line approved of by the Metropolitan Board of Works, avoiding Kensington Gardens and not materially interfering with Hyde Park. He should also like to know whether, as the cost of the road is to be defrayed out of the Coal Tax, the right hon. Gentleman does not think that it would be fair to leave the expenditure of the money in the hands of the Metropolitan Board, who are the representatives of the ratepayers?
  Mr. COWPERsaid, the plan that would be adopted would cross Kensington Gardens. The route that he understood his noble Friend to refer to would require the Serpentine to be crossed. There were three ways in which that crossing could be effected. One was by means of a tunnel under the river, another was the erection of a new bridge, and a third was the widening of the existing bridge. Either of these three operations would involve so great a delay that the road could not possibly be ready until the Exhibition had closed. It would besides involve an expense which the funds which were intended to be appropriated to the purpose
  376
  would not bear. With regard to the second portion of the question, he (Mr. Cowper) thought he had better defer his reply until he moved for leave to bring in the Bill of which he had given notice.

UNPAID AND STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES. —QUESTION.
Mr. LONGFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the attention of the Government has been called to the Clauses in the recent Acts 24 and 25 Vict. c. 96, 97, and 100. by which a distinction is made between the Unpaid and Stipendiary Magistrates; and if it is the intention of Government to introduce any measure to restore the provisions of the Act 14 and 15 Vict. c. 92, which confers equal powers on all Justices, paid or unpaid?
Sib ROBERT PEELsaid, that the attention of the Government had been called to the distinction made by the Acts 24 and 25 Vict. c. 96, 97, and 100* between unpaid and stipendiary magistrates, and it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill in accordance with the provisions of the Act 14 and 15 Vict. c. 92, which conferred equal powers on alt Justices, paid or unpaid.

MEXICO—CASE OF MR. NEWALL.

  QUESTION.
  Lokd WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement contained in "the Correspondence on Mexican Affairs," headed "Inclosure No. 13," is correct; that; £500 was paid by the English Government to a Mr. Newall, as compensation for an illegal imprisonment by General Marquez; and, if so, why it has been paid in his case and not in any other?
  Mr. LAYARDsaid, that the statement with regard to Mr. Newall, printed in the papers laid before Parliament,—and quoted by the lion Member, had beeu taken from the newspapers, and was not accurate in all its details. The case of Mr. Newall was this: he had received, is the agent of a Mr. Davis, a large sum of money—about 15,000 dollars. His receipt for this sum fell into the bands of General Marquez, who insisted upon the money being paid over to him. On Mr. Newall's refusal to pay it. General Marquez ordered him to be shot on the following morning, and he was carried off and put into prison. He still refused to give up the money; and

  377
  if it had not been that two of his friends came forward and paid it, he would have been executed. Lord Malmesbury demanded, as reparation for this outrage, that the money should be paid back with interest, that an apology should be made to Mr. Newall, and that £500 compensation should be awarded to him. Those terms were acceded to by the Mexican Government, and £500 was paid into the hands of the British Minister as compensation to Mr. Newall.

INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.—QUESTION.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received a Memorial, signed by the Members of the Covenanted Civil Service of India, complaining of the effect which the Civil Service Bill passed last Session is likely to have in diminishing, and eventually destroying, the Funds known as the Widows' and Orphans' Fund and the Annuity Fund; and whether he has taken any steps to prevent such apprehended consequences, and, if so, to state what they are?
SIR CHARLES WOODreplied, that do such Memorial had reached his Department.

THE PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. HARVEY LEWIS,
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Parochial Assessments Bill of last Session was referred to a Select Committee, which came to a certain Resolution respecting it, in consequence of which the Bill was re-drawn. The Session was, however, too far advanced for its being considered; and the Committee, therefore, recommended that if the Bill should be brought in again this Session, and read a second time, it should be referred to a Select Committee. It was with the object of carrying that arrangement into effect that the House would be asked that night to read the Bill a second time.

Order for Committee of Supply read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

THE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

  REINFORCEMENTS FOR CANADA.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUUHBYsaid, he understood the House was to be called
  378
  upon that night to vote £973,000 by way of Supplementary Vote for the Army and Navy. It appeared to him that the House was in some little difficulty, because it did not know how the accounts stood for the present year. In the previous year £12,297,000 had been voted for the navy, and £14,607,000 for the army, making a total of rather more than 26¾ millions; but the House did not know whether these enormous Votes would prove sufficient, or whether, as of late years, it would be necessary to have a Vote to cover excess of expenditure; therefore, he should like to know from those Gentlemen charged with the management of those departments whether there was likely to be any Supplementary Estimate either for the army or navy, or whether there was a surplus, or was likely to be one, for either of these departments. But there was another and greater difficulty, which was, that the House had not the assurance that if it voted money for a particular purpose it would be applied to that purpose. This practice had run to such an extent that voting moneys upon estimate had become almost a farce. In the year 1857–58 no less a sum than £490,000 granted for one specific purpose was applied to another. In the last year of which the House had any cognizance they knew that on the mere dictum of Mr. Laing, then Secretary to the Treasury, £40,000 voted for wages was appropriated to the purchase of stores, showing that the authority of the House was in danger of being utterly upset. What on earth was the use of their spending time in debating the Estimates if such practices were sanctioned? The system of the transfer of credits, carried to such lengths, was fatal to the system of finance, and endangered the reputation of the House as the guardian of the public purse. He wished, therefore, to know whether the Secretary to the Admiralty and the Secretary at War were prepared to give an assurance that in the expenditure of the sum of £973,000, which was required to cover certain items, those items would be faithfully adhered to. Before the very able Committee on military organization, the state of the War Office accounts had been described as most unsatisfactory—indeed, he might say deplorable. He also wished to address another question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War. He had an opportunity of seeing the state of the dockyard accounts, but from the very able Report

  379
  of the Committee on the military organization of the country he believed those of the War Office to be in a much worse condition. Mr. Anderson, the chief financial officer of the Treasury, pointed out the errors to which the War Office accounts were exposed, and other witnesses exposed the danger of mixing up the Indian army accounts with those of the home service. The country was prepared to grant any Bums which might be required for its efficient defence, but, on the other hand, it expected that these large sums would be economically expended. A conviction was very general that value was not obtained for so large an outlay, and the House, if it did not take care that the money was properly expended, would suffer the entire blame of throwing it away. He would, therefore, conclude by asking the Secretary for War whether any action had been taken on the recommendations of the Select Committee to which he had referred, and whether measures were in progress for improving the system of accounts at the War Office.
  Sir GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, I understand the hon. Member to ask whether the two Supplementary Estimates now on the table—one for the army and the other for the navy—will be sufficient to cover the entire excess beyond the expenditure voted last Session and appropriated by the Appropriation Act, or whether some further supplementary votes will be required. When an expedition has been recently sent out, the accounts for some time afterwards come in successively, and, perhaps, imperfectly; and it is impossible to say at the present moment what will be the exact amount of expenditure incurred with regard to that expedition. But I speak with the authority of my noble Friend near me (Lord Clarence Paget) when I say that the Supplementary Estimate now on the table is likely to cover the whole excess of expenditure for that department which will come in course of payment before the first of April next; and my information leads me to form the same expectation with regard to the War Department. The Government, therefore, have every reason to believe that this excess will be the whole amount to which it will be their duty to ask Parliament to agree during the current year. With respect to the transfer of items from one branch of the Estimates to the other, the hon. Baronet is well aware that the practice which he objects to is in ac-
  380
  cordance with the existing law, and that in cases of urgency, where the Treasury permits the transfer, it is competent for a department to apply an excess upon one Vote in aid of the deficiency upon another. I am not aware that it is comtemplated at present to make any alteration in the law relating to these extreme cases; but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a measure in preparation with respect to the recommendations of that Committee on which the hon. Baronet and I served two years ago—namely, the Committee on Public Monies. I quite concur with him in thinking the recommendations of that Committee extremely valuable, and I trust, during the present Session, those which have not already been carried into effect will receive the sanction of Parliament.
  MR. DISRAELIobserved, that it would be well if in his statement the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would state whether the House were to understand that the sum of £11,000 for extra pay and allowances was for the extra pay and allowances for the service of the whole year or referred to Canada only.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: It refers to Canada only.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that while approving the step taken by Her Majesty's Government in sending out in a prompt manner troops to assist the North American provinces in case of invasion, he was glad to find that what the Government now asked for would cover the whole of the expenses. There was an impression abroad that a considerably greater expense had been incurred.

UNITED STATES—CORRESPONDENCE IN CASE OF THE "TRENT".

  OBSEBVATIONS.
  MR. BRIGHT: Before you leave the chair, Sir, I should like to make one or two observations. I am not going to object to the Vote, of course; I have had too much experience of such matters to attempt any such thing; but after the prodigious sums voted last year, and in past years, I think we are now driven to the point at which it may be worth while to consider whether the expenditure of an additional million has been necessary and wise, or not. Now, I am not about to find fault with the course of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the recent transaction with the Government of the United States, so far as I can see any-

  381
  thing, or expect to see anything, in the blue books and in the correspondence between the Foreign Office in England and the Department of State at Washington. So far as the despatches which are signed by Earl Russell go, I make no complaint about them. It does not appear to me that the request made of the American Government was one they could reasonably object to, nor does it appear to me that the language in which it was couched was such that they could be entitled to complain of. Therefore, so far as that goes, I have no charge to bring against Her Majesty's Government. But, Sir, it does appear to me clearly that there was great inconsistency between the conduct of the Foreign Office, as exhibited in these despatches, and certain other portions of the conduct of the Government. It is not customary in ordinary life for a person to send a polite messenger with a polite message to a friend, or neighbour, or acquaintance, and at the same time to send a man of portentous strength, handling a gigantic club, making every kind of ferocious gesticulation, and, at the same time, to profess that all this is done in the most friendly and courteous manner. Now, that seems to me precisely what has been done by Her Majesty's Government in this par ticular case; and I am anxious for a moment to explain to the House how I think this million has been worse than thrown away, and that, besides being thrown away, it leaves behind it consequences of much more evil and of much more harm than the loss of the million itself. Now, the House will recollect that, at the very time, I think on a Friday or Saturday, when the Cabinet were said to be meeting for the purpose of discussing the despatch to be sent by the Saturday's boat from Liverpool to America, there appeared in the newspapers that are the especial organs of the Government language of the most violent and offensive character; and that instantaneously—probably on the very day when the despatch itself was written—steps were taken with regard both to the army and navy which were exactly such as would have been taken if the despatch itself had been, not a courteous demand for a just object, but rather a declaration of war. Now the effect of that in this country was very obvious. It created almost a universal impression that there was something which the Government knew and which the country did not know; and though nobody thought—nobody but Go-
  382
  vernment could imagine—that a cause of war could arise out of that question, that the Government cither knew war was all but inevitable, or that they intended war, if war could by any possibility be made out of it. Now, I suppose, if I am to take the answer which would be made to my statement from the statements made at the time, I shall find it based on two theories, which J undertake to say are about as false and about as ignorant as any ever offered to Parliament in justification of any public proceeding. It was said by certain organs which affect to represent the Government—and which are apparently sometimes the Government slaves, and sometimes its masters—it was said that the Government at Washington, or Mr. Seward particularly, was anxious to get into war, or difficulty, with this country, with the view of enabling him, with something like credit, to get out of the difficulty in the South—in fact, under cover of a war with England, peace upon, I presume, terms of separation of the Union, was to be made with the South. That was one of the theories. Nothing in the world was ever offered to rational men more absurd and more impossible. Mr. Seward cannot make war; the President himself cannot make war; Mr. Seward and the President together cannot make war; but the President and the Congress of the United States can make war; and we may be perfectly certain, and might have been then, that it did not rest in the brain of one man, however eminent or ingenious, to consent to the dismemberment of the American Union undercover of a war with this country.
  Well, the other theory was this. The Government at Washington was so entirely under the influence and direction of a mob, that the courteous demand of the English Government would not be listened to, dared not be listened to by the Government, and that it was necessary to have all this display of power, not for the purpose of overawing the Government of Washington, which might, possibly, wish to be just, but for the purpose of overawing the mob of the United States, which was supposed to overrule and overawe the Government at Washington. ["Hear !"] I see that I have hit exactly the idea which hon. Gentlemen, no doubt, had arrived at. Hon. Gentlemen might know, if they had observed the course of the United States, from its early history to this war, there probably never has been a great nation in

  383
  which what is familiarly termed mob-law is less known or has had legs influence. Wherever men have votes, club-law, mob-law, necessarily disappears. ["Oh, oh!"] Understand, I confine my observations always to the free States of the North; and if any hon. Gentleman thinks that I am not fairly describing the case, I ask him to look to the circumstances which occurred, and he must come to the conclusion that the Government at Washington, whether in the removal of a distinguished and popular general, or in the removal of a Minister, or in the recognition of the fairness of the demand of England and the surrender of the two men, perhaps more hateful to them than any other two men existing in the world—I say, looking at all that, the man must be prejudiced beyond all power of conviction who says that the Government of Washington in this matter, or in anything else during the last few months, has been influenced by the action of the mob to an extent which exceeds that which is found to prevail in this country and in almost every other country of Europe. Now, the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government will have this advantage of me—so will any of his Friends who chance to take a different view from me—they will say—and, of course, I cannot prevent their saying it—that whatever has been wrong in their policy, the policy was crowned with a certain success. But that is not always conclusive proof that a policy has been right; and I have not the smallest doubt myself that the only thing which made it a question whether these men would be surrendered and war avoided was not the tenor of the despatch from the Foreign Office, but the tone of the organs of the press which are known to represent a section of the Government, and the movements of regiments and ships in a manner which must have been intended and understood as a menace to the Cabinet of Washington. Why, any man in the world who had access to what is to be found on the shelves of the Foreign Office of England must have known, when the question came to be discussed as to the right to seize these men, or the right to take them, whatever might be said as to the precedents in England's previous conduct, nothing could be said but that it was contrary to American practices and American principles; and it is clear as anything can be to any man who has read the speech which Senator Sumner delivered in the Senate of the United States—in which he
  384
  collected the authorities on both sides of the question, all of which authorities must have been known to the English Foreign Office—that the American Government would have been utterly unable to resist the demand of the English Government, in accordance with their past practices and principles, however courteously that demand was made. It is well known, indeed, to those who were in Washington at the time that the influence of these military preparations was not felt upon the Government at Washington, or on the American people, but upon the Ministers of European Powers residing there; and I have reason to know that no fewer than two of those Ministers expressed their decided opinion that there was an intention on the part of some section of the Government, or of some powerful classes in this country, if opportunity offered, to engage in war with the United States. And the immediate effect of such a statement and such an opinion was this—that every man who either felt aggrieved or felt humiliated by the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, asked himself—shall I gain anything by this surrender? or shall I only have to wait for some other opportunity for the occasion of hostility that is now so apparent? Now, I do not bring this charge against the Government; I do not say they intended war; but I am quite sure of this, that very many persons in the country were led to that conclusion. I think it is very likely the noble Lord at the head of the Government, bringing down his traditions from times of past wars, when law and justice were little regarded amongst the most civilized nations of Europe, thought probably that the only mode of securing what he wished was by this great demonstration of force. Now I believe on this question, as well as on some others—on this more than on any other—there is no other Government, powerful Government, in the world, that has uniformly been so much disposed to abide by known, and, as far as possible, defined law, as the Government of the United States. And when I heard that this demand was being made upon them, with my knowledge of their previous course in respect of these questions, I had no doubt, whatsoever, that the matter would be amicably settled, except the menaces from this side might make it difficult for them to concede to the demand of Her Majesty's Government.
  But, now, with regard to the effect of these demonstrations on British interests I

  385
  would say one word. I will not count up how much the funds fell, how much railway stocks and other securities fell, but I believe that in one market of England—Liverpool—the effect, not of what was done on board the Trent, or of the despatch of the Foreign Office, but of the warlike preparation of the Government, was to reduce the value of the stock of one article to the market by no less than £3,000,000 sterling. Only to-day a friend of mine has been telling me the contents of a letter he has seen from Bombay or Calcutta. The letter states that on a certain day news arrived that war between England and America was imminent; the whole trade of Bombay and Calcutta was immediately paralysed; and from that time up to the date of the latest advices, the paralysis continued, and persons concerned in the enormous commerce between England and India had for some weeks been suffering great loss and inconvenience from the transactions of that time. Doubtless when we hear from Australia we shall learn that the moment war was considered possible or likely between England and America, not an ounce of gold would be shipped, as no man would know that the vessel might not meet an American ship of war or privateer. The panic which seized upon the commerce of India will also have seized upon the commerce of Australia. This is a view of the question worth looking at. Your people are employed by the operation of this commerce, and by the security of the capital employed in it; and when any transaction like this most unhappy accident of the Trent arises between two friendly countries—[laughter]—I do not know whether anybody on the Treasury bench laughs because I call it so—I say it was an unhappy accident. As regards the United States Government and our Government it was nothing but an accident; and nobody knows it better than the noble Lord at the head of the Government; and when an accident of this nature or of any kind arises which may possibly cause jarring between the two countries, it is the policy and the duty of the Government certainly, in the first place, to try all those moderate and courteous means which it would like to have tried with regard to itself, before it has recourse to measures which send a paralysis through all the ramifications of the greatest commerce in the world, and create immense loss to almost all classes of the people. Now I may say, with the utmost satisfaction and truth, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government can-
  386
  not possibly be more pleased than I am with the favourable termination of that untoward event. If the noble Lord believed there was no course of preventing war but that which he took, of course it would be harsh and very unfair in me to blame him for that course; but I do think, knowing how much the United States Government has been bound up—has been committed to humane and moderate principles of international and maritime law—he might have trusted more to their desire to act in accordance with that law, and less to the force which he exhibited against them. He probably does not remember that the people, now for a moment partially disabled and crippled, yet owning the supremacy of the Washington Government, consists of twenty-two millions of people; that for ten, twenty, or thirty years hence, whether the Union be restored or not, the Northern States will probably continue to increase as rapidly as they have ever increased, in population and in power. They are our countrymen to a great extent. We have there but few enemies, except it be those who have left our shores with a feeling of discontent against this Government, which perhaps in their generation cannot be removed; and, I say, it is worth our while, on all moral grounds and on all grounds of self-interest, that we should—iu all our transactions with that people—acknowledge our alliance and our kinship, and not leave behind, if we can avoid it, an ineradicable, undying sting, which it may take many years, perhaps a generation or two, to remove. The War of Independence eighty years ago left such a sting; the war of 1812 inflicted upon both countries a similar mischief. The course taken by the Government, not in the demand, not in the despatch, not in the courteous way in which Lord Lyons managed everything he had to do with regard to it, but in the instantaneous and alarming menace of war, followed and accompanied every day by incessant and offensive charges from the press supposed directly to represent the Government—I say that that tends to leave on the minds of even the most moderate men in America the feeling that England, in the hour of her I trial, has not treated them in the magnanimous and friendly manner which they had a right to expect from us. Now, I am I glad to see there is a remarkable change operating from day to day in opinion in this House and out of it. It is obvious that, since the course taken in that transaction

  387
  by the American Government, a great change has taken place in the opinions of a large portion of the people of this country. There is a more friendly feeling towards the Washington Government; they see in it a Government, a real Government, not a Government ruled by a mob, and not a Government disregarding law. They believe it is a Government struggling for the integrity of a great country. They believe it is a country which is the home of every man who wants a home; and, moreover, they believe this—that the greatest of all crimes which any people in the history of the world has ever been connected with, the keeping in slavery 4,000,000 of human beings, is, under the providence of a Power very much higher than that of a Prime Minister of England, or of a President of the United States, marching on, as I believe, to its entire abolition.
  MR.BAXTERsaid, that although he entertained the same friendly feeling towards the Government of Washington which the hon. Member for Birmingham had just expressed, and, although he could not but deprecate the strong language used in many of the newspaper articles in this country in reference to the Northern States, he could not concur with his hon. Friend in the censure he had passed on the measures taken by the Government. He had no doubt that the Estimates would meet with the unanimous concurrence of the Committee, because they were a part of that policy which the Government had pursued in the affair of the Trent, and which the people of this country had undoubtedly most heartily approved. It was no part of their business, nor was it part of the business of the Government to defend newspaper articles, and he concurred with his hon. Friend in thinking that the language made use of by some organs of public opinion in this country was quite as discreditable as that which had been used by the Press in New York. But not only did he think that Her Majesty's Government acted rightly when they took a determined and decided stand in the Trent affair—and he understood his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham to take the same view—but he would go further, and say that he believed Her Majesty's Government did perfectly right when they backed their demand by such a display of energy and strength as showed that Great Britain was in earnest. And having some slight acquaintance with the institutions and the working of the political machinery in the
  388
  United States, he must say that he had come to a very different conclusion from that which had been arrived at by his hon. Friend, for his firm impression was—and it was an impression that had been confirmed by various private communications which he had recently received—that, after the first feeling of annoyance and irritation had passed away, the manner in which this most lamentable accident had been settled, so far from leaving any feeling of bitterness, so far from leaving what his hon. Friend had called "an ineradicable sting," would, before long, lead to a better understanding between the two countries. At all events, what had taken place would have this effect, it would show our friends on the other side of the Atlantic that there could in future be no possible question with regard to the attitude which, in a similar emergency our great colony of Canada would assume. He was sure there was not a man in that House who did not feel proud of the patriotic loyalty which had been displayed by the colonists of British North America. But there was one point upon which he wished to get some information. The force which had been lately sent to the colonies in North America would have to remain there for perhaps five or six years. He wished to know if the taxpayers of this country were to be asked to pay for the permanent maintenance of troops in the North American colonies? Now, he wished it to be borne in mind that the colonists of British North America did not contribute one single farthing in the shape of contribution to our military expenditure, and until the origin of the Volunteer movement in this country there was no military force whatever in Canada for the defence of the colony itself. Now that country was populous, and to all intents and purposes independent—so independent that it had imposed a very high tariff on British goods, and yet we bad undertaken up to the present time to provide for its defence. During the last few months, it was true, when they found the danger near their own doors, the colonists set about defending themselves in earnest. He had found that in matters of that sort the Colonial Office required a little pushing to get them out of the old track. They did not appear to understand that self-government and self-defence should go together, and it was too bad that this country should be called upon to pay for the defence of a colony with the concerns of which we were not

  389
  permitted to interfere. His object in rising was merely to ask Her Majesty's Government what representations had they made or did they intend to make to the colonists with a view to induce them to contribute more than they had hitherto done to the maintenance of the large military establishments engaged in their defence?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am not going to answer the latter part of the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down; that is a topic which will be more properly handled by my right hon. Friend near me (Sir George Lewis) when he comes to make his statement on the Estimates. But I am unwilling to let a longer time elapse without making some observations on what has fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham. I said on a former occasion that it was desirable that in this House we should not only pass laws and vote Estimates, but should also be the organs of the opinions and feelings of large masses of the community. I go further, and I admit that it is sometimes useful that this House should hear the views and opinions of individuals, and to-night we have had an example of the singular opinions of one instead of the general opinion of many. But I think that with all deference to my hon. Friend it must be admitted that the opinions which he has expressed are as nearly as possible confined to himself. Sir, my hon. Friend does justice to the course which the Government pursued in making their demand for redress from the American Government. Upon that point there is no difference of opinion. He has done full justice to the courtesy and the consideration which influenced my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office when he instructed Lord Lyons to make the communication, and to the delicacy, judgment, and good taste with which Lord Lyons complied with his instructions. It is well, therefore, to know that the ground is cleared of any objections upon those pre luminary points. But my hon. Friend thinks that we were wrong in those military and naval preparations which have been made; that we were wrong in sending out to Canada troops who went with what I think he called "ferocious gesticulations." I do not know to what particular circumstance he alludes, but the weather was cold when they were going, and if they did make "any gesticulations," it must have been in the customary mode of warming their hands. But, Sir, the
  390
  point of my hon. Friend's argument is this—if I rightly understand it—that the United States were bound, and that we ought have known they were bound, by obligations of international law to give up those persons who were taken from on board the Trent, and that in the course which they took they were not likely to be swayed by mob influence. My hon. Friend says where everybody is a voter there can be no mob. I do not quite agree in that theory. But he contends that the United States Government were bound by their own principles to do that which we asked of them, and that they were quite free, nor was any control exercised over them by any class of the community. But, now, I would just ask him if the United States Government held all along that they were bound by their own principles to disavow any act contrary to those principles, and therefore to afford redress, why did they keep those four gentlemen so many weeks in prison? Was it because, as he states, those gentlemen happened to be the objects of great hatred to the United States Government? That is not a reason why an act of injustice should be committed. Why should those gentlemen have been kept in prison, if according to the acknowledged principles of the Government, they were entitled to their freedom from the first moment they were taken? That is to my mind a proof that the United States Government had not come, in the earlier stages of the matter, to the decision that this was an act which they must disavow, and that they were bound to restore those persons to freedom. But my hon. Friend says that no compulsion was exercised upon the United States Government; that as to war, Mr. Seward and Mr. Lincoln could not make it upon their own authority—we know that very well; it requires the sanction of the Senate—and that therefore it was quite foolish—nay, worse than foolish—it was criminal in us to take measures ostensibly in defence, but in reality calculated to provoke a war with the United States. But, Sir, had we no ground for thinking that it was very doubtful whether our demand would be complied with? And will any man tell me who remembers the indignant feeling that prevailed throughout the whole country at the insult and outrage which had been committed that the people of Great Britain would tamely have submitted to a refusal? Well, then, if that refusal came, we should

  391
  have been bound to extort by the usual means, as far as we were able to do so, that compliance which had been refused to a courteous application. Well, what reason had we to think that a refusal would not be given? My hon. Friend cannot have forgotten transactions so recent and events so fresh in the memory of every one. Why, what was the tone and temper of the Northern Slates? We Knew that Captain Wilkes had done this act upon his own authority, and that the United States Government were quite at liberty to disavow it if they chose. Mr. Adams told my noble Friend that in a despatch which he received from Mr. Seward it was stated that the United States Were free to act as they pleased, and that its conduct might depend upon that which the British Government might think fit to follow. The despatch went no further. [Mr. BRIGHT: It did go further.] I do hot know that. Well, Captain Wilkes declared that he had done the act without authority and instructions. But did the people, did the public of the United States hesitate as to whether what had been done was right or wrong? Did they wait to be informed whether it was consistent or not with what my hon. Friend states to be the acknowledged, well-known, and universally-established international code. It is well known that Captain Wilkes was made a hero of; and for what? Why, the reason was distinctly avowed and put forward—namely, because he had had the courage to insult the British flag. There was a great ovation at Boston, where, I believe, persons holding judicial situations, among whom was a person in high office, the Governor of the State, joined in the general chorus of approbation. But you may say that that took place at a public meeting, and that we have heard many foolish speeches made at public meetings, and a great many opinions there expressed which were not backed or re-echoed by the rest of the country. But did things stop there? When Captain Wilkes went to the theatre in New York, the whole audience rose, as they might have done at the entrance of a great liberator of his country; they rose in honour of Captain Wilkes, and cheered him, I believe. Well, were the American Government entirely free from participation in such demonstrations? With respect to some Governments, it is said that one department does not know what another department does, and it is sometimes made a reproach here that depart-
  392
  ments conduct their affairs at cross-purposes; but, in America, the Naval Department—the Secretary of the Admiralty—actually approved Captain Wilkes's conduct, and thanked him, and only ventured to hint a fault in that Captain Wilkes had shown too great forbearance, and hoped that the example would not, in that respect, he brought into a precedent in future. Then, let us go a step higher. The House of Representatives, if I mistake not, voted thanks to Captain Wilkes, and approved his conduct. Here, then, were the American public, the Government, a branch of the Legislature, all approving the act committed. Well, with all these facts before our eyes, should we have been justified in supposing that a mere courteous application, asking the American Government to have the goodness to deliver the four captured persons into our hands, would have induced them to say, "We were quite right in taking them; the whole American people are with us; they see that we have insulted your flag and are glad of it; but as you ask for the delivery of the prisoners as a favour, as a favour we assent to the delivery?" I really think that we should have been deserving of condemnation and censure as shortsighted men, not actively alive to the interests of the country, if we had simply rested our case on the demand. Moreover, it is well known that it was generally said by persons in America, and also, I believe, by some Americans in this country, that the four prisoners were not to be delivered—"that they won't and shan't be given up." What was considered by the Americans to be our weak point, and what was the circumstance which made the United States always more difficult to deal with by England than by France? It was the thought that the British North American colonies were defenceless, and would readily fall before them. What, then, was it our duty to do? It was to strengthen those provinces, and make the Americans see that we were able to defend ourselves on that point which they thought to be the most vulnerable and most easily accessible to them. That, Sir, was not "ferocious gesticulation." It was simply a defensive measure; it was simply strengthening that part which had been weak and might be attacked, and the knowledge of the weakness of which might induce the Americans to maintain that position which they had up to that moment occupied—to retain these men in prison and

  393
  refuse to comply with our demand for their restoration to British protection. Therefore, so far from Her Majesty's Government being obnoxious to blame, I think that the Government are deserving of commendation for what they did; and, though they performed no more than their duty, they performed it promptly and efficiently, and have met with, I believe, the approbation of the country at large. I think, then, that the censure of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham is not deserved and that what we did was not at all calculated to provoke the people or Government of the United States. It was simply a measure which it was our bounden duty to take, seeing the uncertainty of the result of the communications carried out from this country. So far from any feeling of ineradieable irritation between the two countries being engendered by the course pursued, I believe that a contrary course would have produced such a result. If Her Majesty's Government had submitted to a declared and gross insult, no doubt a vote of censure would have been passed on them. Still tike act would have been done, and a sense of humiliation and degradation would have been perpetually in the minds of at least the present generation, on account of the gross and unatoned-for insult committed against the country. I agree with my hon. Friend who has just sat down, that the course actually pursued is one much more likely to produce peace between the two nations. There is no doubt that all nations are aggressive; it is the nature of man. There start up from time to time between countries antagonistic passions and questions of conflicting interest, which, if not properly dealt with, would terminate in the explosion of war. Now, if one country is led to think that another country, with which such questions might arise, is from fear disposed on every occasion tamely to submit to any amount of indignity, that is an encouragement to hostile conduct and to extreme proceedings which lead to conflict. It may be depended on that there is no better security for peace between nations than the conviction that each must respect the other, that each is capable of defending itself, and that no insult or injury committed by the one against the other would pass unresented. Between nations, as between individuals, mutual respect is the best security for mutual goodwill and mutual courtesy; and there fore, in my opinion, the course pursued by
  394
  Her Majesty's Government is one much more likely than that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham to secure the continuance of peace.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTARY NAVAL ESTIMATES.
Lord CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, it will not be necessary for me to trouble the Committee at any great length in bringing under consideration the Supplementary Estimates for the Navy, the principal cause of which is pretty well known. It will only be my duty to give a detailed explanation of the various votes; but previously to doing so I wish to answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for Evesham, (Sir Henry Willoughby) regarding the balances which are available for the naval expenditure. The hon. Member asks whether the sums now to be voted are to be appropriated according to the Estimates laid before the House, or in aid of any other votes than those mentioned in these Estimates. I can assure him that the intention of the Admiralty is to deal bonâ fide with the expenditure in the manner set forth in the present Estimates. The hon. Baronet also asked another question, as to the state of the balances remaining after the expenditure of the present year, as provided for by the Estimates for the year. I believe I may say that if it had not been for the late expedition to protect our North American colonies, and the consequent large increase of the expenditure on transports, it would not have been at all necessary to come to the House for any excess whatever upon the expenditure, and I rather think we should have had some considerable surplus. With respect to the present Estimates, the first charge is under No. 1, for the wages of seamen and marines. This charge, I am bound to tell the Committee, does not arise in consequence of the late preparations for war. The Government had proposed a considerable reduction in Vote No. 1, in consequence of the cessation of hostilities in China, the Admiralty thinking that they could in the course of the present financial year greatly reduce the number of men. The reduction has taken place, but it did not take place so quickly as the Government anticipated. In the first place, matters did not settle down in China quite so soon as we expected. There was, in the second place, some delay

395
in the return of the ships, while we had, moreover, to deal principally with continuous-service men; and it was, I think, a wise policy on the part of the Admiralty rather to exceed the vote than to do anything which would have the appearance of breaking faith with these seamen. We thought it right as the ships came home that they should be paid off, and that such men as were not continuous-service men should be discharged. The only other reductions which have taken place are, I may say, due to the common casualties of the service. Thus much with respect to that part of the Vote No. 1, which has reference to the pay of seamen; but then there is an additional reason, and one which, I am bound to tell the Committee, cannot be regarded as altogether satisfactory, why a part of this sum is now asked. We have taken a sum in that vote for slop clothing for the navy. That description of clothing is, as the Committee is aware, no source of ultimate loss to the public. The general rule is that sailors purchase their clothes and repay the cost to the nation, with the exception of a small allowance made to them on joining their ships. On the occasion of which I am speaking the supply which was due in the course of the last financial year, and which ought to have been brought in and paid for, was not forthcoming, and consequently a considerable sum—indeed £50,000, half of the sum for which I now ask—is due for slop clothing which ought to have been paid for during the last financial year. I have thus accounted for the sum of £100,000 asked for under Vote No. 1. Vote No. 2, which relates to the provisions of the fleet, must, of course, depend as to its amount on the number of seamen we employ; and the fact that that number has not been reduced quite so quickly as we anticipated will, of course, account for the larger sum which is asked for under this head. During the autumn the House granted the sum of £250,000 for the purchase of iron-cased ships. That sum has not been nearly expended, and it was the intention of the Admiralty—having, of course, in the first instance, obtained the sanction of the Treasury—to apply the surplus which remained on hand to meeting the excess in the case of the two items to which I have called attention. There still remains Vote 17, for which we ask a sum of £234,338. This demand is, as the Committee is no doubt aware, entirely due to our recent preparations for the defence of our North American colonies, and it
396
would, perhaps, be interesting to hon. Members that I should state the number of transports which we engaged, and the amount of stores and troops which we forwarded for that purpose. I may, in the first place, observe that in the summer the Great Eastern and the Golden Fleece were employed by the Government to take considerable reinforcements to our North American colonies, and that the whole cost of that expedition is included in the sum which I have just mentioned. The number of steam troop-ships engaged on monthly pay was, I may add, eight, while there were six steam troop-ships hired for the voyage, and six steam store-ships. Besides these four contract mail packets were employed to convey as passengers for the voyage—not hired for the purpose—large detachments of men. These vessels took out the following force to British North America:—16 batteries of Royal Artillery, 4 companies of Royal Engineers, 11 battalions of Foot, a large body of the Military Train, and also Staff and detachments; making a total of 706 officers, 13,730 men, and 207 horses. The expedition was, moreover, accompanied by 250 women and 360 children. The stores which I am about to enumerate were carried out on this occasion, and I am anxious to enter into these details because I think the fact that so large a force could be despatched to its destination at a cost so reasonable and a celerity so great reflects some credit on all the parties connected with the matter. Fifty guns and their carriages were conveyed to our North American Colonies, 91 ammunition and other waggons, and 9,707 tons of army stores, in addition to the baggage and equipment of the troops; while the cost of the whole expedition was as nearly as possible £16 per head. The Committee will, I think, on looking over the accounts, be disposed to think that the steam shipping companies have been very moderate in their charges, and that the whole business has been conducted in a manner extremely satisfactory. I need not, I am sure, add a single word to the statements which I have already made on this head, and I entertain no doubt that the Committee will be disposed to agree to the Estimate I have laid before them. I should, therefore, at once sit down but that I wish, before doing so, to answer a question which was put to me the other night by the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne), and to which, although

397
the subject was to me a source of considerable anxiety, I was then unable to reply. The hon. and gallant Gentleman stated, with reference to the transports Adelaide and Victoria, that they no sooner got to sea after leaving Queenstown, than it was found there was a great leakage in their decks, and that, as a consequence, the troops who were on board suffered much discomfort. Now, I have instituted very careful inquiry as to whether diligent examination was made with respect to that particular point before the vessels set out on their voyage, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will, I feel certain, have no doubt on the matter when I tell him that I have been informed that not only were both these vessels duly inspected, but that their engines were repaired, and that their decks were thoroughly caulked in order to prevent any probability of leaks. That being so, the Committee will perceive that every precaution was taken which could be adopted before our gallant troops embarked to provide for their safety, and that if they experienced the discomforts of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman complains, it is to be attributed to the fact that these vessels encountered unusually heavy gales, which vessels of war are often unable to resist without leakage. It only remains for me, Sir, to move the vote which I now place in your hands.
(1.) £100,000, Wages for Officers, Seamen, and Boys, employed in Her Majesty's Fleet, in excess of the numbers authorized.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had listened to the statement of the noble Lord with some regret, inasmuch as he had intimated that the Admiralty had some intention of reducing the number of our seamen. For his own part, he always looked with great suspicion on the announcement at that period of the Session of those contemplated reductions, whether in the army or the navy, because he invariably found that that indicated a leaning to a system which, of all others, was, he believed, in reality the most wasteful and extravagant—the cutting down the number of men in the first instance in order to lay the Estimates in what was deemed a more acceptable shape before Parliament, and subsequently having recourse to increased expenditure in order to meet the requirements of the public service. He should like to know whether it was true that a portion of the proposed reduction was to take place in the number of men and guns of a certain class of ships.
398
That was a most objectionable proposal, for it would produce no saving in expense, but a decided falling off in point of efficiency. In the event of any sudden emergency ships on a distant station would find themselves in an inefficient condition, and would be unable to procure the supplies of men and guns which they required. He hoped his noble Friend would announce that Government did not intend to send to sea any ships which were not fully equipped both in men and guns. He was also of opinion that the transport service would be in many cases better and more cheaply performed by a certain number of troopships of the Himalaya class, which vessel had paid her cost ten times over, than by relying almost entirely upon hired vessels. It was not only a question of comfort to the troops, but of loss of time when time was the most important consideration. If troop-ships were always ready for sea, the men might be put on board within a couple of days; and occasions sometimes arose when days were of importance. He also wished to know whether a number of transports were not detained in the St. Lawrence on account of the weather, and whether they were not paying for the use of those vessels as if they were on active service. He would like to see a larger number of troop-ships kept in Commission, for the hiring of transports, to the extent at present practised, was essentially penny wise and pound foolish.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONobserved that he had understood his noble Friend, the Secretary to the Admiralty, to say that the first two items of the vote (for seamen and victualling) would in any case have been incurred. His noble friend also made a statement which he did not exactly comprehend, as to the application of a surplus on some of the votes. He wished to know whether any portion of any such surplus had been applied to the sending out the reinforcements to Canada, and whether the sum of—234,000 covered the whole cost of those measures? As they were all aware, owing to stress of weather, some of the reinforcements had not yet reached their destination, and he believed that several of the transports which had arrived in Canada had not yet returned to this country. He made that inquiry because his noble Friend would agree with him that in making a statement of this kind there should be no disguise, and that the House should know clearly and fully

399
what expense had been incurred. He might add, that if there ever was a case in which disguise was unnecessary, the present was one. Had the estimate been considerably larger, he was sure there would have been no disinclination on the part of the House to vote the money. But if the sum of £234,000 really represented the whole cost incurred in sending troops to Canada, he must congratulate the Government on having at so cheap a rate conducted the vigorous preparations which did them so much credit, and for which they had received, if not altogether, yet very nearly, the unanimous approbation of the country. To these preparations he believed they were indebted in a great measure for the concessions of the American Government and for the prevention of that great misfortune—a war between the two countries.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he also wished to congratulate the Government on the reasonable cost at which they had been enabled to convey their reinforcements to Canada. He would have cheerfully supported a much larger vote, had it been necessary. Some explanation, however, was required from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty as to the prospective reduction in the navy. He hoped that that reduction would not be effected by a reduction in the armament of Her Majesty's vessels-of-war, but he had been informed that the Euryalus had landed 16 guns, and that the Shannon and another frigate had also been deprived of a number of guns. Was that done because these ships could not carry so many guns? Was it because they were overmasted? Admiral Elliot, in his report on the Channel Fleet, had, in three different clauses, recommended that the masts of the ships should he reduced, for, generally speaking, they were so much overmasted as to labour heavily at sea. The fact was, that a frigate or a line-of-battle ship could not, on that account, be sent to sea without working so much in every gale that she had to go into dock and incur a costly bill for repairs. He trusted the noble Lord would make some inquiry into the matter. He agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) that five or six troop-ships of the same class as the Himalaya would conduct the transport service in a manner which no hired vessels could approach. At the same time he must say that the transports lately engaged to carry troops across the Atlantic had, with few exceptions, performed the duty very
400
efficiently. It was a mistake, no doubt, to send those vessels up the St. Lawrence at such a season of the year, but they had been well handled, and he thought the House would do well to express its sense of the very able manner in which the respective commanders had done their duty. From information he had received he could state that the Captain of the Parana had shown great skill in managing his ship under very grave difficulties. Great praise was also due to the Captains of the Persia and the Adriatic for the extreme skill with which they had conducted the operations intrusted to them.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that since he had had the honour of a seat in that House he had never seen an Estimate which pleased him more than the one before the Committee. He had expected, and he believed that the impression was general, that these four men would have cost the country a million each; and he was glad to find that, in vindicating the honour of the country so ably as the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had done, the cost had been so small. He was glad to find that the cost, so far as the navy was concerned, was not more than £234,000, and that even that sum included £25,800 for provisions and medical comforts of the troops while on board ship, which would have been required equally whether the men were at sea or on shore. The actual cost, therefore, of sending out these troops, so far as the Admiralty are concerned, seemed to be little more than £200,000. They could not, of course, with only that Estimate before them, arrive at the whole cost of the expedition; but it appeared that the charge for the army was only £609,000, so that they might take the whole expense at £1,000,000, or one-quarter of what the country supposed it would be. Therefore, he for one was highly satisfied with the result; and he only hoped that when the ordinary Navy Estimates appeared they would be as moderate in proportion as these supplementary votes. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had suggested the employment of Her Majesty's troop-ships instead of hired transports in such emergencies. The Transport Committee, of which he for two Sessions was chairman, had, however, arrived at the conclusion that it was much more economical for the country to hire transports as they were required than to maintain permanently a fleet of

401
transports. Their recent experience had proved that they might with confidence rely upon the merchant marine for the supply of all the transports which might be required in any emergency, such as that which arose with regard to America, How prompt merchant seamen were to come forward in defence of the honour of their country was proved by the fact, that when war appeared imminent, the numbers of men on the list of the Naval Reserve rose rapidly from 2,000 to 10,000, and all the men who were entered expressed, in those noble addresses which every Englishman must have read with admiration, their willingness to serve their Sovereign wherever they might be required.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, I wish to know why the surplus arising under the Estimate for 1861–2 could not be applied in relief of this Estimate; and also whether the seamen who had been discharged from Her Majesty's vessels recently returned from service in China, had had given to them the opportunity of becoming continuous—service men if they wished to do so: if they had not, great injustice had been done them. I am not prepared to condemn the removal of a portion of the bow and stern guns from the experimental—for, at this moment, I can designate them as little otherwise than experimental ships—lately built, as it will render them less likely to strain, and in time of peace this is an object not to be disregarded. Nevertheless, it will be important that such guns, or such supply as might be advisable, should he kept in store at Malta, Halifax, and other foreign stations, in order that they might at once be forthcoming again, to be placed on board those ships from which they had been displaced. I have learnt with extreme concern the intention to reduce the complement of the crews in Her Majesty's ships. I raise my voice against a measure so improvident. I am aware that the crews of ships are regulated by the number of guns they carry still; the ships lately built carry a greater spread of canvas and are heavily masted, and a smart and efficient ship of war is the pride of the service; the reduction will place more labour on the crew and create a heavy dissatisfaction. Moreover, a ship undermanned is subject for serious misgiving in general efficiency for all description of duties which may be assigned her, and under all circumstances in which, perchance, she might be placed; besides, in the event of any sudden emer-
402
gency, ships on a distant station would find themselves in an inefficient condition, and would be unable to complete their crews.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he understood that the two first items of the Vote amounting to £130,000 were independent altogether of the expedition to Canada, and that if it had not been for the necessity of presenting a Supplementary Estimate with regard to the other items, the Vote would not have appeared in its present form, inasmuch as there was an excess in the Vote for the year for iron ships amounting to £150,000, which would have been available for this purpose. No doubt by law the surplus of one Vote was with the consent of the Treasury applicable to supply the deficiency on another; but he considered that this was a case in which the application of that principle would be regarded with some jealousy—both on account of the amount of the surplus, and because the money was voted for providing certain permanent property which must ultimately be provided. The practice of diverting items from one head of public expenditure to another was attended with a doubly bad effect. It encouraged the Admiralty, in framing their Estimates, to put down a very moderate amount for stores, and to ask for large sums under heads, such as iron ships, which the nation was willing to grant. The hon. Baronet in conclusion inquired whether the surplus which had arisen on the Vote of £250,000 would be surrendered as a saving to the Exchequer, or applied in any other way.
MR. BENTINCKobserved, that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lindsay) had spent a large amount of energy in refuting assertions which he had never made. He had never impugned the energy or patriotism of the British merchant seaman, nor had he gone the length of saying that the Government ought to be independent of the mercantile marine for the transport of troops. All he said was, that he thought it would he more economical, and conduce more to the comfort of the troops, if they had a large number of troop-ships of the Himalaya class in the Royal Navy.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the £100,000 alluded to by the hon. Baronet (Sir S. Northcote) would at the end of the year undoubtedly be transferred to the Treasury, to be dealt with according to the Appropriation Act. The Admiralty would derive no benefit from it. He was indebted to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) for that op-

403
portunity of stating that all the transports would not have been paid off till after the completion of the financial year. An item of about £40,000 on that account would have to be included in the Estimates for next year, but that sum, when added to the £234,000, would represent the entire cost of transport to the North American colonies. None of the men referred to by his gallant Friend the Member for Christ-church (Admiral Walcott), who wished to enter for continuous service, had been denied the opportunity of doing so. The contemplated reduction of the armament of vessels had no reference to the reduction of men; but it would be attended with beneficial results in increasing their capacity of stowage, in rendering them lighter and more easily handled, and in causing them to labour less in bad weather. There could be no doubt that some of the very large ships were overladen with guns. The introduction of the Armstrong gun in place of the old smooth-bore cannon lightened the weight of a ship's artillery, and greatly increased its power. If he had not already expressed his admiration of the patriotism evinced by the merchant service on a late occasion, he would certainly have taken that opportunity of rectifying the omission. It was his intention when the Navy Estimates were introduced, to express, on the part of the Government, the high satisfaction which their conduct had given. As they were giving credit where credit was due, the House would doubtless give praise likewise to the dockyard officers, whose energy had got so large a number of ships ready in so wonderfully short a time.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved, that it appeared from the statement now made that the number of officers and men sent out amounted to 14,000 men, but in previous statements made to the public the number was only put at 10,000 men.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he wished to know whether it was intended to reduce the size of the ships, as well as the armaments they carried. If vessels were built to carry a certain number of guns, it seemed that the proper course would be to put that number on board; if they were only to carry the reduced armament, and yet were pierced for a larger number, he fancied they were building too large a battery.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would rather discuss that and similar questions when the Navy Estimates were before the House.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following:—
(2.) £30,000, Provisions and Victualling Stores, &c.
(3.) £234,338, Freight of Ships.

SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTAL ARMY ESTIMATES.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: In the early part of this evening, before Mr. Speaker left the chair, the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), asked me a very pertinent question, Whether the charge covered by the first vote in the Estimate I have now the honour to propose was limited to the North American provinces, or applied generally to the army. The reply I have to make is, that with respect to this and the remaining votes in the Supplementary Estimate the charges are for extraordinary expenses incurred in consequence of reinforcements which have been lately sent out to the North American provinces, and which would not have been incurred if those reinforcements had not been sent out. The whole of the Supplementary Estimate is to be attributed to that cause exclusively, and I fear there will be some extraordinary charges which will not come in course of payment before the first of April next, and for which it will be necessary to make provision in the general Army Estimates for the year. I mention this, as the sums may not be inconsiderable. I therefore wish to guard against the inference which the remarks of my hon. Friend might suggest, that the entire cost of the reinforcements would be covered by this Supplementary Estimate. I will state as briefly as I can to the Committee the principal items of which the Estimate consists. I will preface my explanations by remarking that the number of men was in excess of the Vote during the earlier months of the year, and therefore it became necessary for the department to take steps for reducing it, in order that the number should be short of the Vote in the latter part of the year, and in that manner that a balance might be established. Accordingly, the recruiting of men was stopped in the summer, and the number was allowed to fall below the establishment. But when the alarm of a rupture with the United States arose, the Government thought it right to recommence recruiting in order to increase the battalions in North America by 200 rank and file each, so as to bring them up to a war establishment. However, as soon as

405
we received the pleasing intelligence that the Government of the United States had determined to give up the four men, the suspension of the recruiting was resumed, only 1,393 men having been enlisted in the mean time. I think that the course taken by the Government must satisfy the Committee that they had not contemplated any war; that they did not follow any warlike policy, and that the preparations which they felt obliged to make in consequence of unexpected intelligence were not continued after it became known that there was no danger of hostilities. The whole of the extraordinary sums now asked are owing to provisions made for an emergency. There is a considerable charge for the medical staff. When it seemed likely that the militia in Canada would be called upon to make great exertions in assisting to defend that colony, we thought it right to send out officers to train them, and also a medical staff, who would be ready for immediate service. From all we had heard, there was a confident anticipation that the North American provinces would exert themselves to the utmost for their own defence, and in order to meet the assistance which they were to receive from the mother country. In reference to some remarks which have been made this evening, I would say that the reinforcements sent out were strictly of a defensive character. If it so happened that England had no colonies beyond the Atlantic, undoubtedly she would not have moved a single soldier. The reinforcements sent out were for the defence of our own colonies, and not for an aggressive purpose. In the position in which Canada and the other provinces stand with respect to us, we manage their foreign relations. Any offence given to us naturally affects them; and we should be justly obnoxious to the charge of pusillanimity and of being unmindful of the interests confided to our care if, when the people of Canada were threatened with invasion in consequence of an insult to our flag, we had shown any remissness in giving them that assistance which, undoubtedly, was their right, inasmuch as the quarrel was not theirs, but ours, and Canada was only incidentally involved in it. I quite agree with the opinion expressed this evening, that the insult offered to our flag was an unhappy accident; but on the part of the officer in command of the American ship, it was premeditated. He himself informed his countrymen that he made the seizure in consequence of his studies of international law.
406
Therefore, it was a deliberate insult so far as he was concerned; but as regards the United States Government it was unintentional and accidental. Every one must have seen from the first that it was utterly impossible that any instructions could have been sent to Captain Wilkes. He never pretended that he had any, and Mr. Seward gave the most positive assurance to this Government, through Mr. Adams, that the act was entirely without the authority of the American Government. But, though so far an accident, still, on the part of an officer of the United States Government, it was a deliberate affront to our flag. In consequence of that affront our North American provinces were entitled to our assistance, and I think we should have shown an utter absence of all sense of honour and high feeling if, having drawn the people of Canada and New Brunswick into our quarrel, we had left them to extricate themselves from it as best they might. I think we were not only justified in sending these reinforcements, but that every obligation of national honour made it necessary to defend their frontier. The Government took this step in the most efficacious manner that seemed possible, but certainly under a sense of great difficulty in consequence of the short notice and of the absence on our part of any idea of a rupture with the United States, because I can give the Committee the most positive assurance that the news of this seizure came quite suddenly on the Government, and that we had no expectation of any rupture with the United States. The news came, too, at a time when the communications between this country and North America are most difficult, the navigation is most perilous, and the weather is very inclement in Canada. However, as the Committee is aware, those difficulties have been overcome without the loss of a single life, as far as we are aware of. The Committee will agree with me that the Government had no option as to the course which they were called on to take. Though I shall move the Votes separately, it may be convenient that I should now explain a few of the more important items. In Vote No. 3 there is a considerable charge for the purchase of horses. Some of those were for six batteries of Royal Artillery—94 horses to each battery, making a total of 564 horses. Only 180 were sent out from England, so that the rest had to be provided in Canada. Other horses were required for two

407
battalions of the Military Train, which were sent to facilitate the transport of the stores. The entire number of horses was 716, which, at an estimated cost of £35 each, give a gross charge of £25,060. It is a considerable amount, but the money is not wasted. There are then items for medicine and for expenses rendered necessary in consequence of the cold to which men travelling through Canada at this season of the year are exposed. There is an item which was incurred owing to the additional hands put on when the troops were ordered to embark, in order to send out a supply of muskets for the militia in Canada. One of the principal items is £178,000 for the purchase of warm and extra clothing for the troops in British North America. It was thought necessary to incur considerable expense in order to provide warm clothing for men who had to serve in that most inclement climate. Those hon. Gentlemen who have been in North America, or who have read accounts of that climate, will be of opinion that the expense incurred for the purpose of providing warm clothing for the troops, although not inconsiderable, was a necessary precaution for the health and comfort of the men. The expense for each private soldier amounts to £2 17 s. 2d., but that includes a complete provision of all that was required. There was one article that was not used by any of our regiments, and which was not in store in this country—the article of long boots. The French Government, having been informed of our difficulty, undertook the supply of 1,500 boots; which came over in forty eight hours from Paris, and at a cost for which they could scarcely have been obtained from our contractors. I am happy to mention this as a proof of the friendly disposition of the French Government. There has been a large issue of provisions, amounting to £126,900, but that is so considerable a supply as to diminish the Estimate that I shall have afterwards to lay upon the table by about £50,000. The stores purchased on this occasion will be useful to a great extent, and, although this is an extraordinary expenditure, yet the stores will be available hereafter. One of the principal items of warlike stores is for gunpowder. The purchase of saltpetre amounts to £20,000, and various other stores of this kind amount to £170,000. If the Committee wish, I will give them all the details—["No!"]—but I may briefly state that ample provision was made
408
for every contingency, and that the comfort, convenience, and health of the soldiers were fully provided for. Every arrangement was made for conducting the war in an effective manner, if war had unfortunately broken out, and for making our troops as efficient as possible. I believe, too, that no waste was incurred, and that great care was taken by the efficient officers of the War Department to observe economy, even when a great pressure was put; upon them to send out the men as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving a Vote for £11,785 for pay and allowances.
(4.) £11,785, Land Forces, beyond Ordinary and Supplementary Grants.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the vote having arisen from expenses connected with the defence of our North American colonies, it would be well for the Committee to know what their prospects were to be for the time to come. It was quite true that it would have been an act of pusillanimity not to send out troops for the defence of the colonists, as they had been drawn into the dispute without having been consulted; but the quarrels that affected the empire, affected all its dependencies, and it was extraordinary if those who shared nine-tenths of the advantages were spared the burdens of the expenditure of the empire. He did not blame the Government for what had been done, nor did he sympathize in the least with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who, as the noble Vicount had said, stood absolutely alone in the sentiments he had expressed. Every other hon. Member in the House must give the noble Viscount credit for the promptitude, vigour, and success with which he had averted war by sending succour to Canada. When, however, it was truly said that Canada was our weak point, he could not help asking himself the reason why Canada was in so defenceless a state as it undoubtedly was at the commencement of the dispute. He agreed that it was a matter of good fortune that the noble Viscount succeeded in averting war and in saving Canada. But he would ask the noble Lord what would have happened if England had been engaged at that moment in defending her own shores, and if the interests of France had not concurred with ours, but had been adverse to our own? Canada would not have been able or ready to hold her own, even for a time, while England would have been seeking in every quarter for assist-

409
ance. That might be good fortune, but it was not good statesmanship, and he wished to ask whether we were to trust in future to good luck for the defence of the colony, and to leave it the next time in a state so defenceless that unless England had her hands free, and was able to send out troops, Canada must be lost to this country. He by no means sympathized with the opinions recently expressed by Professor Goldwin Smith as to the value of our colonies. Socially, commercially, and imperially, they were an absolute necessity to an island-country like this, and it was because he valued such a colony as Canada in so high a degree that he thought her defence ought not to be left to chance. Still he did not understand why we should consider the defence of the whole empire as belonging to ourselves so exclusively that we should wholly undertake it, and deprive the rest of the empire in common with ourselves of the natural privilege and effort of freedom, or why, from some imperial pride and vanity, we should keep our colonies in a helpless state and prevent them from putting forth their own resources. The noble Viscount had published the fact of his good fortune, and the vigour with which the Imperial Government had come to colonial aid, but he had also published to the world that England was the only portion of the British dominions that was active and ready to fight, and that all the rest of the British Empire was passive and to be fought for. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee a little more about the Canadian militia, and whether the Canadians would be expected in future to tax themselves somewhat more as Englishmen were taxing themselves at home for their security. There were now 18,000 British troops in the North American provinces, and he presumed they were to be kept there for several years for the purpose of enabling the North American colonies to form an army on the same basis. If that were the case, were the colonists going to pay anything towards the expenses of the troops and the stores? Would they pay for the medical stores sent out for their prospective militia? [Sir George Lewis: "Medical Officers have been sent out."] There were items in the expenditure for hospital and other stores besides arms and equipment of every kind, and the colonists for whose benefit they were sent out might fairly be expected to contribute towards such expenses. He did not think by ask-
410
ing them to take their fair share in the expenses of an empire like this we should be depreciating the value of the connection. He believed they knew exactly how to value in pounds, shillings, and pence the present connection with this country; but he firmly believed that they would put a greater and more permanent value upon the natural relations which should prevail.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: The question which the right hon. Gentleman has raised is not necessarily involved in the discussion of this Estimate, which is to meet an extraordinary charge in consequence of reinforcements sent out under the special circumstances of this case. Now, it may have been very wrong that our predecessors had not adopted the policy which the right hon. Gentleman recommends, and had not required that the colonies should make a large contribution towards the expenses of their own military and naval defence; but, inasmuch as that provision had not been made, Her Majesty's Government could deal with the circumstances only as they existed, and I think it must be seen that if we did not send out this force, the frontier of British North America would have remained undefended. I cannot admit, therefore, that this question has any direct bearing on the Vote. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has taken a perfectly fair and proper course in calling attention to an important principle of policy which is involved in the case before us. Now, during the American war the Parliament of this country passed an Act by which it declared that it was illegal to tax the colonies. I am afraid that it would be very difficult to pass an Act declaring it illegal for the colonies to tax us. The system under which the military and naval defence of Canada rests on us virtually amounts to a tax imposed on the mother country for the benefit of the colonies; but, inasmuch as the colonies are dependencies, as we allow them no option with regard to our foreign relations, but make them follow in our wake, compel them to share our fortunes, and involve them in our wars, it is not unnatural on the part of the colonies to expect that a very large portion of the expense of their naval and military defence should be defrayed by the mother country. It is an unquestionable fact that this has been the case, with very slight exceptions, up to the present time; and it is a matter for the consideration of the House whether a change in this established policy should be effected. There

411
was a Committee appointed last Session which went into this subject very fully, and made an interesting report. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. A. Mills) has given notice of a Motion founded on the report of that Committee, and it is his intention to move a Resolution shortly in which the whole of that policy will be brought before the House. I think it would be better to reserve ourselves until that Motion is before us, rather than now go into a somewhat desultory discussion of that large question, which is not confined to Canada, but extends to the colonies in general. As I am on the case of Canada, I will point out circumstances which I think will not unnaturally weigh with a Canadian. He would remember that the frontier line between Canada and the British Provinces of North America on the one hand and the United States on the other, was some years ago in contest, and it was settled by negotiation, conducted by a Plenipotentiary from this country. Many people thought the line which he obtained between the United States and those provinces was unfavourable to the provinces, and that he gave up rights which he might have retained. Well, I am not saying that the treaty was not for the interests of the empire, but I think it is not an unnatural thing that the Canadian should say, "If you take the negotiating of our frontier out of our hands, and bring the Americans close upon oar river; if you even concede some portions of our territory"—for that, I believe, was a fact—" it is fair you should do something to help us when we are threatened with a war from that quarter." I think when we discuss those matters we ought to put ourselves in the position of our colonists, who do not take the same view as many hon. Gentlemen in this House are inclined to take. With respect to the time during which the 18,000 men will be maintained in Canada, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give him or the Committee any pledge with respect to it. I can only say that it is certainly not in the contemplation of the Government to maintain for any time like five years the increased force which was required only by a temporary exigency, and which was meant to meet a peculiar occasion. I do not contemplate the necessity of keeping the present amount of force for a long time in Canada, but how long it may be necessary to maintain it there is a matter upon which I am not now able to give a very distinct pledge. With
412
regard to the Militia, it is certainly true that both in Canada and New Brunswick it has not been very effective, and that there has been a neglect in calling them out and training them; but that subject has been brought under the attention of the Governors by the Colonial Department, and they have exerted themselves very much, and I am bound to say that the population has responded with great spirit and readiness, for they have shown the utmost alacrity in making pecuniary sacrifices for their own defence. I think it would be impossible for me to express in too strong terms the excellent spirit which the entire population of the North American Provinces have shown on this occasion. I believe they will take measures for improving the system of their Militia; but the Committee must bear in mind that the North American Provinces naturally imitate the example of their neighbours in the United States, who never kept up any large standing army, as we see by the measures which they are forced to have recourse to. They are driven to very extraordinary measures in order to raise an army, and, of course, labour under a great difficulty in the absence of trained officers, or of any military system, and hence they are forced to supply by lavish expenditure the defect of a regular trained army.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that great praise was due to the officers and soldiers for the alacrity and energy with which, on so short a notice, they had proceeded to the scene of duty. Heavy loss, he feared, would be entailed upon many of them in consequence of the failure of the transports Victoria and Adelaide, but he hoped that whatever pecuniary loss the troops had really suffered would be supplied by the Government.
COLONEL DUNNEobserved, that the pay for the general staff was put down at £2,260, which appeared to him far under the necessary sum to pay the general staff officers of an army consisting of 15,000 men.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he believed the sum represented the excess of the pay for the current year of the staff officers sent to the North American station beyond the pay voted in the ordinary Estimates.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following:—
(5.) £76,510, Miscellaneous Expenses.
(6.) £11,000, Manufacturing Departments, &c.
(7.) £27,275, Wages.
(8.) £178,500, Clothing, &c.
(9.) £126,900. Provisions, &c.
(10.) £170,077, Warlike Stores.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he did not see any Vote in the Estimates for the purpose of fortifications. He knew the disgraceful State of the fortifications in British North America, and he was quite certain that it would be necessary to go to considerable expense in repairing them. There was in the War Office an able report by General Eyre on the subject, and he should like to know the intentions of the Government in respect to the matter.
SIR GEORGE LEWISremarked, that the subject just touched on was one of considerable importance. He had read the report alluded to, and acknowledged that it was a comprehensive and able document; but it now had merely historical interest, for it bore date as long back as 1826. [Colonel DUNNE intimated that there was a more recent Report.] He had not seen a more recent Report; but, if there were one, it no doubt was made before the introduction of railways, which had almost entirely changed the aspect of the defences in Canada. The subject naturally occupied the attention of the Government, and he believed that the Governor was instructed to cause an inquiry to be made by some of the Engineer officers now sent over into the defences of Canada, and the Government would thus have in their possession a complete account of the existing condition of those defences.
Vote agreed to, as was also
(11.) £7,362, Barracks.
House resumed.

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill, and to repeat what he had said in answer to a question early in the evening, that the immediate object which he had in view was to procure as soon as possible the reappointment of the Committee which sat to consider a Bill of the same character, which had been introduced by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War last year, and which had not passed through the hands of the Committee before the close of the Session. They had, however, made some progress in its consideration, and had come to a resolution recommend-
  414
  ing that the assessments should be made in a particular mode. His right hon. Friend had undertaken to revise the Bill in accordance with that resolution, and to bring it again before the Committee before they reported to the House. When, however, it came again before them, the Session was far advanced, and they substantially recommended their own reappointment in order that they might resume the consideration of the measure during the present Session. Acting in conformity with that recommendation, he had reintroduced the Bill, and had now simply to ask the House to read it a second time, in order that it might be referred to the Committee, which he should propose should be reappointed at once, and should, as far as possible, consist of the same Members as last year. He might add that the debate on the principle of the Bill might be taken when it returned from the Select Committee.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he would not, after the statement which had just been made by the right hon. Baronet, oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he was prepared to take that course only upon the distinct understanding that it should be open to him when the Bill came back to object to the principles as well as to the details of the scheme. It was a measure which affected the interests of every parish in England, and he, for one, was disposed to find fault with it, not only for what it proposed to do, but because it failed to deal with many important objects to the attainment of which he thought it ought to be directed. The most important interests in the great majority of parishes were those connected with the land occupied by railway, gas, water, and other companies, and great difficulty was experienced in rating property of that kind. The difficulty arose from the language of the Parochial Assessment Act, 6 & 7 Will. IV., and his opinion was that it would be still greater under the operation of this Bill. As to the Board of Assessment, as it was proposed to be constituted, he could only say that he could very well understand the fitness of overseers for the discharge of their duties, frequently acting in pursuance of some communications made to them by the principal inhabitants of a parish, or of a resolution of vestry; but it was not so easy to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion with respect to a Board, many of whose members would come from a distance, and who would, in order to obtain the information which they required, owing to their want

  415
  of local knowledge, be obliged to incur the expense of employing surveyors to ascertain the true value of the property to be rated. In that part of the scheme he for one saw much difficulty, while so far as the right of appeal to be given from the decisions of the Assessment Committee to the Quarter Sessions was concerned, he must observe that he thought the latter a most inconvenient tribunal to decide matters of law. It was also proposed that the decision of the Board on questions of value should be final; but what would be the effect of that principle in the case of railways, where the assessment would be in the hands of persons interested in throwing as much as possible of the burden of taxation on the railways which traversed their district? He should not, however, enter at length into a discussion of the Bill, inasmuch as its principle was to come on for debate on a future occasion.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not intend to discuss the provisions of the Bill, but in the Bill of last Session a pledge was given that the Metropolis should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, and yet it contained no clause to that effect. He also thought it necessary to call attention to the remarkable change contemplated by the Bill. The rating of all property was to be brought down to one uniform permanent annual rental, the standard being that of the land. Houses were to be assessed on the annual value, landlords undertaking to keep the property in repair. That would entirely subvert the old principle of assessment, and would add 20 per cent to the rating of house property. Houses of the most fragile character would be assessed at the same rate as those held for 99 years. The measure had been introduced to make way for a Reform Bill, but it was founded on a total misapprehension as to the necessity of taking the annual value of property on the rate-book as the standard of qualification. He did not think it would answer the purpose for which it was intended, and it was worth consideration whether it was at all necessary.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was sorry the Bill had made its appearance again. He did not intend, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to oppose the second reading, but he could not avoid making one or two observations on the shape in which the Bill now appeared. He did not see that any ground had been laid for imposing—as the Bill would impose—on the country a fine of something
  416
  like a million of money for reassessment, and if it was to be mapped, which the Bill took power to do, that would cost another million. Their pockets were not so full that they should be playing ducks and drakes with their money in that sort of fashion. When the Bill came back from the Select Committee, if it should contain that power of re-assessing parishes, he should object to it. The Bill also completely broke down parish authority. The inhabitants of every parish were the best judges whether their assessment was fair among themselves, or whether the parish should be revalued. The Bill altogether knocked that principle on the head, but he was not willing to take that power out of the hands of the respective parishes. He did not think there was any necessity for the Bill. It would be very expensive, and he should be glad to see it drop. But, as it was to go before a Select Committee, it would be time enough to deal with it when it came out of their hands.
  MR. LOCKEurged that the measure was unnecessary for the purpose either of parochial or union rating, and that for political purposes it would be inoperative, since the question with regard to franchise depended on the value of the occupation, and not the mode or the amount of the rating. He could see no necessity for the Bill; if anything could be done, it would be to improve the mode of assessment provided for by the 6 & 7 Will. IV. Whether those provisions were carried out strictly in all cases was, perhaps, a question; and it was probable they were not, but it certainly seemed to him to be useless to introduce a measure which, like this, was perfectly unnecessary.
  MR. CLIVEsaid, that as the second reading was unopposed, it was unnecessary to say much on the contents of the Bill. He had always regarded it as undoubtedly desirable to introduce a system of greater fairness and uniformity in the rating, as well between individuals as between parish and parish. As a rule, the county rate was made separate from the poor rate, but in many cases it was on the poor rate; and therefore, if in one parish the assessment for the poor rate was taken at half, and in another at a third, there was necessarily great inequality in respect to the county rate. The apprehensions expressed as to the expense which this measure would entail were as groundless as the objection that it would deprive overseers and parishes of the power which ought to

  417
  belong to them. The members of the select committee to which the subject was last year referred could perhaps best explain the way in which the alteration that had been alluded to in the principle of rating had been made. The other objection as to the sessions not being a proper tribunal, he thought was groundless, because they all knew that the sessions had the power to grant a case for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. The other objections were to mere matters of detail. The object of the Government had simply been to replace that committee in the same position in regard to this matter as they occupied at the end of last Session. As to any pledge from the Government that the measure should not apply to the metropolis, perhaps the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was in as good a situation as he was last year for imposing such a pledge upon them.
  MR. PULLERsaid, that as a Member of the Select Committee to which allusion had been made, he could state that, as far as his own knowledge of its proceedings extended, the Committee were not responsible for the alteration in the principle of rating which had been made by the Bill.
  Bill read 2o, and committed to a Select Committee.
  House adjourned at a Quarter to Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Transfer, of Land; Declaration of Title; Security of Purchasers; Title to Landed Estates; Registry of Landed Estates.

EDUCATION—THE REVISED CODE OF REGULATIONS.
The EARL,OF DERBY, presented petitions against: the Revised Code of the Committee on Education, and said: My Lords I will take this opportunity to put a question to the noble Earl the President of the Council, or rather to offer a suggestion to her Majesty's Government, with regard of the course to be pursued in bringing under the consideration of Parliament the newly-revised Code. When that Code first made its appearance, it excited from one end of the country to the other the strongest possible feelings of apprehension and dislike. Subsequently Her Majesty's Government made important modifications, and, as far as they go, great improvements on the original Code; but there are still many other points which deserve the serious and deliberate consideration of this and of the other House of Parliament; and it is to these that my suggestion points. I need only instance among those points the new state and condition of the pupil-teachers, the altered relations between managers and teachers, and the proposed mode of examination of the pupils in the elementary schools. As to the questions connected with the system of examination, it will have to be considered whether the examinations
344
shall be conducted upon the principle, as proposed by Government, of grouping the children according to age, or whether it will not be far preferable to group them in classes. It will also be most important to consider whether the whole amount of the teacher's remuneration shall be dependent upon an examination hastily and imperfectly conducted. I must observe that this provision is entirely at variance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, upon which Her Majesty's Government profess to found their measure, and it is specifically at variance with the recommendations of the Commissioners that two separate classes of payment should be made. If this were a tentative experiment, liable to be changed from year to year, I might be satisfied to allow it to proceed on the single vote of the other House, and leave the alterations for future consideration. But your Lordships will recollect that it is not a tentative measure. It is intended to be a permanent system, founded mainly upon the recommendations of the Commissioners, whom I had the honour to advise the Crown to appoint, to whose impartiality my noble Friend has borne testimony, and who have displayed the greatest possible ability in collecting and presenting a mass of most valuable materials for our guidance. I cannot help thinking that the whole scheme, so matured; does require to be more seriously and deliberately considered by Parliament than can be the case if it be submitted almost for forms sake in this House, and in a shape in the other House to be simply negatives or adopted. I will do the Government the justice to any that, even at the risk of some further modifications being made, I believe they would prefer that intelligent and deliberate consideration should be given to all the details of the system, rather than it should be hastily adopted without full discussion. I do not ask Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill—I do not wish to tie the Privy Council down so closely as they would be tied by the clauses of a Bill—but I do ask the Government to give us an opportunity of discussing the various details which make up this great measure. If they were embodied in a Bill, I dare say your Lordships would readily accept the second reading, and discuss in Committee clause by clause seriatim the means by which it was proposed to work out this measure. What I wish the Government to do (and I suggest it for the convenience of the House, and

345
as the only means of doing justice to the measure and to themselves) is this,—to embody the whole plan in n series of Resolutions, carrying out the various details so as to enable Parliament to deal with them as with the clauses of a Bill, In that mode, and in that mode only, I believe can we come to a discussion of details which it is impossible satisfactorily to discuss in a general debate upon the whole measure. If Her Majesty's Government do not assent to the proposal, it may be said that it is quite in the option of any noble Lord in this House, or any hon. Member in the other House, to suggest Resolutions condemnatory of parts of the measure. My answer to that is, that I should prefer to avoid anything of a controversial or hostile character in the manner in which we approach the discussion of the measure. If you bring forward Resolutions condemnatory of certain portions of the scheme, it is almost impossible but that the discussions must partake of a party character or a supposed party character; whereas, if the whole scheme is submitted by the Government, there can be no such appearance of hostility, and this and the other House will have an opportunity of discussing fairly and impartially every part of a scheme, the importance of which can hardly be overrated, and which ought not to be adopted hastily or without due consideration. The question which I have to ask the noble Earl is, whether, on the part of the Government, he will be prepared to embody the provisions and the leading details of the scheme in a series of Resolutions to be submitted to this and the other House, and thus, upon each part, as well as upon the plan as a whole, to take the deliberate judgment of Parliament.
EARL GRANVILLE: I readily bore my testimony the other evening to the very fair and candid manner in which the noble Earl treated this question, and I am glad to hear to-night that if the scheme of the Government had been proposed in the shape of a Bill he would have been prepared to affirm the principle of the measure by agreeing to the second reading. I am not about to discuss now the amendments and points which the noble Earl suggested, but will content myself with saying that I see no reason why Her Majesty's Government should depart from the usual precedent and custom in the matter. The noble Earl says this Revised Minute is different from any other altera-
346
tions; but I cannot see that it introduces any great change in the system. It is merely a completion of the former system, and it certainly is not a greater change than the original introduction of the Minutes, when it was agreed that the manner of introducing them should be by laying them on the table of both Houses, and advisedly not in the shape of a Bill. I am happy, therefore, that the noble Earl does not press for the introduction of the Revised Code in the form of a Bill. He suggests, instead, that it should be brought before Parliament in the shape of Resolutions. I am extremely anxious not to avoid discussion, for I think it most desirable that we should have the opinion of Parliament fully expressed on the matter; and, if this opinion could not be obtained except by the Government bringing forward their proposal in the shape of Resolutions, I should hesitate before I declined to take the course suggested. But it appears to me that for the puposes of discussion and eliciting opinions the matter is in precisely the same position as if the Government were to embody their proposals—which I hope will be made perfectly clear by papers which will be laid before you to morrow—in the shape of Resolutions, There would be many inconveniences attending the embodiment of our proposals in a different form, and I can assure your Lordships that we shall not consider any Resolution proposed in modification of our plan in its form as at all more hostile than an Amendment to a Resolution if we were to introduce it in that shape. We wish that the matter should be thoroughly discussed, and that Parliament should give its opinion upon it, and we shall not take advantage of any technical difficulty to overrule the opinion of Parliament. If both Houses should concur on any point not affecting any great principle of our plan, Her Majesty's Government will be open to take any course they may think most advantageous with regard to it. I believe that great advantage will be given by our plan for discussing any proposition which any independent Member may bring forward, and I do not see what there is to be gained by departing from custom and precedent. With great deference to the noble Earl, I am compelled, therefore, to decline his suggestion, and I cannot pledge myself that the Government will act in any other manner than that which they have already announced to the House.

THE EARL OF CLARENDON AND COUNT CAVOUR.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, although I am afraid it is somewhat late, I hope your Lordships will allow me to trespass on your attention for a short time on a subject which, though personal to myself, is yet of great public importance, and which I regret that, owing to my unavoidable absence, I have not been able sooner to bring under the notice of the House. Your Lordships have probably read some letters of the late Count Cavour which have recently been published in the newspapers; and I can assure you that if any of you in reading those letters have experienced any surprise, it could not have equalled my own. I know not whether those letters are genuine or not, or into what hands they have fallen, nor do I know by whom or with what objects they have been published. With that I have nothing to do. But in those letters certain sayings are attributed to me with respect to which your Lordships and the public have a right to expect some explanation, because at the time those letters purport to have been written, and the conversations are said to have taken place, I had the honour to be Her Majesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the first British Plenipotentiary at the Congress of Paris. In that capacity I think it was my duty to have expressed no opinion, and to have given no advice, without the sanction of the Government of which I formed a part, or which I did not think would be in accordance with the views of the Government. I am, therefore, prepared to take upon myself the entire responsibility of everything which I did say, but I cannot be made responsible for things attributed to me which I did not say. In offering the explanation, however, which you have a right to expect from me, I find myself in a twofold difficulty—first, that of separating what is true from what is incorrect in Count Cavour's letters; and, secondly, the pain and repugnance I feel in contradicting the late Count Cavour. If he had been alive, it would have been comparatively easy for me to have corrected any inaccuracy in his correspondence, and to have accompanied it with such explanation as might be necessary, and the publication of his letters, if authorized by him, would have justified. But as Count Cavour is, unfortu-
  348
  nately, no more, I will say nothing beyond what I think strictly necessary for clearing myself from the absurdity—I may say the palpable absurdity—with which, although not directly, yet by implication I am charged. It amounts to this, that I encouraged Count Cavour to pick a quarrel with Austria—in fact, to declare war against her, by an assurance that in such a course of policy Piedmont would have the material support of England. There is much that is true in Count Cavour's letters, and I say so with reference to his account of what fell from him in the Congress when Italian affairs were discussed. From the first meeting of the Congress Count Cavour had constantly urged upon the British and French Plenipotentiaries the necessity of bringing before it the affairs of Italy. We had remarked to him that the Congress was assembled for the purpose of negotiating a treaty of peace with Russia; that to introduce any other subject would be irrelevant and even impossible; in fact, that even after the treaty of peace was concluded it might meet with serious obstacles, because the other Plenipotentiaries might protest, as they did, against the introduction of any other subjects; they might declare their powers limited to the matters for which the Congress was assembled, and that their instructions would not permit them to enter into the subject. Nevertheless, when the treaty was signed, the French and English Plenipotentiaries did bring on a discussion of Italian affairs, and Count Cavour's account of what I said with respect to the Neapolitan and Papal Government is perfectly correct. I neither regret, nor do I wish to retract, one word of what I said, because I felt, as every other Englishman did, the profoundest sympathy for the misgoverned Italians, and an ardent desire to see an alleviation of that system of oppression and tyranny which obtained from one end of the Peninsula to the other, and I thought the Congress in which the principal Powers of Europe were represented was a fitting place for the expression of those opinions. But the result of a long and angry discussion was only that the Austrian Plenipotentiaries agreed with the French Plenipotentiaries that the Pontifical States should be evacuated by the French and Austrian troops as soon as it could be effected without danger to the tranquillity of the country and the consolidation of the authority of the Roman See, and further that most

  349
  of the Plenipotentiaries did not question the good effect might arise from measures of clemency. This meagre result not only did not satisfy Count Cavour, but it greatly disappointed him. With his views, looking at the matter both as an Italian and a Piedmontese, Ins irritation was not unnatural, for his whole heart and soul were set on freeing the North of Italy from the dominion of Austria. He did not conceal his irritation from me. He constantly told me that he could not present himself before the Parliament of Turin unless he proved that he had produced some effect by his presence at the Congress. I was in the habit of seeing him daily, and I willingly listened to him upon the only subject upon which he would converse, and on which he was always earnest and eloquent. But those conversations never appeared to me to be of a character sufficiently practical to make it necessary to report them to Her Majesty's Government. Consequently there is no record of them, though I have searched, nor of those repeated assurances which I gave him that our invariable principle was to maintain our treaty engagements, and to be guided by the principles of international law. At the same time, I did not disguise from him, what he knew and what everybody else knew, that our object at that time was to free Italy from foreign occupation, and to reform the Papal and Neapolitan Governments, and that towards that end the moral support of England would be always forthcoming. Out of the numerous conversations that I had with Count Cavour, the only one I can remember which could—I will not say justify but give rise to his assertion that I said "If you are in a strait, we shall come to your assistance,"had reference, not to a war by Piedmont against Austria, but to an invasion of Piedmont by Austria, which was a fixed idea in Count Cavour's mind. He always thought that the free institutions of Piedmont—her freedom of the press and freedom of debate—even her very prosperity under such a system, would always make her an intolerable neighbour to Austria. I assured Count Cavour that my conversations with Count Buol, though certainly not very satisfactory in general with respect to Italy, entirely confirmed my impression that no such apprehension need be entertained by him; and, upon Count Cavour asking me what course we should take in such un eventuality, I re-
  350
  member saying, "If you ask my opinion, I should say that if Austria invaded Piedmont for the purpose of suppressing free institutions there, you would have a practical proof of the feeling of the Parliament i and people of England on the subject. "Of course I cannot pledge myself to the exact words, but I do feel quite sure about the spirit and scope of my answer. It was a personal opinion given upon an hypothetical case, to which I did not then attach any importance, nor did I know that Count Cavour attached any importance to it until I read these letters, in which he says—
  "England, grieved at peace, would with pleasure see an opportunity for a new war, which would be popular because it would be a war for the liberation of Italy."
  He then goes on to say—
  "If they (Lord Palmerston and his Government) share Clarendon's views, we must make secret preparations, contract the loan for 30,000,000f., and, upon Della Marmora's return, offer to Austria an ultimatum which it will be impossible for her to accept, and open hostilities."
  In another letter Count Cavour says—
  "Talking with him (Lord Clarendon) as to the means of acting morally and even materially upon i Austria, I said to him, 'Send your troops upon men-of-war to Spezzia, and leave your fleet there.' And his answer was, 'The idea is excellent.'"
  Now, my Lords, upon my honour I have not the slightest recollection of any such conversation, and, therefore, I cannot deny it; but I think so wild a notion cannot have been seriously entertained even by Count Cavour himself. Bearing in mind the enthusiasm of Count Cavour in favour of his own views, and his ardent desire to make known his activity in the Congress of Paris, and to keep up the spirits of his friends at Turin, I for one—though I have the most reason to complain—can make allowance for these imaginative reports of private conversations contained in letters to his friends and colleagues, but which were evidently not intended for publication. But that I, as one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, without any communication from my colleagues, and contrary to the dictates of common sense, knowing that the French Emperor at that time had not the slightest thought or intention of making war against Austria, that he did not then even require her to withdraw her troops; from the Legations, until he had withdrawn his own troops from Rome—that I, under such circumstances, should, even in

  351
  the most indirect manner, have recommended a country to which we heartily wished well to commit such a suicidal act as going to war with Austria, with her large army under. Radetzky, and having the support of Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and Naples—and that, without the shadow of authority for doing so, I should have given any pledge for the support of England in such a policy as would have imbroiled us in war with half Europe—is an absurdity so palpable that I hope, your Lordships will think it carries, with it its own refutation, without my laying claim to that character for extreme reserve and discretion for which Count Cavour rather paradoxically on that occasion informed his correspondent I was notorious.

TRANSFER OF LAND BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to claim your Lordships' indulgent hearing for a few observations I am desirous to submit, that your Lordships may be enabled to follow with greater facility the provisions of a Bill relating to the transfer of land that I propose to lay before you. A measure more important to the landed interest has never been presented to Parliament; and therefore it is that I have been desirous it should originate in your Lordships' House, not only because it is largely interested in the question, but because it includes so many competent to discuss it, to consider and to judge of it. I wish the question to be accurately stated, and that the measure should be most deliberately considered; and then, should it be thought worthy to receive your Lordships' approbation, it will go down to the other House with greater authority and a great claim to consideration. The measure is one to give a certainty of title to land. The word "title" here is not intended to signify the right of possession or enjoyment of an estate; it is intended to indicate that evidence which it is incumbent on the owner of an estate to produce, according to law, whenever he makes that estate the subject of a sale, mortgage, or alienation. According to natural law, possession and enjoyment would be a sufficient title or evidence of the right of possession; but the mere possession and enjoyment of a real estate are no evidence of a right to dispose of it. With any ordinary subject of property the actual possession, either by your-
  352
  self, or by another from whom you have derived it, is accepted by the law; but in the case of a real estate of which you have been possessed for ten or twelve years, if yon seek to sell, that is no proof of title; and if you urge that the estate was bought ten or twelve years ago from a former owner, still the question is, "But how did that former owner acquire it?" The answer is, perhaps, by will, ten or twelve years previously. But the exigency of the law is not even then satisfied. It requires to know how that owner came into possession of the estate;—and the inquiry goes back by requisition on requisition until it has exhausted the whole period of sixty years, during which you yourself, or those from whom you claim, must not only have had a beneficial enjoyment and possession, but must account for every transaction and explain every disposition and act of ownership, and show that during this period nothing has occurred that can, by any possibility, interfere with the present title. Now, this is a great evil. I know not that anything similar exists under any other system of jurisprudence. It is a great hardship; and how has it been created? It has been created by the infirmity and imperfection of the law; it has been created because the law has provided no mode of giving certainty to a title it is the result of having no system or institution by which the title to an estate can be recorded with certainty. Therefore, these obligations have been thrown on proprietors, simply for want of something that would more easily, more perfectly, and more economically demonstrate the right and title of the individual in possession. Why the particular limit of sixty years was first proposed, I cannot say with certainty; but the rule was probably adopted, because that period is so long that, ordinarily speaking, all the transactions that may occur in two generations might be supposed to be included. But nothing in the world can be more fallacious than this rule; your Lordships will perceive it by an example. Suppose a title is produced in 1862, commencing by a purchase made in the year 1802. It may happen—and it may most easily happen-that the individual of whom the estate was purchased was a young man of twenty-three years of age, and who may live more than sixty years after the sale. On his death it may be discovered that in 1802 he was only a tenant for life of the estate under the will of his father; and on his

  353
  death the purchaser may be surprised by finding that some other person is entitled to the estate. Then, notwithstanding these difficulties of satisfying all the requisitions of the inquiry into the title, the purchaser would be turned out of his possession; on the death of the seller another person becomes actually the legal possessor. Fifty other cases might be adduced for the purpose of conveying this conclusion—that, injurious and oppressive as the rule is, it fails to accomplish its object and is capable of being easily eluded. But the oppressive duty thrown upon owners of real property in being obliged to make a title for sixty years might be more easily performed if the state of the law were easy and simple in itself. But I am sorry to say the original simplicity of the common law is lost, and that the law has become very complicated and intricate, entirely from the vast variety of interests which in the course of time have been called into existence, and which have now fastened themselves on the land. Thus in proportion to the extent of the interests which have been created in the land is the difficulty of deducing them down, and of explaining the manner in which they have ceased or have become vested in the person under whom the vendor claims. Now, in the original state of our law nothing could be more simple than the title to real estate. The transfer of real property took place in the most open manner—generally before the Earl's or the Sheriff's Court—when a feoffment, that is a conveyance, was made, accompanied by a symbolical delivery of the property in the presence of the assembled freeholders, who were witnesses of the transactions. Then, in truth, property and possession were seldom divided from one another; because the common law, generally speaking, admitted only of such modifications of ownership as were indicated by tenancy for life with remainder to another. The tenant for life was the individual in possession, and the remainderman through attornment of the tenant for life was also in possession in the eye of the law. Thus all trans actions were carried on with great simplicity. But in after-years a device was found out which introduced great complexity and difficulty. This device was borrowed from the civil law: by it, in the language of lawyers, the use was severed from the possession—that is, one man might be the visible and common law owner, another being the beneficiary; one man was re-
  354
  garded as holding "to the use" of another, and thus the use, or the beneficial estate, became separated from the common-law ownership. Great difficulties resulted from this introduction of a secret system of uses, and accordingly Parliament came to the aid of the landed interest by a statute passed in the reign of Henry VIII., and called the Statute of Uses. By this statute it was enacted that the possession and the use should always go together—in other words, that there should be no difference between the visible and the actual ownership, and that the one should always accompany the other. This was the step taken, after great consideration, in order to redress the evil which had grown up; and it was supposed that the statute would annihilate the evil. I am sorry to say that the object which Parliament had in view was defeated here, as in many other cases, by what I may be permitted to call the pedantic and narrow-minded interpretation of the Judges of the hind. You will find that in the English law nothing has been more fertile of results to be regretted than the attachment of our lawyers to the mediaeval logic—the pedantries and puerile metaphysical disquisitions which distinguished what was called the learning of the time. Accordingly, the Judges held that, although the statute transferred the possession to the use, yet if the form of the deed created two successive uses—that is, if the land was given to A, to the use of B, to the use of C—the statute executed only the first use and left the other unaffected. This, of course, left the evil in all its integrity, and opened the door to the entire evasion of the statute by the simple introduction of three words grafting a use upon a use. It is baldly possible to conceive a more puerile device for the purpose of preventing the beneficial operation of the statute. The result was, that we had the legal seizin, then the use, and then a second use grafted upon the first, which was held equivalent to a trust. Thus there arose a worse state of things than before; for, instead of annihilating uses, the only effect of the statute was that they were thenceforward employed in a more formal and complicated manner. Nor did the evil rest there, for the Courts of Equity intervened and enforced these trusts just as they had been previously in the habit of enforcing the use, the consequence being that we got an unfortunate distinction between the legal and the equitable estate, between the jurisdiction of courts

  355
  Of law and the jurisdiction of courts of equity. The result of the state of things which I have thus imperfectly described was to create two burdens upon the landowner, and to cast upon him two obligations—because he was forced thenceforward to trace the descent and transmission both of the legal and equitable estate; and that which was introduced to relieve the landed interest became the cause and origin of a double burden. Moreover, the Courts of Equity, which undertook the duty of enforcing trusts in real estates, held—not as they might have held, that the trust attached to the person of a trustee, but—that the trust attached to the land itself; and even where there was a trust to divide the produce or to raise money for the portions of younger children, or for the benefit of other individuals, they held that the right to receive so much money was an equitable interest attaching to the land. Now, observe the consequences of that unfortunate doctrine. The owner of land, in travelling back over the 60 years which he has to cover by his evidence is compelled to trace every single case of a portion or a money charge directed to be paid and satisfied out of the land—to trace the individual entitled to it, to produce the release of it, and prove that the land is emancipated from the charge. Your Lordships will easily understand the operation of this doctrine, that a trust attached to the land and not to the person. If you create a settlement or disposition by a sum of money invested in Consols, which you invest in the names of trustees, the trust affects only the person of the trustees, and does not fasten upon the Consols. The difference is great indeed. The title to the stock is manifested by the possession and by the entries in the books of the Bank of England; and although the stock may be held upon 100 trusts, the concurrence of no one of these beneficiaries is necessary for the transfer of the stock. Now, in a trust of land the concurrence of all the beneficiaries is necessary for its effective transfer. A great burden is cast upon the owner of real property by this unfortunate course of procedure. It would seem as though the Legislature were deterred from any further attempt to remedy the evil, seeing their efforts had been baffled in the manner I have described. From that time the landed interest has crouched down and bent low under the double burden which was cast upon it; and that is the position in which things stand at the present moment.
  356
  The extent of the evil, however, does not rest there; because a landed proprietor being obliged to demonstrate his title for sixty years, if the law bad benevolently provided any mode of doing this efficiently, or of recording the result of that investigation—if any machinery had been contrived to stamp his title, when once ascertained, with the sterling mark of being valid and good—the evil might then have been easily borne. But unfortunately nothing of the kind is known to our law; and therefore if a landed proprietor disposes of a farm, the title to which is thoroughly investigated and is accepted by the purchaser, and next day wishes to sell another farm which he holds under exactly the same title, he gains not one particle of benefit from the expense of the first investigation, but the same inquiries must be made by the second purchaser, and the same expense must be borne before the title to the second farm can be perfected. And so on ad infinitum, nothing being gained by the labour and expense to which you have been subjected, save only that you may have in the second case more ready means of repeating the process, and of complying with the requisitions made, than you had before.
  There is another grievance of which we have now to complain, but which I hope from this day we may see some chance of removing. I can hardly denominate it by any other name than the tyranny of parchment deeds. The wonderful invention of printing rendered the extension of information a matter of great facility in every branch of knowledge but the law, for the lawyers repudiated it altogether. If, when the art of printing was introduced, deeds had been permitted to be printed, as they might well have been, one effect would have been that we should have got rid of much perverse obscurity and the constant repetitions with which parchment deeds are encumbered. Not only so, but all deeds would have been brought into a simple and readily accessible form. Instead of requiring large and expensively-constructed muniment rooms, all titles to estates might have been bound up in a few volumes, the liability to error that now exists would have been entirely avoided, and I may venture to add that a great part of the litigation which has been produced from the difficulties of discovering the meaning and effect of deeds would have been prevented. Not only so, but a great' part of the expense attending an alienation of land would have

  357
  been got rid of. For what is now the practice? When you sell an estate, you are obliged to have all the parchments relating to it collected together, first for your solicitor to examine, and then to prepare an abstract. That abstract is handed to the purchaser, who, however, also must see the original parchments, to ascertain whether the abstract contains a faithful and true account of all transactions. This is an expensive and tedious process, and I put it to your Lordships whether much of these inconveniences would not have been avoided if title deeds to estates had been printed upon simple pieces of paper. There would have been no difficulty in perusing them or in ascertaining the meaning—it would have been the easiest, the simplest, and the most economical proceeding, as I think must be obvious to every one. It is surprising that this, which is so obvious, has never been attempted. Deeds might be printed at one-half the expense at which they are engrossed. Not only might deeds be printed, but, as I have ventured already to observe, they would then be reduced one-half in size. There is nothing in my professional life to which I look back with so much pleasure as the efforts I made, and successfully, to introduce into the Court of Chancery the practice of printing bills and proceedings; but so great was the prejudice, that when I ventured to propose it as a thing most necessary to be done, there was not a single one of my colleagues upon the Commission who could give me the slightest hope that the thing could be done, or that it would produce any benefit. It was at length partly recommended out of consideration to myself. I think, however, now I may venture to say that that change has been productive of the greatest possible benefit in the Court of Chancery; and I may refer to it as evidencing what I said just now concerning deeds, that it has got rid of the cumbrous, prolix, and tautological repetitions in bills, and has reduced the size of those bills at least one-third, while the statements contained in them are couched in plain and intelligible language. I refer to this because you will find that one of the provisions by which I propose to work the measure which I shall have the honour of submitting is that in future all deeds relating to estates shall be printed.
  The question, and it is a most important one, is in what way shall we meet the evils which I have described. In the first place they are to be met and
  358
  removed, I think, without making any material change in the law. I do not want to introduce any alteration in the system of legal rights of ownership. I want only to introduce alterations in the mode of perfecting and manifesting titles, to facilitate the disposition of estates, and to bring them as near as possible into a condition of easy alienation, so that land may he dealt with with almost the same facility as ships or railway property, or shares in public companies, or the enormous amount of wealth invested in Government securities. I approach this subject with great confidence in the present day, because of our experience of that very great and beneficent measure that was passed some years ago for the sister country, and which has been attended by so great success. Your Lordships know that when the Encumbered Estates Court was instituted it was upon the principle that the Court should examine the titles of those who had recourse to it for the sale of estates, should put up the lands for sale, and should give to the purchaser a clear title, writing the name of the owner upon a piece of paper, which was to start him anew, and give him a complete title—a statutory title against all the world without the necessity of any retrospective investigation. Well, now the success that has attended the operations of that Court is so far an assurance to us that the first step of obtaining a statutory title is a feasible and a beneficial proposition. The great difficulty still remains of providing an instrument that shall not only provide a statutory title, but shall also contain within itself the means of recording and preserving the evidence of the title, so that it may be reproduced at any time whenever it may he required. The purchaser from the Landed Estates Court takes, it is true, a statutory title; but when he proceeds to deal with the land it is in the same position as before, and in the course of a few years the title he has obtained becomes obscure from a great number of subsequent transactions, and the law has provided no mode of keeping up a record, preserving the proof of the tide, and of the subsequent transactions, so that at any time the exact state of the title to the estate could he ascertained and reduced to a simple statement upon a piece of paper, which might be given to the owner, and thus enable him to dispose of the land. I want to construct a legal instrument that shall not only enable a man to obtain a

  359
  statutory title at the present time, but which shall enable him to give from time to time entries of the results of all future transactions and dealings with the land; so that the owner of the estate may at any time send to the registry, and if he wanted to sell might obtain a special certificate of title. He can then go into the market with that certificate, and a purchaser may safely deal with the estate, the simple certificate obviating the necessity for the difficult and cumbrous and expensive investigations that are now required.
  Your Lordships will now allow me to explain what is the form of the machinery of this Bill, and in what manner the instrument may be expected to work, in order to accomplish these several objects—first, to ascertain whether there is a good statutory title; second, to preserve the proof of all subsequent dealings with the land, so that the nature of the real existing interests on the estate may at any time be ascertained; and thirdly, to provide a mode by which all those dealings with land which the convenience or the necessities of mankind require may be most easily and readily transferred to the record of the Court, and kept there for future reference. I propose in the Bill to establish a registry, which is divided into two parts; one is a registry of guaranteed titles—that is statutory, indefeasible titles; the other is a registry of titles not guaranteed, which are to be put upon the registry with a view to become Parliamentary and indefeasible when by a course of long enjoyment they may become so entitled. Now, what is to be done by a proprietor to entitle himself to place his land upon the register, in order to obtain a Parliamentary title? There must, of course, be a most rigid examination of the title, but it will be an examination once for all. Instead of the process having to be gone through repeatedly, it will be gone through once for all. And it will be done not in a manner that will divulge to all the world the results of the investigation, but by officers of trust, sworn to their duty, and performing it under a great sense of responsibility. Therefore, precisely the same steps which you would have to take if you Sold a farm or a particular estate to a purchaser, you would have to take when you submit your title to the registrar with the view to having it recorded on the register. The registrar will, if requisite, have the aid of the, Court of Chancery to enable him to examine the title. And when I speak of
  360
  the Court of Chancery, your Lordships will recollect that I do not mean that to obtain the assistance of that Court it will be necessary to have recourse to a suit for that purpose. A great part of the business of that tribunal, by the improvements previously effected in its procedure, is transacted by the Judges of that Court sitting in chambers; and so, if any question of difficulty arises in the investigation of a title, resort will be had at once not only to the public court, but to a Chancery Judge sitting in chambers. Well, Supposing the registrar to arrive at the conclusion that the title is a marketable title and one fit to be placed upon the register, it will then be necessary to attend—and it is a most important duty—to the description of the estate which is to be put upon that record. And here I admit that there is great difficulty and great nicety. The difficulty—and I do not shrink from the statement of it—is this:—If I describe on this sheet of paper an estate as belonging to a particular owner, and represent that his title to it is demonstrated, and therefore to be made statutory, it might so happen that in the description of that estate I might include part of his neighbor's property. I might, in fact, include in the description something that did not belong to him. Now, I beg your Lordships to remember that this same difficulty occurs in regard to all the proceedings of the Irish Encumbered Estates Court; and although that Court has effectually sold and conveyed more, I believe, than one-third of the whole area of Ireland, yet I have never heard a suggestion of any error of the kind we are bow considering having been committed by that tribunal, except in one isolated instance. But I have sought to devise with the greatest possible care—and it will also be for your Lordships if you permit this Bill to go into Select Committee to devise—proper safeguards against this danger. The description is to be given to the registrar, and if he approves of the title, he will advertise that description. Nay, more, I require that a copy of the description shall be served upon every one of the adjoining owners. Each adjoining proprietor, therefore, will have an interest in checking its accuracy. Attention will be drawn, by public advertisement, to the fact of land described in a particular form being proposed to be put upon the register, and the safeguards that now exist in Ireland, and which have there been found

  361
  effectual for their purpose, will be as no thing compared with the precautions which I believe this measure will create. Assuming, then, that the description has been settled, and that it is entered on the register; the peculiarity of the Bill which I now present lies, among other things, in this—that I do not require the estate so described to be entered in any particular name, or at all to be registered in the names of trustees. And this brings me to a distinguishing feature of the measure, to which I solicit your Lordships' attention, and which I will endeavour, as far as I can, to make clear to all who hear me. My Lords, when the notion of a register of titles was originally broached, it was thought to be necessary that the estates should be registered merely in the names of trustees; in other words, we all at that day thought that we could not do other than follow the analogy of stock in the public funds. If stock in the public funds be held upon the trusts of a marriage settlement, it must be registered in the names of the trustees of the settlement; but then the beneficial owners have no security for their property except by a practice which exists at the Bank of England of entering what is called a caveat—that is, a notice to the Bank not to permit a transfer of the stock without giving information of the intention to effect such transfer to the beneficial owners. Accordingly, down to the present time, the only attempt at establishing a registry of titles has proceeded upon the principle of entering the land upon the register in the name of trustees, and of then depending for the security of all the actual owners upon a system of caveats or inhibitions, which were to be served upon the registrar, in order to prevent any improper dealing with the property. When, in 1846, your Lordships appointed a Select Committee of your House to consider the burdens upon land, among the Committee's recommendations was one for the improvement of the law of real property, by the simplification of titles and of the forms of conveyance, and by the establishment of some effective system for the registration of deeds. The only idea of registration entertained for a lengthened period after the date of that recommendation was the registration of assurances—the registration of deeds, not of titles. In 1853 a Bill for the registration of deeds passed your Lordships' House. It came down to the other House, and I felt that individually I could not take any part in support of that mea-
  362
  sure. The measure was referred to a Select Committee, and I had the honour of bringing before that Committee the plan which I had then formed for the registration of titles. But that plan consisted merely of this—the putting of certain names upon the registry as if they were the absolute owners of the fee simple of the estate, and letting all persons who had partial interests in the property depend for their security upon the system of caveats and checks. I have always felt that that was a very imperfect mode of proceeding, because, as your Lordships will observe, a registry so constructed gives no proof whatever of any equitable interest, nor does it in the smallest degree facilitate the proof of title to any equitable estate. It converts all the legal ownerships into trust estates, and compels you to deprive yourself of the actual legal ownership, in order to enter it in the name of trustees. It also provides no mode by which the register can give evidence of the actual state of the ownership, for if it were desired that the parties registered as owners should sell the estate, the registrar would be under the necessity of convening in Court all the parties entitled to the equitable estate before he could give authority to the registered owner to dispose of the property at all. Therefore, all the dealings with the equitable estate would still remain a mass of documents, without any means of registering them or ascertaining their effect, or of preserving the deeds, and you would have, as often as you wanted to sell or mortgage any land, to go through the same process of making an examination of the whole of the subsequent transactions, and incurring the same expense and difficulty—in a modified degree certainly—as attended the original placing of the estate on the register. Recollecting these great drawbacks to a registration of titles, I have endeavoured in the present Bill to provide a mode of producing evidence; of the actual state of the title from time to time, according as it may be affected by subsequent transactions. Let me illustrate the working of this by a familiar example. Suppose that the first investigation of a title brings you to the conclusion that the ownership of the land is vested in a tenant for life with remainder to trustees for a term of years in order to raise a jointure on the property for the wife, with remainder to trustees for another term of years to raise portions for the daughters, with remainder to the sons, &c. The Re-

  363
  gistrar accordingly will place the description of the estate in one registry—namely, "The Registry of Estates. "The number under which that is entered will refer to a corresponding number in another book called "The Record of Titles;" and in the book constituting the record of titles will be entered exactly the result of the limitations and investigation which I have described. Any change of ownership existing in fact can be most easily ascertained. It will be transferred to the record. But suppose a difficulty arising in this way. Suppose the transmission of the interest on the estate is affected by a deed or by a will of difficult, ambiguous, or uncertain construction. The question may be asked, Will you make the Registrar the judge of the question? Is he to determine the effect of the will? Undoubtedly not. I provide, my Lords, immediate means of having any question stated and conditionally determined. But it may be said, why should you drive the parties to litigation for that purpose? I provide for that also. Because, if a deed or will make any alteration in the record necessary—a deed or will which is of difficult construction, and which the purchaser does not desire to have considered or determined—the Registrar will make out the record in the very language of the will, and the only result will be to leave its true construction unascertained. This, in point of fact, is a recommendation instead of an objection to the proposal. There will be a third registry, namely, a "Registry of Mortgages and Encumbrances." I hope your Lordships will follow me for a few moments while I describe the mode in which this part of the measure will operate. Suppose an estate is put on the registry, and that on the record of title an individual is described as tenant for life, another is described as tenant in remainder, and that on the registry of charges or encumbrances there is a mortgage of £5,000. The owner is desirous of Belling the estate, the purchaser agrees on the price, a conveyance is to be effected. The parties may come to the office of the Registrar, either by themselves or by their attorneys. The question is put to the Registrar whether a good conveyance can be made of that estate with a Parliamentary title. The Registrar says that a good conveyance can be made. Then I provide a statutory form of conveyance, which runs in these terms:—"We A. B. and C. D., in consideration of
  364
  £5,000 paid to us, grant to the purchaser and his heirs for ever [all the lands and hereditaments described in the registry under a particular number]."The estate is transferred, and the transaction is closed, in the same way in which a transfer is made of £20,000 Consols at the Bank of England. The transfer is effected precisely in the same manner, without any more difficulty or impediment and without any greater lapse of time. But, supposing the parties do not wish to come up to the Registry Office, the owner of the estate may have a certificate from the Registrar—which certificate shall on one page contain the description of the estate, on another page the result of the recorded title—that is, a simple and clear manifestation of the existing ownership; and on the third page a description of the charges and encumbrances affecting the estate; and together with the certificate of title the registrar sends this simple form of conveyance. I provide that after the certificate of title has been given there shall be no entry on the registry with regard to the estate without delivering it up, in order to prevent the possibility of fraud, which is now very easy under the existing registries. In this way there will be perfect certainty that in the interval no change has taken place which in the slightest degree affects the exact state of the ownership. I want to supersede the parchment titles to an estate; but I should be extremely sorry in the slightest degree to interfere with one of the easiest modes of raising money, in which a proprietor of an estate goes to his banker and says, "Take these deeds into your possession and advance me £10,000 on their security." That is a mortgage by the deposit of title deeds, or an equitable mortgage—a most convenient mode of raising money. Notoriety is dispensed with, and the accommodation afforded with every security to the lender. Now, I provide that in lieu of the parchment deeds, which are rendered superfluous, the certificate of ownership of the estate may, in like manner, be deposited with a banker, and to all intents and purposes give the same lien on the estate as if the whole title deeds of the estate had been deposited. If this measure be adopted, there will not, therefore, be the smallest difficulty or impediment in the way of such transactions. AH that will be done will be to supersede and dispense with the mass of useless, cumbrous, and obscure parchment deed?, and to provide a substitute of the most simple,

  365
  the most certain, and the most easily accessible character. The whole machinery will be arranged, and every means tried so as, I believe, to leave no room or opening for fraud. The only possibility of danger that I can foresee may be this, that in the first investigation of title there may, perchance, be some latent right that may not be discovered till after the estate has been absolutely disposed of. I do not propose that a Parliamentary title should be given till the estate has been sold or mortgaged for valuable consideration. The object being to give greater facility of dealing with the estate, it would be unjust to give perfect immunity until the owner has made the registry the means of selling or disposing of his property. The moment he has sold it to a purchaser for valuable consideration the statutory title will arise. During the last quarter of a century I may say that a million of purchases of land hove been made for railway purposes. The railway companies are subject to the obligation I have mentioned, and if any dormant interest arises with respect to the land taken by them, which had not been ascertained and provided for at the time of the purchase, they are made liable to pay for it. Yet, so few are the instances of that kind which have occurred, that I hardly venture to mention the number, lest it should seem too inconsiderable to be credited. I believe that not more than a dozen discoveries of latent interests have been made during the last twenty-five years. It is not probable, therefore, that we shall have much difficulty in this respect. With regard to registration, I propose, of course, that it should be voluntary; but after an estate has once been; put upon the register it must remain there until, by the application of all the persons interested in it, it is desired to be taken off. At any time it may thus be removed from the register. The great benefit attending the proposed registration without a guarantee of title would be, that an accurate record would be kept of all the future dealings with the land, and after the lapse of a certain number of years, which may be defined by the judge or the registrar when the title is put upon the register, the non-guaranteed title would pass into the category of statutory titles.
  There are many other provisions in the Bill which I should have liked to describe to your Lordships; but I am afraid I have already trespassed too long upon your attention, and therefore I shall only add
  366
  that, in addition to the ordinary mode of registration, there are two other methods provided by the Bill. One is the registration of an estate under a decree of the Court of Chancery, and the other is a power given to that Court of selling an estate with a Parliamentary title. Either of them may be advantageously resorted to in cases where the parties may not be desirous of subjecting their titles to the examination which must take place in the case of a private registration. I propose to extend registration to freehold land, and also to leasehold estates; but to copyhold land I do not propose to extend it. One peculiarity of the Bill is, that it will be worked through the existing courts. In that respect it differs from the measure brought forward some time ago by Sir Hugh Cairns. I am afraid, if I were to adopt his proposal, there would always be conflicts of jurisdiction, and it is better, therefore, as well as easier, to work the measure by the judicial aid we already possess. The Bill, of course, will come gradually into operation; and if it should be accepted generally, it may be necessary to have local registries in aid of the metropolitan registry. Allow me, in conclusion, to entreat your Lordships to give this measure your most favourable consideration, remembering always that no reform or amendment of the law was ever perfect at first. All perfect inventions have their origin in crude designs, which are matured and completed by experience. The present Bill is directed to an end which it has been the desire of almost all who have considered the subject for the last 200 years to see accomplished. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will address yourselves to the work, not frightened by any superstitious terror with respect to the alterations which you may be called upon to make, but with the conviction that there is a great existing evil which has grown up from accidental circumstances and from neglect, and which may be removed if there be a union of fairness and firmness, of skill and courage, such as I think will be found among your Lordships, with an earnest desire to grapple with the difficulty and to devise the remedy.
  The noble and learned Lord then presented a Bill to facilitate the Proof of Title to and the Conveyance of Real Estates,
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he was sure their Lordships were thankful to his noble and learned Friend for his singularly able and lucid explanation of a very im-

  367
  portant Bill. It had been his fate for the last thirty years to oppose all Bills for the registration of assurances. Opposed as he had been to the general sense of the members both in their Lordships' House and in the other House of Parliament, he believed there was now an almost universal concurrence of opinion that nothing was more mischievous than a general registration of assurances. He never had any objection to registration as such. His objection was that be saw more evil springing from it than it would remedy; that the expense would be enormous, and the benefit doubtful. If the object which his noble and learned Friend bad in view—a registration of titles—could be accomplished without its degenerating, as he feared would happen without great care, into a registration of assurances, no one would accept it more willingly than he. Indeed, one great object of his life had been to give security to purchasers. His noble and learned Friend, in treating of the origin of uses and trusts, had lamented that legal and equitable estates should have been allowed to co-exist, but in that respect he could not agree with him. Without that division the ordinary settlement upon a marriage could not be carried out. The settlor desires to keep the legal freehold in himself for life, and then to go to his sons; but he also desires to secure upon the estate a jointure rent-charge for his wife, and portions for his younger children; and these latter objects are accomplished by limiting terms of years to trustees for securing the jointure and raising the portions, so that the legal terms of years are vested in the trustees upon the trusts. His noble and learned Friend bad shown the great anomaly of requiring a sixty years' possession before a man could make a good title. There could be no doubt that that term was originally taken with a view to the probable duration of human life. But what happened in their Lordships' House two years ago, when he himself brought forward a well-matured scheme for shortening the time of limitation by reducing it to thirty years with every possible safeguard for all the interests that might exist; and this enabled him to propose that a seller should no longer be bound to produce a title for sixty years, but for forty years only. The saving to owners of property upon sales would have indeed been great. He believed, after what he had heard from his noble and learned
  368
  Friend that evening, that he should have had his cordial support if he had had a seat in their Lordships' House at that time; but both sides of the House were decidedly against him, and the law remained unaltered, to the great cost of the landed interest. The law of England enabled every man to remain in possession of his estate, to have every right and power he could wish for, and yet to secure that estate in succession for his children and grandchildren. There was no system of registration by which he could be enabled to do this. They not only wanted to preserve the inheritance, but to provide for the widow and the children afterwards. This was the excellent form of settlement which prevailed in England, and which no other country in the world enjoyed besides. It was notorious that the clergy invented the doctrine of uses in order to keep trusts secret; but a Court of Equity compelled them to reveal the trusts, and when this was ignored at common law, Courts of Equity did no more than support uses under another name. Upon this particular subject there had been a great variety of suggestions. Their Lordships sent down a Bill for registration of assurances to the other House. Upon that occasion he divided the House unsuccessfully against the Bill. The House of Commons did not sanction that Bill, but a Commission was issued to inquire into registration of title. That Commission reported in favour of a scheme entirely different from that now proposed. Their scheme was to have a representative of the fee simple, and no one else, upon the register; there was to be no equitable interest on the register; so that the estates of any one of their Lordships might stand registered in the name of John Doe or Richard Roe, and the real owner appear to be entirely divested of his interest. The scheme brought forward last year by his (Lord St. Leonards') Friend Sir Hugh Cairns was a scheme which he (Lord St. Leonards) certainly did not approve, so far as it established an absolutely new court; in other words, a Landed Estate Court. The title then also, as he understood, was intended to be conferred upon a sole owner; but that owner was still subject to equitable charges, kept in a distinct manner. He referred the scheme now presented by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to either of these. The present Bill was, as it ought to be, altogether permissive. Nobody must, but every man might, avail himself of its provisions. The Bill of his noble

  369
  and learned Friend very properly left to every man the same power of charging, conveying, and devising his estate as be had at present. The Bill left all the law of England to operate upon the estate, with regard to encumbrances of every sort just as it found it. Therefore, it was not taking away from a man a power of any description either to devise or sell, or otherwise encumber his estate. The proposition was to enable a man to obtain an indefeasible title so as to vest it in a purchaser, and to continue that character or faculty of indefeasibility throughout; yet with a power to the proprietor, with the consent of all persons who may appear upon the register to be interested in the land to remove it from the register, and close the register altogether as respects such land. Now let their Lordships see at what expense this was to be attained. It was not a new proposition, because in the report of the Commission, they referred to the very question of insurance of title, of coming upon the Consolidated Fund for the compensation of anybody who was damnified by the operation of the Bill. There was a great difference of opinion, but the majority of the Commissioners were in favour of this proposition. His noble and learned Friend had provided that when a man desired to get upon the register he had to pay a certain sum, not now stated, but evidently upon an ad valorem scale; those sums were to be paid into the Consolidated Fund, and then there was this proviso, that if any person was damnified by the title having been declared indefeasible, so as to exclude a rightful claimant, that claimant might come upon the Consolidated Fund. In other words, the State opened an insurance office for title, throwing the burden of loss, which could not now be estimated, upon the public. Sow, certainly his noble and learned Friend, must have much more influence with his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, than he (Lord St. Leonards) believed he could have, if he persuaded him to endeavour to get the consent of Parliament to this. Some of their Lordships might be aware that their existed a society which professed to guarantee titles. This society knew that a title which was a very bad marketable title was yet a very good holding title, and they offered accordingly for so much per cent to guarantee the title. Thus there was already a mode in existence of insuring a title without having recourse
  370
  to the Consolidated Fund. He was not till I this moment aware [the Lord Chancellor; so intimated to the noble and learned Lord] that the Bill invited men settling their estates on marriage to have recourse to the register. Suppose the settlor's attorney to advise him to apply to the Court for a title, he would naturally say, "What! do you doubt my title?" "Oh, no," would be the reply. "Then why apply to give me a title when I already have it?" "Ay," the attorney says, "but you may want to sell." "To sell! "says the owner. "I never mean an acre of my estate to be sold from my sons and my sons' sons, to the latest generation, as far as the law will permit it to remain in settlement." There were two classes of persons who were invited to avail themselves of this registry. The first comprised those persons who had such a title as the Court of Chancery would compel a purchaser to take. The second was I of those who could show no such title; but who were only required to show a ten years' possession, and to prove their descent, or to produce the last deed or will under which they claimed. Let their Lordships take the first class. If any man wished to have the benefit of this Bill, the first thing he would do would be to lay an abstract before counsel, in order that counsel might tell him whether or not he had such a title as the Court of Chancery would compel a purchaser to take. But if he went and heedlessly asserted his own ability to make such a title as the Court would enforce, and he failed, observe how he damned his own title. Everybody would know that he was not in a position to sell. But suppose, on the other hand, counsel was satisfied with his power of making a marketable title, the registrar would not be satisfied with that opinion I of counsel, and the inquiry must be made over again. For every new transaction a fresh investigation must take place into the title, in order to see what was the nature of the title to be put upon the record. At every change of I ownership the same process must be gone through as if a man were then first putting! his title upon the register. His noble and learned Friend would understand him as not speaking against his Bill, but pointing out the difficulties which stood in its I way. The principle of the scheme might be right, but whether it was possible or not to be carried out it was difficult to say. In fact, the continuance of an indefeasible title was almost impossible.

  371
  If a man bought, he paid for the insurance. Soon afterwards he sold; the purchaser took the same title, but had the same duty to pay for his insurance; and thus the State became the insurer of title, to an enormous amount. The other class of persons to whom he had referred was one to whom the power of making use of the Bill was, as it should be, equally permissive. They were not bound to take the benefit of it, and they could not do so unless they were standing in a very peculiar position. They were only required to have ten years' possession, and to prove their title by descent, or by production of the last deed or will. But that class was not guaranteed—they were put upon the register unguaranteed; but in course of time they might claim to be guaranteed, and it would be found, he thought, impracticable to fix the proper period. In conclusion, the noble and learned Lord said, he willingly undertook to give his best assistance in Committee to render the scheme as perfect as possible, but he reserved to himself the unfettered right, if the Bill came back to the House, to take such course in regard to its future progress as his duty might seem to him to require.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, the state of the House was not very encouraging to any discussion of the noble and learned Lord's Measure. With regard to the first part of the noble and learned Lord's Bill, which related to procuring a Parliamentary title, he was disposed to concur; but with regard to the latter portion of the measure, though the noble and learned Lord had made his statement in a singularly clear and lucid manner, yet, notwithstanding, he was unable then to enter into any discussion of the Bill, because he could not comprehend it. He was convinced that if anything could have made the subject clear the noble and learned Lord's statement would have done it, but to discuss the Bill they must have the details before them. He had himself proposed a measure that had the first object in view, that of procuring a Parliamentary title, just before he quitted the Great Seal. He had often had the question before him, and he had employed the leisure of the recess in preparing two measures in reference to it, which he would ask leave to lay on the table. By the consent of the noble and learned Lord he should have an opportunity of explaining the provisions of these Bills before the second reading of the present measure.
  LORD CHELMSFORDthought the state of the House was accounted for by the fact of those noble Lords who had an interest in the Bill having been satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's statement, and knowing that the proper time for discussing its principles and details had not arrived. He was not opposed to any measure for the simplification and registration of titles, as contradistinguished from the registration of assurances. From what the noble and learned Lord had stated, he understood it to be his intention to refer his Bill to a Select Committee. On a question so difficult and important it was desirable that every plan should be laid before that Committee, that it might adopt either one of them, or a union of several that might produce a satisfactory measure. With that intention he proposed also to lay on the table the two Bills introduced by the Government of which he was a Member. These, with the two Bills of the noble and learned Lord opposite, and the measure of the noble Lord on the Woolsack, might all be considered by the Committee. He was most anxious that some satisfactory measure should be adopted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, thanked their Lordships for the reception which had been given to his statement, and said he was glad that his noble and learned Friends intended to lay their various Bills upon the table. With regard to the Bill of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford), there was very little antagonism between that Bill and his own, both being derived from one common source—namely, the Report of the Commission.
  Bill read 1a.

IRELAND—PETER CASSELS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM THE EARL OF LEITRIM moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for,
  "1. Copy of the Informations of Peter Cassels of Bohey in the County of Leitrim, Complainant, against Michael Quinn and Peter Reynolds, Defendants, taken by William Percy Jones, Esquire, a Justice of the Peace for the County of Leitrim, on the 17th Day of January, 1861.
  "2. Copy of the Proceedings at Petty Sessions in Mohill on the 22nd Day of January, 1861, in the Case of Bryan Quinn of Bobey, Complainant, v. Peter Cassels, John Cassels, and Hugh Cassels, all of Bohey in the County of Leitrim, Defendants; with a Copy of the Complaint, the Names of the Witnesses, the Names of the Magistrates present at the Hearing of this Complaint, and the Particulars of their Order thereupon.

  373
  "3. Copy of the Recognizance entered into by Peter Cassels of Bohey on or about the 2nd Day of April, 1861, before C. Degernon, Esq., Stipendiary Magistrate, binding him to prosecute Michael Quinn and Peter Reynolds at the following Quarter Sessions of the Peace at Ballinamore in the County of Leitrim on or about the 6th Day of April, 1861.
  "4. Copy of the Indictment at the Quarter Sessions of the Peace on or about the 6th of April. 1861, against Michael Quinn and Peter Reynolds, to the following Effect:—

  1st Count, for Assault on Peter Cassels, endangering Life;

  2nd and 3rd Counts, for Assault inflicting grievous bodily Harm;

  4th Count, for stabbing;

  5th Count, for Assault occasioning actual bodily Harm;

  6th Count, for a Common Assault;
  together with the Finding of the Jury on the! Trial of the said Michael Quinn and Peter Reynolds.

  And Copy of any Correspondence with Her Majesty's Government on the Subject."
  Motion agreed to.
  Declaration of Title Bill; Security of Purchasers Bill, were severally presented by the Lord Cranworth; and read 1a.
  Title to Landed Estates Bill; Registry of Landed Estates, Bill were severally presented by the Lord Chelmsford; and read 1a.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.