rose to put a question to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, the hon. Member for Bodmin, the hon. Member for Macclesfield, and the hon. Member for Southampton, respecting the International English and French Association, whose proceedings involve the dignity and character of the House of Commons.

intimated that the hon. Member could not be permitted to put such a question to any hon. Member.

then said, he would put the question to the only Member of the Government present, the hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department; but, previously to so doing, he (Mr. Cochrane) would premise that a prospectus had been issued, headed "Intellectual Treat;"—"England's Return Visit to the National Guards of France;"—"Registered according to Act of Parliament;"—and having attached to it the names of the five hon. Members he had mentioned, namely, Messrs. J. Wyld, H. Brown, G. Thompson, J. Williams, and B. Willcox, from which he would read a few extracts, to show its extraordinary and peculiar character:—

"There was something delicate and gentlemanly, there was something congenial and manly, in the idea which suggested a military visit of citizenship to the English nation. To come, some fifteen hundred of armed soldiers, into the English metropolis, was to convey this double inference—first, that the spirit of honour was paramount in France, and the spirit of security paramount in England. We may be said to have gracefully received a visit which was gracefully paid, and in unlocking the vast stores of our country to the gaze, and it may be to the admiration of another land, we were exhibiting the sinews of war and the prosperity of peace, and devoutly cherishing the hope, that we might never strain the first, but ever preserve the latter, in all our relations with the country whose honoured deputies were then nestled in the bosom of England, and whom, we solemnly trust, found no want of warmth or geniality in their nest. The social spirit which takes must give! We dine together—we, France and England—in a family sense! You, France, dine with me to-day, and I, England, claim your hospitality to-morrow. The visit of the National Guard Citizens of France may now be returned by nobles, gentry, merchants, tradesmen, and yeomen of our own land. Then will this national deputation, abandoning their domesticity for the attraction of a new hospitality, infuse the intellectuality of civilisation into the friendliness of a national regard. With these prefatory remarks, we now announce, that England returns to France her visit of citizenship. For the purpose of making it complete, effective, and in harmony with the circumstances of the times, we know that, while the higher classes will of course preserve the dignity of their position, and while the merchant classes will be prepared for the exercise of their accustomed liberality, yet that our compliment to France would be comparatively nullified, and in no wise accord with the spirit of universality which now belongs to the French Constitution, if the simply competent did not accompany the rich—if there were not, in fact, a certain fraternisation of classes, and the presence of those who will seek to limit the expense of the journey of compliment they are prepared to undertake. To meet this contingency, the association, which has commenced the accessary organisation of the visit, has ventured upon the responsibility of blending with it some commercial considerations—for those who find it really necessary to put business into the pocket of pleasure—and with this significant intimation the English public is now directed to the carefully weighed outlines, in the spirit of which the arrangements will be eventually carried out. Besides the impulse of national generosity—the genial glow of fellowship—the dignity and worth of the occasion, and the principles of peace and commerce, of which it will go far to link the chain—there are personal vanities, and spurs, and promises of happiness and entertainment—the honour of going with the association—the economy of seeing everything for nothing. Nor will the mercantile man and the commercial traveller fail to throng the list of candidates. One will say, 'Hospitality engenders conviviality, and conviviality, business; and if I can saddle these upon the horse of pleasure, it will be an honourable sort of carpe diem:'—the other will exclaim, 'I go as an item in the general nationality, I partake the compliment, the applause, and it may so happen that I may bring home with me the spring fashions of the young republic' Enough has been said to indicate that this visit will be, though large in numbers, at least select in the character of the visitors. Ladies shall be provided with proper escort. That stewards may be appointed, for the purposes of classing together, as far as may be practicable, those visitors who may already have an acquaintance with each other, so as to give to the visit the freedom of a number of friendly parties, the management have pleasure in announcing that they have secured the valuable assistance of Mr. Joseph Crisp, who has had great practical experience in similar undertakings."

This being the invaluable, the amusing programme of the proceedings, he begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary, as it purported to be "registered under Act of Parliament," whether he were aware if this was this case; or whether, as might be reasonably supposed, the whole affair was a hoax?

said, he must confess his entire ignorance of the whole matter till his attention was called to it by the hon. Member. He knew nothing of the particulars which the hon. Gentleman had detailed to the House; but, as far as he could follow the extracts which were read, whatever might be thought of the wisdom of forming such an association, it seemed to be formed for quite innocent objects, and not requiring to come in any way under the observation of the Home Office.

rose and said: As I am one of the Members—[Loud cries of Order!"]

said, in order to have an opportunity of explaining the matter, he would move the adjournment of the House.

seconded the Motion,

If the hon. Member move the adjournment of the House, he must show good cause why the House should adjourn. He must not speak upon other questions while moving the adjournment of the House.

trusted that under the circumstances the House would excuse him for a moment.

The hon. Member must remark that I would not allow the hon. Member for Bridport to put his question to individual Members. I could not prevent him putting his question to a Minister; but it is against the rules of Parliament to put questions to individual Members not connected with the business of this House.

rose to ask the Secretary for the Admiralty what steps had been taken to reform the proceedings in the several Vice-Admiralty Courts, and to remedy the complaints made last Session of the gross abuses that had taken place at St. Helena, Sierra Leone, Cape of Good Hope, and Sydney, New South Wales?

said, that the subject was one of considerable difficulty, the facts being anything but clear. There were two subjects of complaint: the one was the high scale of fees charged in the courts, and the other was the practice of making extraordinary charges. It was found that the remedy of the first grievance lay entirely with the Lords of the Admiralty, who had the power of ordering a new scale of fees, and that was now in course of preparation. With regard to the other grievance, of overcharges, the difficulty lay in the fact that they could only he remedied by appeal to England, and then it became necessary to get sworn copies of the whole proceedings, which was attended with considerable expense. The Admiralty had been in consultation with Sir Stephen Lushington upon the subject, and they had now instructed the Vice-Admiralty Courts to send home the whole of the papers in every case; this would greatly facilitate appeals in future, and he trusted that it would be found a sufficient remedy.

said, in New South Wales the abuses of the court had risen to such a height that the Supreme Council had passed an ordinance to check them. What he wished to know was, whether the Government intended to give their sanction to that ordinance; but as no Member of the Government was present who could answer the question, he would on some future occasion again put the question.

then rose to ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend and alter the Act of 5th and 6th William IV., c. 54, so far as relates to marriage within certain degrees of affinity. He was sensible not only of the extreme difficulty, but of the extreme delicacy of the subject, and if he consulted only his own feelings he should have abstained altogether from bringing it forward. But he had from time to time been made aware of the extremity and extent of the grievances arising under the present state of the law, and of the extent to which it affected the morals of the people, and he did not feel himself fully at liberty, in consequence, to decline the task imposed upon him. For there was a claim upon him more than upon other Members of the House, in consequence of those complaints having been sanctioned by one whose memory he most deeply revered. In 1841 the subject had been introduced into the House of Lords by a revered relative of his; and he (Mr. S. Wortley) had himself investigated the matter closely and carefully, in order to see whether he could come to the same resolution, having at first, he was willing to confess, an impression which he admitted might be called a prejudice against the measure. And it was not until after the most careful and mature deliberation that he had ventured at last to bring the question before Parliament. In the year 1842 a noble Lord, then a Member of that House, he meant the Earl of Ellesmere, than whom there was not a more true and faithful adherent of the Church, nor a man to be found who held Church authority in higher respect, introduced the question to the notice of the House. Upon that occasion the House refused to grant his noble Friend the leave he asked. But the noble Lord received so much support as to lead him to believe that the discussion of the subject more prominently before the public mind—that further and fuller discussion would take place, which would lead to inquiry, and the result of which would create a demand for alteration. The facts that had been elicited were those principally on which he (Mr. S. Wortley) had founded his present Bill. Since the discussion in 1842 the position of the question had been altered, with respect to the doubts as to the legality of these marriages. There were two classes of these marriages—those celebrated abroad, and those celebrated in this country. The doubt about the legality of marriages within the prohibited degrees, was removed by a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, which was to the effect that marriages between persons within the prohibited degrees of affinity were absolutely null and void. The law, therefore, was found to affect all classes. It affected the legitimacy of parties, and the descent of property. There were some cases in which the marriages had been celebrated abroad; some between persons resident and domiciled there; others between persons who escaped there from the stringency of the law of this country. Those marriages still continued, and showed the necessity which existed for still further inquiry by Parliament. Since the Motion which had been made by the Earl of Ellesmere, they had had many proof's that the law, far from being more efficient in its effect for the prevention of those marriages—far from having tended to the improved morality of the people—had been extensively evaded by them. It had in some cases been avoided, in some it had proved a snare for the lower classes. It had led to perjury, he meant such perjury as was involved in the giving of misdescription, in the denial of the actual truth; and in other instances it had led to concubinage where the parties cohabited together without the ceremony of marriage. It had, in short, tended to the production of immorality amongst the lower classes. It was not until a very late hour of the day that he had received an intimation that he would not be opposed at the first stage of his Motion; and that there would be no division taken upon the question of leave being given to bring in the Bill. If that were so he would be happy to relieve the House from a great portion of the detail which he would otherwise have thought it necessary to lay before it. But he still would be obliged to state as shortly as possible a history of the restrictions imposed in those cases to which he more particularly referred, and the substance of the report of the Commission presented to the House a year and a half ago, and which report was then lying on the table. It had been said that this report was the production of parties who had a preconceived opinion on the question. This was answered by the evidence of the papers before them, and by the extensive correspondence which had arisen. That Commission was appointed in consequence of various petitions that had been presented to the House, some of them from parties interested in the question—others from individuals not interested, except from seeing the evils to which the law had led—and others still from a considerable body of the clergy of the Established Church. It was said, upon that occasion, that those petitions were not very numerous. But it was a peculiar and difficult question. It was one from the discussion of which people shrunk, and one upon which people were unwilling to put themselves forward. But this much had been ascertained from the book before him, and from the extensive correspondence that had taken place, that the complaints, if not loud, were deep and general, and that a great body of the people of this country were interested in obtaining the relief which he (Mr. S. Wortley) wished to give. The Commission was granted "to inquire into the state and operation of the law of marriage, as relating to the prohibited degrees of affinity, and to marriages solemnised abroad, or in the British colonies;" and he was justified, he believed, in saying, that with the exception of the humble individual who was addressing the House, there could not have been selected a list of names more fully entitled to command confidence than that of the persons chosen to constitute the Commission. At the head was a right rev. Prelate, of the highest character in the Church (the Bishop of Lichfield); next was Dr. Lushington, who was second to no man in authority upon matters connected with ecclesiastical law; the next was his lamented friend, Mr. Blake, the late Chief Remembrancer of Ireland, a member of the Roman Catholic body, and one who commanded their highest confidence and consideration; then came Justice Vaughan Williams, and his right hon. Friend opposite, the Lord Advocate (Mr. Rutherfurd), whose knowledge of the law of marriage in Scotland was most extensive; and of all those Commissioners, with the exception of himself (Mr. S. Wortley), who had expressed his opinion in the House, there was not one who had come to a definite conclusion, or who had made up his mind upon the subject. They all came to the consideration of the question with minds perfectly open to conviction upon it. They, in their report, recommended no particular plan or measure, for this reason, that the Commission did not entitle them nor authorise them to do more than inquire into the state and operation of the law; and they therefore felt themselves not at liberty to do more than report upon that subject. But he apprehended that no man could read that report, and the conclusion to which it came, without being convinced that there could have been no member of the Commission who was not prepared to say that some alteration was necessary for the purpose of relaxing the restrictions of the law—restrictions that could not be justified to those Commissioners, who were men of high station in the Church—of high station in the law, and of high character in private life. In proposing a measure of that kind, he thought it wise to confine himself to the actual grievance that existed. He wished not to set afloat questions that were unnecessary, nor to enter into wide controversies. He should, therefore, confine the proposition he had to make to the only two cases which seemed of importance during the inquiry. They were—marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, and marriage with the niece of a deceased wife. These two stood pretty much in the same category. The measure he should propose was merely a permissive one. There was nothing compulsory in it. The marriage of two brothers with two sisters had been formerly prohibited. They were subsequently permitted, and there was no reason for supposing that the number of such marriages had increased in consequence. Neither was there any reason to suppose that such marriages as he now proposed to legalise would be more numerous in consequence of such permission. Up to the year 1835 those marriages were practically permitted. He said "practically," because although, no doubt, they were not legally permitted, yet there was little or no danger of their being invalidated; and, except in some occasional cases of malice, there was not the slightest probability of their being disturbed. And for many years before the appointment of the Commission, those marriages had been celebrated in every rank of life. Less numerously, probably, amongst the wealthy and those in high station, but in greater number amongst the poor, whose obscurity and poverty prevented them from being interfered with. It was remarkable, that during the long period that those marriages so existed, they had heard no complaints about them. No restrictions were sought to be put upon them, and he was justified in saying, that there was no very extensive horror of them in the public mind. It was not until one of them occurred in the very highest rank of life, that they became noticed, and it was no blame to anybody to say that that event immediately attracted public attention. But, instead of the Legislature stepping forward to point it out to reprobation, an application was made to the Legislature, and with the consent of both Houses of Parliament, including the heads of the Church, the sanction of the law was given to that marriage. It was not said to be a valid one, but all chance of invalidating it was taken away by Lord Lyudhurst's Act. The question, therefore, was not whether these were desirable marriages. The question was, whether they had a right to prevent them. He thought their principle ought to be to give every facility for marriage. That was the principle of the law of England. And he therefore apprehended that those restrictions could only be justified by the fact that those marriages were forbidden by the law of God, or in consequence of some public overwhelming necessity. Now, with respect to the law of God, he would not venture upon that part of the subject at that stage. He would avoid all discussion upon it, as he found there was to be no division upon that stage of his Motion. He would also pass over the question as it related to the condition of the subject. But perhaps it would be as well for him to explain to the House, for the information of those hon. Members who might not have had time to investigate the matter for themselves, how the question had arisen. With respect to the prohibition in general, there was no certainty that it existed amongst the early Christians. He should say no more than that its origin was extremely doubtful, and almost lost in obscurity. It defied the investigation of the most learned men. On the authority of Michaelis, it was alleged not to have been forbidden; but that, on the contrary, it was practised during the early ages of Christianity. During the three first centuries of Christianity, there was no mention of its prohibition. It was not until the fourth century that it was prohibited. It was prohibited by what were called the Apostolic Canons, not the Canons of the Apostles, but still of high authority in the Church; and by the Council of Eliberis in 305; but by neither was it declared to be contrary to the law of God. During the fourth and fifth centuries the councils condemned those marriages, and afterwards, during the corruption of the middle ages, came councils and canons innumerable condemning them, but in company with many more which had since been established as perfectly legal and within the permission of the law of God. It therefore became perfectly settled in canon law that these marriages were prohibited; but the grounds of the prohibition rested principally, he believed, upon a letter of St. Basil, which had been referred to in another place. St. Basil, who was the founder of the Eastern Church, and the founder of the monastic order of that church, in the fourth century, entered into a controversy with another bishop of the Christian church, who, as appeared from St. Basil's letter, differed from him upon the subject of those marriages. But the prohibition had, at all events, been established from time to time, from the fourth and fifth centuries, down to the time of the Reformation. The canon law had been introduced into England. It formed no part of the law of England, except so far as it had been grafted upon the statute law; but undoubtedly it had been so grafted upon the law of England, that the law said, if such a marriage be contracted, it should stand good during the life of the parties; but if the ecclesiastical law annulled it, then the statute law of England acknowledged that annulling. He should not endeavour to trace, as he should have have done had his Motion been opposed, the origin of the canons, and the origin of or motives for the prohibition of those marriages. But he should observe, that after the authority of Rome had been established in this country, there came with it, necessarily, all the canons of the Roman Church. Such was the state of the law until the reign of Henry VIII. At the time of the Reformation, those marriages had been forbidden down to the Council of Trent. But they had been dispensed by the Roman Catholic Church from time to time, and it was in consequence of that power of dispensation Henry VIII. was enabled to espouse Catharine of Arragon, who was the widow of his brother. Henry obtained a dispensation from the Pope in order to marry Catharine, and that dispensation was granted upon the grounds that such marriages were not forbidden by the law of God, but only by the canon law. And afterwards, when Henry VIII. was about to marry Anna Boleyn, and it became necessary to get rid of the marriage with Catharine, the famous discussion took place which ended by Cranmer, on the part of Henry, obtaining the majority of opinions from the universities of Europe and of this country in favour of such marriages being forbidden by the law of God, and that they, in consequence, could not be dispensed. Upon the Reformation taking place, Cranmer undertook to reduce the canon law to something like a code, and drew up the Reformatio Leges. He had been the principal means of invalidating the marriage of Henry with Catharine, for the purpose of enabling Henry to marry Anna Boleyn. The validity of Anna Boleyn's marriage depended upon the doctrine that such a marriage as that of Catharine's was contrary to the law of God; and the legitimacy and right of Elizabeth to the throne depended equally upon that doctrine. It was not to be supposed, therefore, that under these circumstances Cranmer would have omitted to introduce this particular prohibition into the code he drew up in the reign of Elizabeth. Archbishop Parker had been brought up, or, at least, he had been protected by Cranmer, and he was recalled by Queen Elizabeth from exile. He shared with Cranmer in his views, and in the necessity of establishing the invalidity of the marriage of Henry with Catharine. To establish that upon which the legitimacy of Elizabeth depended, the prohibition of those marriages became absolutely necessary; and, under those circumstances it was that the table of prohibitions was drawn up by Archbishop Parker, in 1603, which was now hung up in all churches in this country, and was sometimes added to the Book of Common Prayer. It was universally acknowledged, however, that that table formed no part of the Book of Common Prayer—a fact that could not be too widely known. It was merely bound up with it for convenience. The law continued to be administered in this country much in the same way after the Reformation as it had been before it, with this exception, that whereas before the Reformation there existed a power of dispensation which greatly mitigated the evils arising from those prohibitions, after it that power was given up; for, although by an Act—21 Henry VIII.—the power of dispensing was transferred from the Pope to the Archbishop of Canterbury, a dispensation by the Archbishop from canonical regulations was unknown: it had scarcely ever been exercised, and the practice had become obsolete. The consequence was, that those restrictions which were dispensed with in the Roman Catholic Church, became absolute and indispensable in this country, and the ecclesiastical courts, except when called upon, which was very rarely, avoided those marriages altogether. At length the ecclesiastical courts having entertained the question of the validity of those marriages after the death of the parties, necessarily luegitimlsing the children after the death of the parties, the common law courts interfered, and prevented the ecclesiastical courts from invalidating such marriages at all when even one only of the parties was dead. The result was, that a law was passed, declaring what marriages were void, and what were voidable merely. Marriages of consanguinity were declared void, and marriages of affinity only voidable if during the life of the parties a suit were instituted for the purpose. Marriages which were merely, so far as their morality was concerned, matters of opinion, came under the latter category. Those which were contrary to the known will of God, as contained in the pages of revelation, were included in the first. Such a state of the law was very anomalous, and it led to grievous cruelty. It made such marriages almost always lawful, except where property or right was concerned—as in cases where estates were entailed, and in some of those the greatest hardship was at times inflicted. He would mention one instance given by Dr. Lushington, before whom it had come. The suit was instituted after the parties had been married upwards of thirty years, and eight children had been born to them, and when the father was very advanced in age. Then it was that the opportunity was taken by a malicious relative to invalidate the marriage, and the ecclesiastical court was obliged to annul it. The children were illegitimised, and the whole family, after the father's death, were thrown into the greatest poverty. Yet, deep as the injury inflicted by the law was felt to be, it was not until the marriage within the restricted degrees tools place in a very high station of life, that it was publicly noticed. It was for the purpose of providing a remedy that Lord Lyndhurst's Bill was passed, and they had it on the authority of that noble and learned Lord, expressed in the case of the Duke of Sussex's Bill, that he never intended by it to prevent a marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Lord Lyndhurst's object was to establish the legality of all such marriages which had been contracted up to that time, and to provide that as respects such marriages in future they should not be invalidated if they had existed for two years. This was the object of Lord Lyndhurst's Bill as introduced; but it was proposed by Lord Brougham that such marriages contracted after that time should be deemed illegal; and that view being taken by certain Members of the bench of bishops, it was enacted that after the passing of that Bill marriages with a deceased wife's sister should not be permitted. The result of the Act was, however, that, notwithstanding its provisions, thousands of marriages had, since it was passed, taken place between the prohibited degrees. An inquiry, indeed, was instituted into the matter, and persons were called before the Commissioners who had made it their business to ascertain all the circumstances which could be discovered as to the violation of the law. And here he would be allowed to allude to the attempts to throw discredit upon the view of the matter which he was urging, on the ground that particular individuals had interested themselves, and had instituted inquiries into the subject. Indeed he did not see how, unless this had been done, it would be possible to ascertain numerous facts of high importance necessary to be taken into consideration in dealing with the ques- tion. The course taken had been this: the parties interested in the matter had selected a firm in London, of the highest respectability, as a central point, to which all information was to be communicated; and they employed gentlemen of station and intelligence to go through the country collecting the necessary particulars. From these sources the necessary information had been ascertained, and they were thus alluded to in the eighth page of the Commissioners' report:—

"Towards the close of the year 1846 a limited inquiry was instituted, at the instigation and expense of some private individuals interested in this question, for the purpose of ascertaining to what extent the Act of 1835 had been infringed, and whether any hardships were inflicted by the operation of that Act, to such an extent as would warrant an application to Parliament for an alteration in the law. In stating the result of this inquiry, as it has been proved before us, we feel bound to observe, that, although made at the instance of interested parties, it appears to have been conducted by gentlemen of intelligence, station, and character, and with discretion, as well as with perfect integrity and good faith. The inquiry was limited to a period less than three months, and to a comparatively small portion of England alone; but five districts were selected with impartiality and discrimination, as likely to afford a test of the probable operation of the law throughout the kingdom. The districts consisted, 1st, of some of the manufacturing portions of Lancashire and Yorkshire; 2nd, Norfolk and Suffolk, and parts of Lincolnshire and Essex; 3rd, parts of Warwickshire and Staffordshire, including Birmingham and the Potteries; 4th, parts of Hampshire, Dorsetshire, and Devonshire, including Portsmouth, Southampton, Winchester, Dorchester, Plymouth, and Exeter; and, 5th, the towns of Bristol, Bath, and Cheltenham, and their immediate vicinities. Besides these districts, an inquiry was also commenced within the limits of the metropolis, but was not prosecuted to any extent, in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining information in so mixed and numerous a population, without any legal authority to require it. The summary of information thus obtained may be stated as follows, namely—Of marriages ascertained to have taken place in the districts alluded to, between parties within the prohibited degrees, 1,364 have been contracted since Lord Lyndhurst's Act; and of these, upwards of nine-tenths have been contracted with a deceased wife's sister. There were discovered, in the course of this inquiry, 88 cases only in which the Act had prevented an intended marriage; and of these 88 cases, 32 are stated to have resulted in open cohabitation, without the sanction of any form or ceremony. Of the marriages thus ascertained to have been contracted, very few were between persons in the poorer classes. For though we have reason to conclude that such marriages are at least as frequent in those classes as in any other, and perhaps even much more so, the condition and circumstances of the parties render their affinity loss observed, and consequently difficult to be traced without more elaborate investigation. On the other hand, among the parties contracting these marriages since, as well as before, the Act of 1835, there are found to be many persons of station and property, and of unimpeachable character and religious habits."

It had, therefore, been ascertained by this inquiry that the number of prohibited marriages which had taken place since Lord Lyndhurst's Act had been 1,364. He could not well ascertain the proportion which the population of the districts inquired into bore to that of the whole kingdom; but it was difficult to suppose that the investigations had extended throughout more than one-tenth of the entire community. Taking it to be so, the result was, that the entire probable number of marriages would be about 13,000; and, giving three children to each marriage, which was a low average, they had no less than nearly 40,000 children, whose claims to legitimacy could not be legally admitted. Of course, if the districts examined into contained less than one-tenth of the population of England, the number of persons thus situated would be correspondingly greater. Perhaps, then, there had taken place from 30,000 to 50,000 prohibited marriages since the statute of Lord Lyndhurst. Now, he did not make use of this fact to argue that, because many persons violated the law, the law should be therefore changed; but he did think that it was a fact which showed that the law was one which had not obtained the general acquiescence of society, while the calamitous state of things resulting from the circumstances called loudly for redress. But the prohibitory statute created evils of a different kind. In addition to having led to perjury and evasion of the law, it had placed the clergy in a false position, for he found it stated—and that, too, by clergymen who had been opposed to any change in the present law—that they found it impossible to ascertain the affinity of parties who presented themselves for marriage, and that, in fact, they were daily celebrating illegal marriages without knowledge of the fact. This was a position very painfully felt by many of the clergy. Either the House ought to devise some means of more rigid and effectual restriction, which they could not do, or it must alter the law so as to bring it more in accordance with public opinion. But, besides, many marriages were now contracted before registrars. In the case of such marriages there was absolutely no check. The difficulty was greatly increased. Again, it was found that persons of property and station, being unwilling to break the law, resorted abroad, while even in the middle classes there were numerous instances of persons expatriating themselves permanently or temporarily for the purpose of freeing themselves from the trammels of the English law. Yet all foreign marriages of this kind contracted by British subjects, were, by Lord Lyndhurst's law, null and void, unless the parties were absolutely domiciled abroad. Such being the effects of the Act, surely some remedy was required. What was the opinion of the Commissioners?—

"We cannot avoid the conclusion that the Statute 5&6 William IV., c. 54, has failed to attain the object sought to be effected by its prospective enactments. It has not prevented marriage with the sister or niece of a deceased wife from taking place in numerous instances; whether more or less numerous than before the passing of the statute, we have not, as was before observed, sufficient data to enable us to form an opinion. But, without reference to any comparison of this description, the number of those marriages is so great as to justify us in saying that the provisions of that statute, rendering them null and void, have not generally deterred parties from forming such connexions. No doubt this is a great and continually increasing evil. On a low computation, such marriages must amount to thousands; but from the nature of the connexion, and the secrecy which often attaches to it, their number cannot be accurately ascertained. The evil is great; for, as beyond all reasonable doubt, such marriages, when celebrated in England or Ireland, are void, the consequences are disastrous to the parties and their issue, at once affecting all the relations of mutual duty and obligation, as well as the rights dependent upon status; nor less pernicious in a public view, as exhibiting avowed disobedience to law by the open assumption of a sacred character which the law expressly denies."

The Commissioners then proceeded to state the effects of the law on the poorer classes. And here let the House observe, that although they might succeed in getting persons of education and refinement to obey the law, although at the expense of much hardship and severe suffering, it was quite impossible to prevent illegal marriages amongst the poorer classes. The effect of the prohibitory statute upon these classes was briefly described by one of the witnesses, who told the Commissioners that in the families of the poor the result of the death of a wife, when a sister was domiciled in the household, was either to turn that sister away, out into the streets, or, if she remained, to bring about, if not marriage, at least cohabitation with the widower. Members of poor families, this witness said, were thrown into such immediate contact, that if they had no hope of marriage, they would probably continue to live together without it. Many witnesses, some of them clergymen, took the same view of the subject, and the Commissioners came to this conclusion—

"Among the poorer classes of society, we believe that, in a great majority of cases where the sister of the deceased wife becomes an inmate of tile house, and the parties are not advanced in age, the end of such a state of things is marriage or concubinage."

Could there be a more unhappy state of things than that thus presented to their view? They not only had a law which was continually evaded—they not only had a law which led to perjury and immorality.—but they had a law which was so little in accordance with the feelings of the people, and so inefficient for the purposes for which it was intended, that thousands on thousands of their poorer fellow-countrymen, who were placed in circumstances of irresistible temptation, and yet debarred from marriage, were led to live in a state of concubinage. On the whole, then, he thought that this question assumed a most important character, and it was with this conviction that he would urge upon the House the propriety of allowing him to bring in his Bill. The present state of the law was fruitful of immorality and demoralisation amongst the lower classes, and it would surely be admitted that it was the duty of the Legislature to apply some remedy to an evil which, as the Commissioners stated, was not only already great in itself, but was daily increasing in magnitude. The Commissioners closed their report in these words:—

"On a review of the subject, in all these its different bearings and effects, we are constrained not only to express our belief that the Statute 5 & 6 William IV. has failed to attain its object, but also to express our doubt, whether any measure of a prohibitory character would be effectual. These marriages will take place when a concurrence of circumstances give rise to mutual attachment: they are not dependent on legislation. We are not inclined to think, that such attachments and marriages would be extensively increased in number were the law to permit them; because, as we have said, it is not the state of the law, prohibitory or permissive, which has governed, or, as we think, ever will effectually govern them."

He would now leave the question in the hands of the Legislature. Into the social argument of what was likely to be the effect of a change in the law, with respect to the relations of husband and wife, he would not enter. He would content himself with remarking that, in his opinion, the evils resulting from the present state of the law were greater than any which could be an- ticipated from the change which he proposed to introduce. But whatever the arguments might be arising from the delicacies and niceties of social intercourse, these arguments were confined to the higher and middle classes, while to the poor, who were compelled to live together with scanty accommodation, they did not and could not apply. He held in his hand letters from many clergymen, incumbents of populous parishes, who stated that the condition of their flocks was so injuriously affected by the present state of the law, that they were fully prepared to advocate its alteration. He had had similar communications from persons of the greatest weight and highest character in the Church; for, be it observed, that it could not be said, with reference to the extensive evasions of the prohibitory statutes amongst the poorer classes, that there also existed, in the instances of the persons thus marrying within the prohibitory limits, many gross cases of adultery and incest. On the contrary, it was proved that the great majority of persons who had contracted these marriages were persons of moral habits and religious feeling, and persons who did not otherwise offend against the law. He thought that he had now said enough to induce the House to consent to the introduction of his Bill, and he would therefore shortly state some of its principal provisions. Before he did so, he might, however, remark, with reference to marriages with nieces of the deceased wives, that, although such instances were rare, they did occasionally happen, and that it would be difficult to permit marriage in the closer degrees without relaxing at the same time the rules which forbade it in the more remote stage of affinity. Otherwise, he would hardly have deemed the case of marriage with a deceased wife's niece to be deserving of any alteration in the law. Now, as to the provisions of his Bill, he did not intend to extend the permission to any other degrees, or to alter Archbishop Parker's table in any respect, but as regarded marriages with the sisters and nieces of deceased wives. Neither did he intend to permit a widow to marry her deceased husband's brother; as, without entering into the social part of the subject, he considered that such a state of things would more probably tend to the introduction of immorality into a family than could be expected from the converse condition of matters. As regarded the clergy, he did not intend to make it compulsory on them to celebrate these marriages. He knew that there was a difficulty in this part of the case. It had been doubted whether there were any means of compelling a clergyman to perform a legal marriage. His own opinion was, that a clergyman could be so compelled, and he would therefore provide, on the one hand, that no clergyman should be liable to a suit for celebrating marriages of this kind; and, on the other, that no clergyman should be liable to a suit for refusing to celebrate them. He wished to avoid as much as possible interfering with the laws of the Church. But he was obliged to make one provision. These marriages were permitted in almost every Protestant country. They were permitted in the United States. True, Dr. Pusey had attempted to show that the results had been injurious in Germany and other countries; but the House would find it broadly laid down in the report that these statements were destitute of foundation. But in many countries there was a dispensing power vested in the ecclesiastical authorities with reference to these marriages. This, for instance, was the law of Hanover; and, until the separation of the two crowns the King of England was often called upon to grant dispensation for an act, which in England was held to be illegal. Now, if he could place such a power in the hands of anybody analogous to those by whom it was exercised on the Continent, he would willingly do so. But he could find in this country no satisfactory depositary for a dispensing power. Notwithstanding, however, he did propose to prevent marriages of the kind in question taking place in cases where there had been immorality between the parties before the death of the wife. In no such cases, he thought, ought marriages between the prohibited degrees in question to be allowed. It was not his intention to confine his measure to England. He trusted to make it applicable to all parts of the kingdom. The Scotch law on the question was doubtful, but these marriages did not often take place in Scotland. The effect of his measure would, therefore, be to legalise such marriages in Scotland if they were now illegal; but if the reverse were the case, to leave matters as they stood at present. But there was another class of persons who were entitled in this respect to great attention at the hands of the House. In 1836, a Bill was passed to afford to persons dissenting from the Established Church the means of marriage according to their own forms and opinions. From the evidence contained in the report it would be seen that by some of the bodies in question the practice of marriage with a deceased wife's sister was considered to be contrary to the laws of God, and therefore he thought that the dissenting sects in question were entitled to some such measure as that which he now proposed. Having thus stated the grounds upon which he rested his measure, he would not further detain the House. The Bill which he asked leave to introduce affected a very large class of the community, and he believed that, were it to pass, such a result would be matter of sincere happiness and rejoicing to thousands, who were now suffering from the present unsatisfactory and anomalous state of our law upon the subject.

said, that if he did not divide the House upon leave to bring in the Bill, at which stage a similar Bill was rejected in 1842, it was not because he was less strongly opposed to the measure than he was then, but simply out of deference to the Royal Commission. Still he must make a few observations on the speech of his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Wortley). The right hon. Gentleman had argued that the early Church did not absolutely prohibit such marriages, from the apostolical canons only declaring that those who contracted them should not be competent to take holy orders; but at the same time those canons were made, the church was but a body of dissenters from the religion of the State, and could not, therefore, inflict temporal punishment for what was not against the laws of the State. A person wishing to make such a marriage, might do so by leaving the Christian community. By a similar argument it might be asserted, that because St. Paul said a bishop should not be a drunkard or an extortioner, therefore there was no harm in a layman being such. Mr. Binney, indeed, in the evidence in this question, had applied this to the case of a bishop being ordered to be the husband of one wife, as proof of polygamy not being forbidden to the earliest converts. St. Basil, in his letter to Diodorus, speaks of such a marriage as a thing unheard of. It was quite clear that the practice of the Church of England, both before and after the time of James I., was against such, though between that time and the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, the civil had thereby invaded the prerogatives of the ecclesiastical court. The case, however, of Regina v. Chadwick, had set at rest what were the prohibited degrees. The secret history of Lord Lyndhurst's Act was alleged, but this no where appeared on the face of it. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the comments which had been made upon the use which the Commission had made of the labours of Messrs. Crowder and Mayward. He did not object to their having done so, as they could not do otherwise; but he did so to their not having taken pains to get evidence on the other side. It was just like a Railway Committee examining the promoters of a Bill, and not attending to the landowners' case. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Commission had investigated a tenth of England, and based his statistics on this calculation. But this tenth of England included Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Hull, Birmingham, Coventry, Norwich, Southampton, Bath, Bristol, Cheltenham, Plymouth, and Devonport. Unless the Commission had examined the condition of marriage altogether in those close and crowded towns which afforded such a fearful and multitudinous detail of sin and vice, they had no right to come down with such a report to the House. The extent of concubinage in them was notorious. It stood ex confessio that Lord Lyndhurst's Act was little known amongst the lower orders. The same would be the case with the present Bill. He did not believe that, if the proposed Bill passed, there would be much increase of such marriages. Persons, as it is, go to be married, and the clergyman does not know how they are related to each other. As to the argument that, therefore, the clergy should be relieved from celebrating marriages which are illegal, by legalising them, it would apply as well to legalising bigamy, for our newspapers show how often bigamous marriages are celebrated by the clergy. He concluded with expressing his intention of dividing against the second reading of the Bill.

said, that he could not allow the Bill to be introduced without stating distinctly that he would, on all fitting opportunities, offer to it his most strenuous opposition. He did think this the most desirable opportunity to commence that opposition, because the very gravity of the subject rendered it necessary that the House should not come to the discussion with imperfect information, and without having full time to consider the character and nature of the specific measure which his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Wortley) now sought to introduce. Reserving, therefore, to himself the power of entering into the debate at a future time, he thought it best at present not to go into any matters of principle or detail at any length, but merely to state the matters which the House would have to consider between the present time and the period when the measure would be discussed. Had they sufficient grounds for altering a law which undoubtedly stood upon this only basis, that down to this moment it had been received in England as the true exponent of a part of Christian morality, and of the will of God, applicable to all nations? It had been so believed by those who made the law; the Commissioners admitted that the same belief prevailed now throughout Scotland, and very generally among the clergy—at all events—of the Church of England, Had they, then, sufficient grounds, either upon the score of divinity or public expediency, to alter a law of that sort, on which, if they were wrong, they would be acting contrary to that morality upon which the very foundation of their institutions depended? It was now proposed to abolish only one or two of the prohibited degrees of affinity; but if those degrees were taken away, a code would remain inconsistent with itself. The House must not come to the discussion of this subject under the apprehension that Lord Lyndhurst's Act had introduced any change whatever into the principle of the law; and upon reference to the Act itself they would find it impossible to concur in his right hon. Friend's conclusions on that point. He confessed that he really did expect when the Commission issued, that they should have had an inquiry of a very different kind from that which now appeared in the report on the table. He was not prepared to hear that Commissioners appointed by the Crown upon a matter affecting the morality of the nation would have proceeded upon an exparte case previously got up, namely, through the agency of solicitors, by interested parties; for of the evidence of such parties, and the materials collected by them, the whole staple of the report, with very few exceptions, was composed. He had expected that archbishops and bishops of the Church would have been called, because they could have given a fair representation of the doctrine of the Church, and of the feelings of their respective flocks on so important a question. He found, however, that five clergy on one side had been examined, to balance five clergy on the other; but while they were certainly most respectable men, they were by no moans an adequate representation of the Church of England for such a purpose. Two Dissenting ministers had also given evidence; but no ground was shown for treating their evidence as a sufficient exponent of the general belief of the Dissenting bodies at large. The report contained, in addition, the opinions of some Roman Catholics and Jews; but, from the whole tenor of it, the House would learn that, although the Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the whole subject of marriage, they had practically confined themselves to certain particular degrees of affinity, with respect to which interested parties had previously been looking out for information. The evidence was therefore not entitled to the credit which the right hon. Mover had anticipated for it, and this was a point deserving of the serious consideration of hon. Members, and particularly of Her Majesty's Ministers.

wished to guard himself against being supposed to give any sanction to the present measure in not opposing it at the present stage of its proceeding; and, deferring to those whose wisdom and knowledge of the subject were superior to his, he would yield to their intention of not dividing the House on the present occasion. He should observe, however, that in the remarks made about the former Commission, and the manner in which it had been conducted, he perfectly concurred. He never had heard of a Commission to the report of which less authority might be attached in that House. What amount of credit could be attached to that report if they took from it the interested witnesses examined? Actually, almost nothing. He believed no Commission had ever produced a report on evidence so unsatisfactory. He had read that evidence with the greatest possible care and attention; and it appeared to him that it was hardly possible for any person to peruse it attentively without coming to the conclusion that the witnesses on one side had been subject to a very different kind of cross-examination from that of the witnesses on the other side. That might have been accidental. He knew nothing of the opinion of the Commissioners themselves; but he certainly had been very much struck by the searching cross-examination of the witnesses opposed to those marriages, and the absence of any such cross-examination of the witnesses in their favour. It appeared to him, however, that it was those latter witnesses whose statements ought to have been most carefully sifted, as they were for the most part persons personally interested in the view which they took of the question. They might almost be looked upon in the same light as electioneering agents; and every one knew that the statements of those agents should be received with the greatest caution; for it was well known that they usually returned as favourable to their candidate every man who did not actually spit in their faces. Much had been said relative to the mischiefs and grievances caused by the existing law; but the districts selected by the right hon. Mover for obtaining his list of these complaints were principally situated on the sea-coast—such, for instance, as Portsmouth, Southampton, and Plymouth. If he had inquired how many wives men had at those places, he could have made out numerous cases of bigamy. He could then have shown how many men had two wives, and how many had half-a-dozen. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Commissioners had not recommended any alteration of the existing law, because that had not come within their powers; but he took care to give the House to understand, in a manner which he (Mr. Henley) thought hardly fair, that he was speaking their sentiments. [Mr. WORTLEY: What I said was, that I could not say how any Commissioner could put his name to that report, unless he was prepared for an alteration, and probably a relaxation, of the law,] He was sorry to find he had misstated the tendency of the hon. and learned Gentleman's language. But he had next to observe, that there was one very extraordinary omission in the report of the Commissioners. One of the most important points involved in the whole question, was the condition in which an alteration of the existing law would place the clergymen of the Church of England; and yet the Commissioners had left that point wholly unnoticed. That omission Was the more unaccountable, inasmuch as the point had been referred to by some of the witnesses. An Irish clergyman stated that the clergy could not celebrate such marriages. Archdeacon Sinclair said he hoped they would not be compelled to celebrate them; and Mr. Patterson said that the clergy felt themselves restrained in the matter by the canon law. Now, that was a serious difficulty. In what position was the House disposed to place those gentlemen? Would the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) have recourse to a convocation? And if not, how could be release the clergy from the canon law without it? The hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to throw discredit on the canon law, as having been framed by Cranmer and Parker; but it should be remembered that it had been ratified and accepted by the Sovereign in the year 1603. At all events, many clergymen of the Established Church felt bound by the canon law, and the House should not overlook that circumstance. He did not mean to enter on that occasion into a discussion of the general merits of the question; but he could not help taking that opportunity of stating, that if ever there had been a case artistically got up, it was the case made out by those Commissioners. From the report no one could come to the conclusion that those marriages had been prohibited by the Church from the earliest ages; and yet there could be no doubt of that fact. The report got rid of the religious point of view of the subject in the most extraordinary manner; it would have you believe that the Pope had to do with the early ages of Christianity. Why, this degree of affinity was wholly rejected in the Eastern marriages; and the Eastern and Western Church did represent, before their unhappy differences, the united opinion of Christianity. He entertained strong objections to the measure upon social grounds, as well as upon others. He certainly saw nothing either in the report or in the evidence which ought to induce the Legislature to outrage the feelings of the community at large for the benefit of a few individuals, who deliberately, and with their eyes open, had violated the law of their country, and the law of that Church of which many of them were professing members. The whole of the people of Scotland, both clergy and laity, were opposed to these marriages; in Ireland, persons contracting such marriages were regarded with abhorrence; and in England, the great majority of the people decidedly disapproved of them. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the House would not pass the proposed measure, and thereby do violence to the public feeling, and compel clergymen to celebrate marriages which the great majority of them believed to be contrary, not only to the canon law, but also to the law of God.

said, that as he understood there was to be no opposition to the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill, he would not address the House at any length on that occasion. If there had been any opposition to the Motion, he should have been prepared to state in his individual capacity the grounds on which he was prepared to give his assent to the Motion for leave to lay on the table a Bill to alter the laws relating to the marriage of persons connected by affinity in the manner which it was clear the Commissioners were disposed to recommend. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, that to the evidence collected by the Commissioners, as well as to their report, it was the duty of Gentlemen to give their careful attention; and unless further consideration should have the effect of changing the opinion which he then entertained, he would state on the second reading of the Bill the grounds on which he should give it his support. He should, however, limit his approval of the measure to its main provision—namely, that for altering the laws which regulated the marriages of persons connected by that degree of affinity to which the report and evidence chiefly referred; and he did not wish to be understood as agreeing in all the details which had been stated. He did not concur in the reproaches which had been cast on the Commissioners for the manner in which they had conducted their inquiries. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had said that they should reject the evidence because it had been given by interested parties. But the hon. Gentleman should have remembered that interested parties were alone capable of stating to the Commissioners the results of the present law, and detailing those facts which should influence the decision of the House. It appeared to him that the Commissioners would not have properly discharged their duty if they had omitted to examine not only those who approved of the existing law, but those also who were able to show that that law had failed of accomplishing its object. It had been said that the marriages in question had been prohibited by the ancient Church. But many of the prohibitions of the ancient Church were so unnatural and absurd, that it would be impossible to attempt to enforce them, unless a dispensing power was at the same time granted, such as that possessed in the Roman Cathollic Church by the Pope. He believed that the law on the subject of those marriages in this country, was at present in a state of uncertainty which was extremely undesirable, and prejudicial to some of the best interests of society. The law upon the subject differed from that which prevailed throughout the greater part of the Continental States of Europe and of America; and it had failed to secure the objects for which it had been framed. Lord Lyndhurst's Act had rendered valid marriages of that description contracted before its enactment; so that it had given to them a legislative sanction; and he (Sir G. Grey) could not understand how any person, who believed that these marriages were opposed to the Divine law, could hold that the Legislature ought to have declared their validity. Under all the circumstances of the case, he felt that his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. S. Wortley) was entitled to the thanks of the House for his endeavours to remedy the evil to which this Bill applied. Whether his Bill was fully calculated to attain that object, he would not then discuss; but he had no hesitation in giving his assent to the introduction of the measure.

said, that the feeling of his constituents on that subject was so strong, and he so completely concurred in that feeling, that he was anxious to take that opportunity of briefly stating the grounds on which he should give his most determined opposition to the Bill in all its stages. The question was one of the highest importance with reference to the social system prevailing in this country. Marriage rested on two grounds. It had a religious basis, and it had a civil sanction. With respect to the religious view of the question, he could only say, that no evidence which Commissioners might produce could shake a conviction to which he had come on Divine authority. He did not form his conclusion on the subject from private interpretation only. He had the mind of the Church of England, of the Church of Ireland, and of the Church of Scotland, and a concurrent Christian testimony of centuries, that those marriages were forbidden by the law of God to guide him in the matter; and the contents of that book could not remove the decision to which he had come under such guidance. Others differed, and had a right to differ, from him upon the subject; but it would be his duty to act on the conviction which he sincerely entertained. It had been said, that there was a class of persons whose feelings would be outraged if that Bill were not passed. But they had no alternative, except to do violence to the feelings of persons who had advisedly violated the law, or to do violence to the great mass of the people of this country, to the whole people of Scotland, and to the members of the Irish branch of the Established Church. They must choose between those two courses. Which would they adopt? Would they condescend to stoop to the animal passions of the violators of the law; or would they uphold, and ratify, and reverence a religious feeling consecrated by the concurrent testimony of ages? They had in favour of the existing law a strong religious conviction, a social system based on that conviction, and all those feelings connected with home which were so dear to Englishmen. But they were then called upon to disregard these considerations, and to defer to man's passions. Christianity, however, did not stoop to man's passions: it compassionated human infirmity, but it entered into no compromise with the vices of mankind. But, setting aside the religious view of the matter, he thought that there might be very intelligible reasons for the present law in the social system itself. He believed that the intimacy which necessarily subsisted between persons connected by affinity, required to be guarded by very hallowed feelings; and that advantage was afforded by that wise provision which interdicted those marriages. If they once stepped beyond the demarcation set down by the word of God, where would they stop? There was a reasonable fact in the history of the Irish Church, bearing upon that subject, which he wished to state to the House. He found that in the eighth century, before the Irish Church had been handed over by England to the See of Rome, a canon had been passed denouncing the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister, and placing it on the same footing as the marriage of a female with the brother of her deceased husband. He admitted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Stuart Wortley) had brought the question under the notice of the House with great ability and moderation; but, as he could not help thinking that the proposed measure was opposed to the word of God, and would dangerously interfere with domestic happiness and the most sacred relations of private life, he should feel it his duty to give to it his most earnest, firm, and determined opposition.

had formerly entertained some doubts upon this subject, and having been led into a serious inquiry, the result of that inquiry induced him to offer to the measure proposed his decided opposition, being under the impression that the proposed alteration would involve greater evils than those which at present existed. And upon reflection, he thought it was a very serious question that the very parties themselves, whom it was proposed to benefit, might not suffer materially by this change. Was it not likely, if the proposed marriage of the husband with the sister of his deceased wife were rendered legal, that during the life-time of the wife it would lead to jealousies, suspicions, and discontent?—jealousies and suspicions which did not now exist. Although such marriages might not be supposed to be in direct contradiction to the word of God, still they were contrary to the spirit and tenor of the Scriptures. Now, this being the case, there could be no doubt that the measure would lead to estrangement, and prevent that social intercourse which at present existed. He bogged to direct the especial attention of the House to the opinions of the clergy of the united dioceses of Down and Connor. The petition of those clergymen embraced the most important points connected with the subject, and was, in every respect, deserving of the consideration of the Legislature. He would certainly oppose the Bill.

replied, that he had endeavoured to introduce this subject in as calm and dispassionate a manner as he was capable of, to the notice of the House, and regretted exceedingly that more than one hon. Gentleman had departed from that calm and dispassionate tone and manner. Anything more unwarrantable than the attacks of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, and the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he had never heard. He owned he was not prepared to hear language or rather lucubrations of so strong a nature. It was alleged that the Commission had heard the evidence only upon one side, and that six clergymen had been examined who were known to entertain views favourable to the measure. Now, what was the fact? Why, that six clergymen had been examined upon one side, and six upon the other. It would seem, from the representations of hon. Gentlemen, as if the strongest feelings were entertained by the clergy upon the subject;, whereas, the truth was, there was the greatest difficulty in procuring the attendance of clergymen to give evidence before the Commission. So far from there having been anything unfair, unjust, or one-sided in the proceedings of the Commission, there was every encouragement to parties to come forward—every publicity; and there were even letters written to clergymen, in various districts, to come before the Commission. This zeal on the part of the Commission was not responded to. The clergymen of the united kingdom, as a body, did not manifest any desire to record their convictions; and, upon the whole, there seemed to be rather an indifference than anxiety upon the subject. The Commission appealed to Ireland, where he admitted there was a very strong feeling against the proposed change. There had been a strong remonstrance, every word of which was set out in this report. He was really almost induced to question his hon. Friend (Mr. Henley), when he stated that he had read the report of the Commission. His hon. Friend alleged partiality on the part of the Commission. Why, the Commission had examined six of the clergymen of the archdeaconry of Middlesex, and their opinions were equally divided upon the subject. They had also examined clergymen of the archdeaconry of Ripon, and the result was, that two were for the change, and one against it. Now, what did the report itself set forth?—

"We have been particularly desirous to ascertain the opinion of the clergy of the Established Church in England, on the two questions, whether the marriage with the sister of a deceased wife is prohibited by the law of God; or, if not, whether it ought to be interdicted upon any other ground, The number of clergy in England is so great, that we have found it impracticable to collect the opinions of the individuals composing that body. We have, however, to the utmost of our power, caused it to be made known that we were ready to receive information from every quarter, and more especially from the clergy; and we have taken the evidence of those who were known, by their published opinions or otherwise, to have carefully considered the subject—and on both sides of the question. We are satisfied that a great diversity of opinion prevails among the clergy of the Established Church in England upon both questions. We think that very many of them do not consider such marriages to be prohibited by the law of God, but that the majority object to them either upon this, or upon other grounds. In Ireland, the great majority of the clergy of the Established Church are represented as disapproving of these connexions, which are rare also among the Presbyterians in that country, and are generally disapproved of by their ministers."

Did this prove the charge of the hon. Gentleman, that the Commission had shut out the evidence of clergymen? Nothing could be more unjust and ungenerous than such a charge. They had taken the evidence of Dr. Pusey at great length, than whom there was no higher authority. His evidence extended over seventeen pages. Then his hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) alleged that the Commissioners had not said a word about the practice of the Greek Church—that they had, in fact, suppressed that part. Now, let hon. Members refer to the report, and there they would find the following paragraph:—

"In the Greek Church these marriages are considered incestuous and unlawful, and are not allowed, cither by dispensation or otherwise. But in the case of a marriage solemnised in Russia, between persons not in communion with the Eastern Church, it seems, that such a marriage, if permitted by the law or discipline of the community to which these persons belong, would not be invalidated by the law of the State."

It was true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that they had not extended their inquiries into the several degrees of consanguinity—they had thought it right to confine themselves to the particular question before them—otherwise their inquiry would be endless, and, probably, useless. The report plainly says—

"We have directed our inquiries to the Laws of other countries with respect to marriages within the prohibited degrees of affinity, and more especially to a marriage with the sister of a deceased wife. From the evidence which we have taken, there can be no doubt that this last class of marriages is, of all those within the prohibited degrees, by far the most frequent; so much so, that it necessarily forms the most important consideration in the whole subject. When, therefore, for the future, we speak, in this report, of marriages within the prohibited degrees, we intend, when it is not otherwise declared, to confine our observations to marriages with the sister of a deceased wife."

Hon. Gentlemen seemed to speak as if the subject-matter of inquiry was either a great party or a great personal question. Now, he would like to know what interest had he or any other Member of the Committee in making the result appear favourable to the proposed measure, or otherwise? But it was said that several witnesses had not been cross-examined, and that others had. What was the fact? Some legal and other professional gentlemen stated certain facts which had come under their knowledge. The Members of the Commission, having had no reason to presume that the evidence given was incorrect, did not cross-examine them; but when clergymen came to speak upon doctrinal and theoretical matters, upon which differences of opinion were entertained, then the Commissioners did examine some of them, in order to ascertain the grounds upon which their particular opinions rested. He regretted extremely if he had been betrayed into any warmth in making these observations, for he was most anxious to keep the question free from all asperities; and he trusted that nothing of the kind would be exhibited on discussing the second reading. Without saying more, he begged to express his obligations to the House and the right hon. Baronet for allowing the question to be discussed. Marriage Act (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 54) read; Bill to amend and alter the said Act, so far as relates to marriage within certain degrees of affinity, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Edmund Denison, and Mr. Masterman.

rose to move—

"That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of granting Relief to Persons in Holy Orders of the United Church of England and Ireland declaring their dissent therefrom."

The noble Lord at the head of the Government, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for altering the oaths which Members now took at the table of that House, said that the measure which he introduced would complete the edifice of toleration which they had been for many years building up in this country. The noble Lord was ignorant, or forgot the state, of the law to which he (Mr. Bouverie) wished to draw their attention. It might be a matter of question whether the denial of the franchise was persecution; but he apprehended there could be no question about the fact, that as long as a man might be subjected to pains and penalties—to the loss of liberty or property, for the profession of certain religious opinions, that act was a persecuting one. The Toleration Act was the great foundation of religious freedom in this country. Previously to its adoption, religious persecution, so far from being a wrong, was esteemed to be a duty. He now wished to draw the attention of the House to that Act. Provided that all persons took the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and made a declaration against the doctrine of transubstantiation, they were relieved from the penalties imposed by the Acts respecting religious opinions, which originated in the reign of Elizabeth, and terminated in that of Charles II. It was further provided, with reference to persons in holy orders, or, as the phrase went, "pretending to holy orders," and who declared their adherence to the Articles of the Church of England, except to the third, and part of the fourth Article—that they should be exempt from the provisions of the Conventicle Act, and what was called the "Five Miles Act." It was somewhat singular that Roman Catholics, and those who denied the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, were exempt from the operations of these Acts, as wore, indeed, all persons except those in holy orders who did not declare their approbation of the Articles of the Church of England. The Act of George III. declared, that persons in holy orders, or "pretended holy orders," teaching or pretending to teach God's word, were not obliged to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles, provided they professed their belief in the Holy Scriptures. But his object was not to refer to a mere theoretical alteration, or to provide for hypothetical cases, but to legislate against the recurrence of such decisions as had lately taken place in the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of Mr. Shore. The Court of Queen's Bench had within the last three years decided that a minister who dissented from the Church of England had, although exempt from all statutory penalties in the common law courts, subjected himself to penal proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts. Conformity with the Toleration Act should release all persons from prosecution in the ecclesiastical courts: it did so in fact, except as regarded clergymen of the Church of England; but the Court of Queen's Bench decided that even breaches of the discipline of the Church of England, the ecclesistical court had, notwithstanding the Toleration Act, perfect cognisance of; that, in short, the Acts of toleration which had been passed did not apply to the ecclesiastical courts. The consequence of that decision was that a clergyman who had once entered into holy orders was bound hand and foot by the discipline of the Church of England, and no step which he could take in compliance with the statutes of toleration would release him from that obedience; he was, in fact, a mere villein or serf to the Church adscriptus ecclesiœ; not even deposition from holy orders would—so far as he could learn—free such a person from the penalties of the ecclesiastical court. Now, he thought that none of the great framers of the Toleration Act could have contem-plated the imposition of such penalties. No man conversant with the history of the period when the Toleration Act had its rise, would contend to that effect. This was the very grievance of which the Nonconformists complained. Richard Baxter, whose name would live as long as there was any respect for virtue, piety, or holiness, was a minister episcopally ordained; he survived the Revolution of 1688. Would any one contend that the framers of the Toleration Act would contemplate the liability of Richard Baxter to all the pains and penal ties of the ecclesiastical court after that Act passed, merely for acting according to his conscientious conviction? Now, bethought, whatever courts of law might do, that they, as legislators, were bound to carry out the spirit and intent of the Toleration Act. It was not, as he had already stated, a mere matter of theory, but a practical question, forced upon their notice by the decision of the Court of Queen's, Bench, with which, of course, he found no fault. The clergyman and defendant in the case to which he alluded, might be now, for aught he knew, a prisoner, under sentence of the ecclesiastical courts, and that gentleman, in his opinion, ought not to be incarcerated for a single moment. In the case to which he alluded a writ had been issued, and if the gentleman alluded to was not actually in prison, he might be apprehended' and thrown into gaol for the period of his life, as the law now stood. Thank Heaven they had few such bishops since the time of the Revolution, as the right rev. Prelate in the case to which he adverted! there were few bishops who strained the law for the persecution of unoffending persons—not for the cause of morality or good order, but in order to enforce obsolete rules, which were a disgrace to our Legislature. Every one knew that the first turn in this country towards religious feeling, and the arousing of the Established Church from its dormant position, were the teachings of John Wesley, who, whatever might be thought of his doctrines, was yet, for the good he had done, and the purity and sincerity of his motives, held in reverence by the ministers of the Established Church. Now, John Wesley was an episcopally ordained minister; and if the bishops of that day entertained the same opinions as a bishop of the present, John Wesley or George Whitfield might have been locked up in gaol during the remainder of their days. If anything could revolt the feelings of the great body of the people from the Church, it was proceedings of this kind. When simple-minded men saw such an illustration of the doctrines of the Church, they were sure to be indisposed to listen to its teaching. The persecutions by the Roman Catholics, in the time of Queen Mary, were the greatest means of making the people become Protestants. After dwelling at some further length upon this portion of the subject, and stating that, in his opinion, nothing could be more distasteful or revolting to the feelings of the people of England than such persecutions on account of religious opinions, the hon. Gentleman proceeded to refer the House to the opinion of the present Archbishop of Canterbury, as conveyed in a letter recently published, in which his Grace said that there ought to be some method by which clergymen might disconnect themselves from the Church of England without being subject to the penalties of the law. He would now briefly state the provisions of the measure which he intended to introduce. He proposed that clergymen of the Established Church, and who dissented from it, should, in addition to the oath which they were required to make or take, as dissenting ministers, upon seceding from the Church, make, in addition, a declaration of dissent from the Articles of the Church; that that declaration should be registered according to the Toleration Act; that a copy of that declaration should be forwarded to the bishop of the diocese in which the declarant resided or held a benefice; and that the bishop should register such declaration, which thereupon should have the full force and effect of a sentence of deprivation from the benefice and of orders in the Church, and that he should be relieved from all burdens and liabilities as a clergyman of the Church of England, and lose all rights and privileges to which, in the character of a clergyman of that Church, he was entitled; but that, at the same time, he should not be subjected to any pains or penalties for such conscientious avowal, except the negative ones he had stated. He did not profess to enter into any theological questions; but his object, and the object of the measure which he would lay upon the table (if permitted) was to place such a person, with respect to the Church of England, on the same footing as if he had not entered into holy orders at all.

Would you make him eligible to a seat in this House?

Yes; I shall propose it. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the resolutions stated above.

said, he regretted that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had thought it necessary to pass a censure on the proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts. He doubted whether this was at all warranted. The hon. Gentleman was certainly not correct in drawing a parallel between the proceedings of Mr. Shore and those of John Wesley. At the time John Wesley commenced his missionary operations, he was as much attached to the Articles of the Church of England as any bishop on the bench; and he would sooner have burnt off his right hand than have subscribed the declaration which it was proposed that Dissenting clergymen should be permitted to subscribe. What he (Mr. Gladstone) had understood of the case recently before the ecclesiastical courts was, that the Bishop of Exeter was perfectly willing to concur with Mr. Shore in expediting a process in the ecclesiastical courts, for the purpose of liberating the latter from his responsibilities, and at the same time depriving him of his character of clergyman; and that in point of fact this was prevented, either by the defect of the law, or the disinclination of Mr. Shore to take the declaration required, but that it was not the disposition of the Bishop of Exeter to insist on fastening on Mr. Shore the obligations of a clergyman, after he had become convinced in his own conscience that he ought not to continue such. However that might be, he heartily concurred with his hon. Friend in the object he had in view; and, provided there were no difficulty as to the details, he should be much surprised and much grieved if it did not give general satisfaction. No doubt it was an important change in the law, to enable a person entirely to free himself from the obligations which accompanied so solemn and important a step as the taking of holy orders. Some might doubt as to the propriety of the provision for enabling a clergyman to resume his eligibility for a seat in that House, on declaring himself a Dissenter. That, however, was a political question, on which no religious difference could take place. As to the principle of obligation to the Church, he heartily concurred with his hon. Friend in thinking that when a clergyman had deliberately changed his mind on the vows taken at his ordination, it was no longer the business of the law to dive into the opinions he might entertain. The measure proposed judiciously set aside all inquiry into theological questions; the House was not called on to affirm or deny any theological proposition whatever, but merely to apply the general principle of liberty of conscience to the case of clergymen, and to adopt a fair, equal, and well-balanced measure by which a clergyman desiring to exempt himself from the obligations of his position should have the power of doing so, being at the same time, as a matter of equal justice, deprived of the privileges of that position. Without the latter provision, the measure would only tend to introduce confusion; as it was, he thought it would effect a valuable improvement in the law, besides affording relief to the individuals concerned.

said, he had not drawn a parallel between John Wesley and Mr. Shore; he had only said that a bishop might have proceeded against John Wesley for preaching without a license, and he might have been thrown into prison.

rose to move—

"That the laws relating to landed property in Ireland, as affecting the rights and powers both of landlords and tenants, require the immediate consideration of this House, with a view to such alteration of these laws as will remove the obstacles at present existing to the improvement of the soil, and the employment of the people."

The hon. Gentleman said, he had frequently heard complaints in that House that Irish Members, though continually dwelling on the grievances of Ireland, never proposed any remedies. He wished to exempt himself from this reproach, and therefore submitted this resolution, as the foundation of a series of measures which could only be successfully promoted by the power of Government. For ages the people of Ireland had been depressed, and had become, as they were truly described, a potato-fed people. The great evil had been the minute subdivision of land, with a view to extort exorbitant rents, whereby the people had been compelled to resort to a lower diet, being without any regular employment. Since the repeated failures of the potato crop, the people were being, rapidly exterminated. The only exception to this was the province of Ulster, where the percentage of pauperism was only 1½ in the 100, while in Connaught it was 9. In some unions in Ulster the percentage was as low as six-tenths in the hundred; it was not lower in any part of the united kingdom. Nevertheless, in Ulster, great part of the land was let in small farms, averaging from two to three acres. What, then, caused the difference between Ulster and the other provinces? In the latter the tenants had no interest in improving the land, nor had the landlords; for, owing to the system of middlemen, one was not at all dependent on the other. In Ulster, on the contrary, the general prevalence of what was called tenant-right gave a stimulus to industry and improvement. Having; stated the condition of Ireland, and the causes of that condition, he would now state the remedies he proposed. First, he would give to landlords the full power of charging the inheritors with any improvements they might make on their estates. A measure to this effect had been introduced in a former Session, and he believed its principle was not opposed by the Government; but as it was to be carried out through the instrumentality of the Court of Chancery, it was more expensive than useful. Next, he would give landlords of estates under entail the power to grant long leases. Another most desirable measure was to extinguish, by some means, the rights of intermediate landlords. He wished these tenures to be so secured that the occupying tenants should be brought into direct communication with the landlords. He now came to the third measure, which he thought the most important of all. This was a measure which would secure to the tenant the value of his labour and improvements in the cultivation of the soil. The House was aware that this subject had for a long time engaged the attention of the Governments of this country. In 1836 the Poor Law Commissioners had reported upon the necessity of such a measure. In 1845, the Land Inquiry Commissioners had also reported upon the necessity of some such measure for the protection of tenants. Bills were introduced first by Lord Stanley, in 1845, then by the Earl of Lincoln, in 1846, and a third time by the Secretary for Ireland, in 1848: all of which proved abortive. The question naturally divided itself into two parts. In the province of Ulster, tenant-right existed; but the tenants were anxious that this right should be sanctioned by direct legislation: and it was not less important that the same right should be extended to the whole country. Another desirable measure would be to give the State the power of assuming waste lands, on a valuation to be properly made, with a view to their reclamation. This would be a most beneficial application of the public money; it would at once improve the land and give employment to the people. He did not ask the Government to furnish employment to all the paupers, but simply to open a market for labour. It was melancholy to reflect that in Connaught, where the greatest distress prevailed, there were a million and a half of acres of waste land. He would also ask the Government to assume the power of actually selling land on which the poor-rates were not paid. It was most unjust to the people of England, and other parts of Ireland, that they should be required to make good such arrears. The Bill which passed last Session, for effecting the sale of incumbered estates had been found inoperative; he therefore called on the Government to amend it. Another measure adopted by the Government was, the advance of loans to landlords for the improvement of their properties; but though a good measure, as far as it went, it was incapable of being extensively used in Ireland. A million and a half would go but a small way in improving land. He would prefer stimulating landlords to make improvements with their own means; and to give them the ability of doing so he would give them the power of borrowing money from the Government. These were the measures which he would suggest for the improvement of Ireland. It was a melancholy thing to see that country in her present condition, with the capability of maintaining twice or even three times her present population on the rotation system. There were 15,000,000 acres in Ireland, of which two-fifths, or 6,000,000 acres, were capable of producing corn. Under a proper system those 6,000,000 would produce 4,500,000 tons, or, at five quarters to the ton, 22,500,000 quarters, or three quarters for every head of the population, which was three times as much as would be required for the present population. This calculation was only on two-fifths of the land; the other three-fifths he would leave for pasture and vegetables. That was a proof that it was owing to the want of cultivation that Ireland was not capable of maintaining her present population, and it should stimulate the House and the Government to do everything in their power to promote the proper cultivation of the soil. The reclamation of the waste lands would give employment to the population in the ratio of 400,000 labourers for every 1,000,000 acres. He wished at present to confine his attention to the landed property of Ireland, and he would briefly mention the measures he wished to have passed: First, a Bill to relieve landed proprietors under entail, to enable them to charge the inheritance with the money expended upon improvements, and to grant sufficiently long leases to encourage the improvement of the land: a Bill for settling intermediate rights, and to provide the means by which the several intermediate holders for terminable leases should be enabled successfully to claim either a perpetuity or to sell their interest to the head landlord: a Bill for the amendment of the law relating to landlord and tenant: a Bill to give the State power to enter upon waste lands; and the State to sell the lands of defaulting proprietors to the poor-rate: and, lastly, an amendment of the Encumbered Estates Bill. The Government had not scrupled to set aside the usual barriers of the constitution in Ireland. If it were necessary to give such powers as those affecting the lives and liberties of the subject, he said it was equally necessary that extensive powers should be given in regard to the property of the people. Ireland was in a condition which required extraordinary measures like these, so as to secure the lives and property of the people. He would not wish to do the smallest injustice to any man; but he never would be discouraged from proposing such measures as these from the mere cry of an interference with the abstract rights of landlords. The hon. Gentleman concluded in the terms of his Motion.

said, it was impossible to deny that the subject which had been brought before the House by the hon. Gentleman, was one of very great importance; and it was equally impossible not to admire the perseverance with which the hon. Gentleman had brought forward and pressed upon the attention of the House, year after year, his favourite project for the amendment of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland. Yet he (Sir W. Somerville) was surprised that his hon. Friend, after the long experience he had had of the business of the House, had contented himself with bringing forward an abstract proposition, the truth of which nobody doubted, instead of laying upon the table of the House a Bill embodying, in an intelligible shape, the object he had in view, and the manner in which he proposed to carry that object into effect. The hon. Gentleman had divided his address into two portions. First of all he described the unfortunate state of Ireland at the present moment, and contrasted the condition of one part of the country with another; and then he proceeded to detail at considerable length what measures he thought should be adopted for the purpose of improving Ireland generally. It was impossible, he (Sir W. Somerville) was sorry to say, to deny the truth of the picture which the hon. Gentleman had drawn of the state of affairs in the province of Connaught. That general distress and embarrassment prevailed in that province, could not be contravened, and the terrible condition of the pauper population was lamentable in the extreme. The hon. Member had contrasted the condition of the western counties with that of the county of Down, and argued that the more prosperous state of Down was owing to the existence there of his favourite system of tenant-right. Now he thought it would be difficult to trace the difference in the conditions of the Connaught counties and those of the north of Ireland to the variation in tenures of land in the two portions of the country. It would be admitted that what the hon. Member called tenant-right prevailed to a considerable extent in the county of Donegal, and yet the condition of that county was very nearly as bad as that of the most distressed counties in the west and south. The hon. Gentleman had also alluded to many other subjects, which were, no doubt, entitled to great consideration. One of these was the rundale system, than which a more pernicious system could not be found to exist in any part of the world—and no doubt, it ought, if possible, be got rid of. But how was it to be done? His hon. Friend, having drawn his picture of the state of the county, suggest- ed the adoption of several measures which he thought would ameliorate its condition, and remedy the evils which prevailed. He had alluded to a law something like the Montgomery Act in Scotland, and seemed to be of opinion that such a measure would operate beneficially in Ireland. But he (Sir W. Somerville) would only say, in reference to the application of an Act of that kind to Ireland, that he entirely concurred in the view of the matter taken by the Members of the Earl of Devon's Commission, whose attention had been directed to the subject, and who were unanimously of opinion, that an Act like the Montgomery Act could not, with its machinery, be applied to Ireland in her present condition. He would not say that some such measure might not be desirable if machinery for carrying it out could be devised: but in that the difficulty lay. The hon. Gentleman also alluded to a Bill which had been introduced last Session by himself and another hon. Member, the object of which was to enable proprietors in fee to charge inheritors with any money expended in the improvement of their estates. And they proposed that the measure should be carried into effect by the machinery of the Board of Works. Now let them conceive what would have been the result of every landed proprietor in Ireland employing the officers of the Board of Works in order to ascertain what improvements were necessary on their property, and making themselves responsible for the outlay of money for those improvements; and then let them imagine what disputes and difficulties such a system would inevitably give rise to? Why, it would not have lasted a week, if it could have been applied at all; for the Government had experienced the greatest difficulty in managing the disposition, through the machinery of the Board of Works, of the 1,500,000l. which had been lent to Ireland to carry on works of utility in that country. He mentioned this as another proof of the difficulties which the Government had to contend against in making any attempt to do that which ought to be performed by individuals. The hon. Gentleman advised that some measure should be passed with the view of giving security to tenants for any outlays of money in the improvement of their holdings. Measures having a tendency to secure in some degree that object had been introduced at different times by Lord Stanley, and by the noble Earl the Member for the Falkirk district of burghs, and by himself during the last Session of Parliament; and he believed one or two similar measures were brought in by the hon. Member. Now, every one of these Bills had proved a failure, in consequence of the deficiency in the machinery wherewith effectively to carry them into operation. He would not say that he was deterred by these repeated failures, for he hoped, in the course of the present Session, to lay upon the table of the House a Bill, the object of which would be to secure to improving tenants the fruits of their industry. He had always been of opinion that voluntary arrangements between landlords and tenants were far better and more satisfactory than any arrangement of a compulsory character under the terms of an Act of Parliament; and he trusted that notwithstanding any law that might be passed on the subject, the voluntary—which was the most wholesome system—would as often as possible continue to be acted upon. But the hon. Member called upon the House to legislate upon the question of tenant-right, without defining what tenant-right was. For his (Sir W. Somerville's) own part, he had never heard a clear definition given of it. He had read several able pamphlets on the subject—one especially written by a Mr. Lament, in which that gentleman—who, he believed, was a practical man—gave it as his opinion that it would be impossible to legalise tenant-right by legislation. He hardly knew whether he need touch upon the many other questions which had been adverted to by his hon. Friend. They all referred to matters of great importance. There was, for example, the question of reclaiming waste lands, and the question of arterial drainage—both of great importance. But, after all, the real question was, should waste lands be reclaimed and arterial drainage carried on by the Government? With respect to the reclamation of waste lands by Government, he did not know any measure which had lost so much ground in Ireland. [Mr. BELLEW: Hear, hear!] The industrial resources of Ireland were imperfectly developed, and there was no doubt her soil, if properly cultivated, was capable of feeding in comfort a much larger population than her present one; but that was not the question they had to deal with now. He thought that however desirable it might be to proceed with these works, that the principle of leaving them to private enterprise ought not to be departed from. He had further to state, that it was his intention in the course of the present Session to introduce a Bill to provide for the conversion of renewable leasehold property in Ireland into tenancies in fee; and also a Bill, the object of which would be to amend the Irish grand jury law; both of which measures he hoped would prove beneficial to that country. He trusted that the House would be content with what he had stated it was his intention to do; and that they would not sanction the resolution of the hon. Member, which pointed to nothing practical, and which, if agreed to, would possibly tend to raise hopes which might never be fulfilled.

agreed with the right hon. Baronet that it was not wise to create hopes which might not be realised, yet he thought much credit was due to his hon. Friend who proposed this Motion, for his perseverance in pressing his views on the Government, many of which, if carried out, would be very useful. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth cheered the right hon. Baronet when he said that the question of the reclamation of the waste lands had lost ground in Ireland. It might be well for the hon. Member for Louth, which was all reclaimed, to entertain such an opinion; but if the hon. Gentleman went further to the west, he would see that waste lands might be cultivated with great advantage. He had done so himself in the west of Ireland with success. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would not fail in bringing forward the measures he indicated at an early day. There was now an opportunity of doing much good for Ireland; but he thought that every proposition for the improvement of the country would best emanate from the Government. If the Committee upstairs were allowed to perform their duty fairly to the country, it would show what the evils of Ireland were, and would suggest the proper remedies for their removal. He hoped they would be allowed the opportunity of doing so.

said, it was a comfort to know that it was the intention of Government to bring forward some of the measures referred to by his hon. Friend. When the right hon. Baronet said that tenant-right prevailed in Donegal to a great extent, and yet that it was in a lamentable condition, while the county of Down was comparatively prosperous, he ought to have told the House that the tenant-right which existed in Donegal was a mere mockery, whereas the tenant-right of Down was real and well defined. The right hon. Baronet said that it was impossible to define tenant-right. As far as words could define it, it was easy enough to do so—tenant-right being the right to sell the occupancy, the landlord being first paid out of the proceeds of the sale. He wished to see such a measure introduced by Government as would enable the small landholders, of whom there was an immense number, to lay out their money upon the land with the certain hope of being allowed to reap a return, without being every hour at the mercy of the landlord. This was one of the most necessary measures for Ireland, and this was one of those measures that would alleviate the miseries of the poor, and smooth the working of the poor-law. Various measures had been proposed for compensating tenants, but not one had been prosecuted with energy. They had been mocked with Bills which were brought in only to be abandoned. As his hon. Friend had but little chance of carrying his Motion, he would recommend him to withdraw it, but on the distinct understanding that Ministers were pledged to introduce a Bill which would go to the root of the evil, sufficiently early to insure its being carried in the present Session.

agreed so far with the hon. Member for Limerick as to recommend the hon. Member for Rochdale to withdraw his Motion. He did so, however, on different grounds from that hon. Member, for he believed, if it were adopted by the House, hopes would be raised in Ireland which could never be realised. If at any time there was a Bill brought in which went to infringe the rights of property, under pretence of establishing a tenant-right in Ireland, he (Viscount Bernard) should feel it his duty to oppose it. As a resident Irish landlord he had no hesitation in saying that the question of tenant-right was used as a purely political engine in Ireland. The wisest course for Parliament to pursue, in his opinion, would be to let the matter alone. To legislate in such a spirit for that portion of the Irish tenantry holding small patches of land not sufficient to Support their families, would be but to perpetuate the misery of Ireland. On this question he thought the Government ought to take the responsibility of originating measures, and not leave them to individual efforts. At present Parliament had been sitting three or four weeks, and though there was the greatest anxiety in Ireland to know what was to be done with the poor-law, the Government had not declared its intentions. Nothing was known except that the noble Lord at the head of the Government meant to submit a proposition to the Committee now sitting, which was generally objected to in Ireland. The hon. Member for Rochdale had offered many suggestions which, if embodied in Bills, would take several months to prepare; but Ireland required an immediate remedy for the evils that afflicted her. The only one, however, proposed was a Tenant Bill and a Grand Jury Bill. The measure wanted was neither one nor the other, but a measure which would give employment to the poor, and save the people from starving. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had promised a deputation that lately waited on him, that he would strongly recommend the question of Irish railways to the Government. He (Viscount Bernard) hoped the Government would consider of it, and adopt the project laid before the House by the lamented Lord G. Bentinck last year. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had alluded to the subject of arterial drainage; but arterial drainage was not proceeding in Ireland, because of the want of funds for the purpose. There was a difficulty under the present Act, and if Her Majesty's Government would only lend the money required upon sufficient security, arterial drainage would be recommenced. The fisheries of Ireland might be made most valuable and productive, if greater encouragement was given to railways. A large sum had been voted for the piers and harbours of Ireland, of which 40,000l. were still unexpended. The Government should promote the erection of piers and the construction of harbours in those places where they were most wanted. In reference to the Grand Jury Bill, there could be no difficulty in bringing it forward. The greater portion of the sums spent by grand juries in Ireland were not under their control, and it would be better to hand over the expenditure of the roads to the poor-law guardians, so as to enable them to anticipate pressure, and support the people in periods of distress. The noble Lord at the head of the Government should have also stated what course was intended with respect to the formation of new unions in Ireland, for that was a point of the greatest importance. The country was anxious to know whether the report of the Boundary Commission was to be adopted as regarded the workhouses of those unions, as well as with respect to electoral divisions. No question in Ireland was so important as that which involved a decrease in the area of taxation for the poor-rate; and it was desirable that the country should understand distinctly what was to be done on the subject. At present there was a suspension of all expenditure upon estates until that question was settled, lest the parties might find themselves placed in a position that would oblige them to support the poor of neighbouring unions. The Landed Estates Improvement Act would have done more good if it had been more extended. The great evil was the establishment of collective responsibility with individual means of assistance. He suggested that assistance should be given to the farmers in the way of agricultural instruction while there was yet time before the spring. The agricultural instructors sent out by Lord Clarendon last year had done the greatest good to the country; and nothing but the failure of the crops could have prevented the best effects from their efforts. The misery of Ireland was the immense number of children at present in the workhouses. These children, he suggested, should be sent to the colonies; by this means the occupying farmer would be immensely relieved, while a safe foundation would be laid for the future permanent welfare of the poor little emigrants. He was by no means opposed to the principle of the poor-law; on the contrary, he acted as chairman of a board of guardians, and had done all in his power to administer its provisions in an effective manner. They would find it utterly impracticable to give anything to the outdoor pauper without the chance of fraud. In one instance, when outdoor relief was announced, the whole parish became suddenly afflicted, and the whole population became candidates for public relief. The question of the poor-law required revision. He urged the question on the Government, not to embarrass them, but to induce them to remove that amount of uncertainty from the minds of the Irish people, in consequence of Government not stating what their intentions were.

said, it had been the habit of English Members of Parliament, and of English newspapers, to charge Irish Members with never submitting comprehensive measures to the House: after the serious and comprehensive speech of the noble Lord (Viscount Bernard) that charge could not be made at least against him. He had suggested various measures, and so numerous, that his (Mr. Reynolds') memory could not easily follow him. The noble Viscount found fault with the hon. Member for Rochdale that he had submitted no comprehensive measure. Yet that hon. Member had advised—first, a measure for emancipating the land, and, second, a measure on tenant-right. But the noble Lord found fault with all. He wondered that the noble Viscount had not said more respecting arterial drainage, as he (Mr. Reynolds) recollected about two years ago being one of an auditory of 700, who listened attentively to a speech made by the noble Viscount at an agricultural meeting held in the city of Cork. The noble Viscount was then supported by Mr. Smith, of Deanston, whose name was pretty well associated with arterial and other drainage. The noble Viscount appeared to be Smith-bitten, and roundly asserted that Ireland wanted nothing but drainage. "Drain her properly, "cried the noble Viscount," let us have plenty of drainage—nothing like drainage—thorough drainage," was the never-dying refrain of the noble Viscount's song. At last, a native of that beautiful and famous city cried out, "Let us have no more of that, my Lord; we are ruined by drainage destroyed by drainage, it is our misfortune that, we are too much drained." The fact was, that although drainage, doubtless, was a good thing, it might be, like all other good things, carried too far. Fault had been found with his hon. Friend (Mr. S. Crawford) for taking up the time of the House with this resolution; but, if no other good had been done, it had, at least, drawn from the Government the announcement of three measures. He had greatly regretted to hear from the hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, that considerable apathy prevailed with regard to the reclamation of waste lands; but he believed it might be easily accounted for. The destruction of the potato crop, and other calamities, had rendered valuable land nearly valueless; but there was a fact which the House ought never to forget, namely, that out of the 20,000,000 acres of Ireland, 7,000,000 were uncultivated, and that, out of the latter, 5,000,000 were capable of reclamation. And yet, notwithstanding this enormous quantity of land lying waste, they forced the labourers, by tyrannical and unnatural means, to cross the Atlantic. He deprecated forced emigration, whilst so much land at home was lying waste. The hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. W. Brown), a merchant and a hanker, with extensive connexions in America, as well as in tills country, had that day told him that money to the amount of 51,000l. had been remitted from the United States in the past year, through their house, from 8,000 Irish emigrants, in sums varying from 1l. to 30l., to assist their relations in Ireland to emigrate likewise. The driving of such an industrious class of labourers from the country, was, in his opinion, opening an artery in the prosperity of Ireland, and bleeding it to death.[A laugh.] That might excite laughter, but ere long its results would give rise to a very different feeling. As some remarks had been made derogatory to the Committee upstairs on Irish distress, he might perhaps be allowed to say that he entertained great hopes that, so far from doing nothing, that Committee would lay the foundation of a better system of poor-law in Ireland. He denounced many of the agitators against the present poor-law as desirous of repealing the law altogether, and throwing paupers on the paupers for support. He remembered when hundreds of thousands of paupers were supported exclusively by the poor; but a return to that system was now impracticable. He was opposed to any disturbance of the principle of the poor-law, as he believed it was the poor man's charter. It was too often, however, made the rich man's warrant for the purpose of depopulating the country. But while he wished to see alterations made in the present law, he was not of those who made alteration a mere pretext under which they concealed the strongest desire to have the law repealed altogether. He repeated it, there were those in that House who, while pretending to seek the alteration only of the law, would use every moans in their power to have it totally repealed. The noisiest opponents of the poor-law were those who formerly spent their incomes in foreign countries, left the management of their estates to their stewards, and surrounded their lands with stone walls twelve feet high, illustrated at intervals with boards, exhibiting in plain Roman capitals the words, "Spring guns and man traps set here." This class of landowners were now very rare; and he trusted that the House would never permit the principle of the poor-law to be disturbed. He concluded by thanking his hon. Friend (Mr. S. Crawford) for having submitted his Motion to the House.

said, that his hon. Friend who had just sat down was somewhat older than he was, and, therefore, he might have more experience in Ireland; but, for his own part, he had never seen any of those "spring guns and man traps," for keeping off the poor from a landlord's estate, to which his hon. Friend had alluded. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had not even seen them himself, but had only read of them. Instead of following the various extraneous topics which had been submitted to the House, he would recall attention to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, and to the observations founded thereon of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland. He was glad to hear from his right hon. Friend that it was his intention to introduce the three measures he had mentioned; and he was sure his right hon. Friend would frame his Landlord and Tenant Bill so as to render it beneficial to the country to which it was to be applied. His principal object in rising was, to express his regret that his right hon. Friend had not declared his intention of introducing another measure, and one of vital importance. He referred to a Bill for the management of estates, vested in the Court of Chancery in Ireland. His right hon. Friend was aware of the extent of these estates—he was aware of the way in which they were managed—and he was also aware that the tenants were in a state of the most abject wretchedness; that they had no hope—no inducement toward the improvement of their miserable condition, because they had no leases. He (Mr. Monsell) trusted that the Government would not allow many months of the present Session to elapse without bringing in a Bill for this purpose. His hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex had moved for certain returns on this subject; and, therefore, the question was before the House. He hoped the Government would at once take up the matter; and he was sure that his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Somerville), with the able assistance of the eminent person who was now Chancellor of Ireland, would be able to mature a measure which would confer great and lasting benefit on the country.

thought that the cultivation of waste lands in Ireland, although some years ago it would have been a very feasible project, was now wholly impracticable. The free-trade policy which had been recently adopted by that House, had put it altogether out of the question that anything like success should attend on any such undertaking. The lands on which crops were heretofore raised in Ireland were passsing rapidly out of cultivation, such were the injurious effects to the agricultural interests of the free-trade measures; and if it was found impossible to keep the good land in cultivation, how vain would be the enterprise of seeking to reclaim the waste! The project would never pay, and it would be idle to think of it. He believed much advantage would be derived from an improved system of legislation between landlord and tenant; but the most useful suggestion, in his opinion, had been made upon that subject by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin. In England there were six laws to regulate the relations between landlord and tenant, while in Ireland there were sixty-three. He had no faith in the Bill temporarily passed last Session. The only effect it had, was to put a great deal of money into the pockets of lawyers and attorneys. He could not vote for the Motion, because he could not approve of the speech by which it had been accompanied, which professed to be explanatory of it.

said, if the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland recollected the number of Bills introduced upon the subject of landlord and tenant in Ireland, and the little success he (Mr. Crawford) had met with, he would not be surprised at the anxiety he felt upon the subject. It was not in the power of any individual Member to complete the necessary machinery for carrying a measure of that sort; and it was, therefore, of great importance that it should be undertaken by the Government. It was hoped they would also see the necessity of furthering the measure. As to the Motion before the House, it might entirely depend upon the promise of the right hon. Gentleman as to the time he would undertake, on behalf of the Government, to bring forward the three measures of which notice had been given. If the right hon. Gentleman promised to bring them forward within a reasonable time, he (Mr. Crawford) would not trouble the House by a division; but, if not, he would wish to take the opinion of the House upon the question under consideration.

said, that two of the Bills were in a forward state, and would be shortly introduced in the other House. He had still his objections to call the other Bill a tenant-right Bill; but the other measure upon that subject would shortly he brought forward.

, under those circumstances, would not trouble the House, and withdrew his Motion.

seconded the Motion.

said, that when, on a former day, he had addressed to the House those considerations upon which he was of opinion that the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Trelawny) was one that ought not to be complied with, he had not stated with sufficient clearness, he feared, the principal reasons which had impressed him with that conviction. He meant to have then stated that, on the last settlement of the civil list, it was competent to the Crown to have surrendered, upon any arrangement that might have been deemed satisfactory, the revenues of one of these duchies. But Parliament, at that time, did not think fit to adopt such a proposition; and he had no doubt that this might have been so with regard to the duchy of Lancaster; but the duchy of Cornwall was not an analogous case, for the lands of that duchy became the private property of the Prince of Wales at the moment of his birth. It was clear, therefore, that the Crown could not make any arrangement with respect to those revenues which would be prejudicial to the rights and interests of the Prince of Wales in his character of Duke of Cornwall. Now, in point of fact, he was prepared to say, that whatever im- putation of defective management might formerly have applied to the administration of the revenues of these duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, that management had of late years very considerably improved, and was at the present moment, he believed, on the whole satisfactory; whilst those occasional acts of vexation or injustice which were alleged to have been committed under the system pursued in former years, had now ceased to exist. When the hon. Gentleman brought forward a similar proposition, on a former occasion, he did not clearly state what the precise object was that he then contemplated; and certainly that object had been on the present occasion not less vaguely expressed. At one time the hon. Gentleman seemed to state his object to be this, namely, to show that the management of these revenues might be very materially improved, and their amount increased, under a different system of administration; but at another, his object appeared rather to obtain a Committee that should recommend the appropriation of these revenues of the duchies to the public service. And now he came forward to show that so large a sum might be saved out of a more economical management of these revenues as would save the country a considerable portion of the charge which it might expect at a future period to be called upon to meet for the future allowance of the Prince of Wales. But he (Lord J. Russell) must submit that, without the direct consent of the Crown, these revenues could not be at all interfered with; and that that House would never sanction an attempt at such interference in the absence of that sanction. The hon. Gentleman had alleged that a great number of cases of extreme hardship had occurred by reason of the defective management of these revenues, and that therefore the Committee of Investigation for which he had moved, ought to be granted to him. It would, however, be surely very unjust, on general charges of this nature, to refuse to the Crown the right of managing its own estates, or to take from the Duke of Cornwall the same authority over his. And, again, if the House were not prepared to go the whole length of the hon. Gentleman's proposal, which would extend, in fact, to take away either the property or the control of it from its owner, he could not see the expediency of going into a Committee at all to investigate the question how far the expenses of the management of this property or the alteration of these revenues might be economised. The safer plan, therefore, would be not to grant the Committee. He believed, as to the annual production of these accounts on which the hon. Gentleman had attempted to raise an argument in favour of his Motion, that the real object with which they had been ordered by a former Government was, that their periodical production might operate as a very salutary check on the management in question. That was the understanding on which this plan of publication was first adopted; but it was never meant to convey that sort of right of control over these revenues which the hon. Gentleman had assumed in his speech. If those revenues are private property, as the hon. Gentleman admits they are, I can see no reason why we should interfere, especially as the hon. Gentleman produces no proof of mismanagement of the revenues but a speech of Mr. Burke. Now, though those remarks of Mr. Burke might have been justified in 1780, I think the hon. Gentleman overrates his observations if he thinks that that fact is sufficient to justify the appointment of a Committee in 1849. The hon. Gentleman has not given any proof that the abuses which existed in 1780 exist in 1849, and therefore I cannot see the reason for his Motion. The salaries stated to be given to the officers of the duchies may seem to be very large in proportion to those given by private gentlemen to parties holding similar offices on small properties, but I do not know that they are so as compared with large properties. Indeed, I believe some agents upon large properties get quite as much, if not more, than these officers. I know an instance in my own family where one gentleman, for merely giving his advice on legal affairs, got 2,000l. a year; and I believe other persons are paid as well on other estates. The titles of persons holding office under the Crown may be more high-sounding; but I much doubt whether the sums they receive are larger if as large. Without the consent of the Crown, it could not be submitted to the interposition of that House; and assuredly the Crown would not be a party to any arrangements that could have the effect of damaging the interests and the rights of the Duke of Cornwall. By the law of the land these duchies are the property of the Crown, and, according to the practice and usage of Parliament, they cannot be taken away without the consent of the Crown. The hon. Gentleman has made out no case for that consent being asked, and has in fact given no proof of the existence of any abuses in 1848, with the exception of the speech of Mr. Burke, delivered in 1780, and he hoped the House would not assent to the Committee.

was in favour of the appointment of the Committee, because he was desirous of supporting the Crown, and that it should not be placed in the painful position it now was, with regard to the inhabitants of the duchy of Cornwall, in the collection of the revenue, almost literally in pence and halfpence. That was a position in which the Crown ought not to be placed. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said these duchies were private property. Let the Crown give up its privileges connected with them. The Crown ought not to claim royal privileges when it proceeded against an individual, and then, when Parliament asked for a control over the estates, turn round and say it was private property. There was no person connected with Cornwall who was not aware of the injurious operation which the present system of managing these duchies exercised on the rights of tenants and landlords. He had been much astonished to hear the allusion made by the noble Lord to his noble relative. The two cases were not at all analogous. The Duke of Bedford was not likely to come before that House and beg it to make good the deficiencies of his own income; and, if he were to do so, the House would tell him to economise his means, by reducing such allowances as 1,000l. here, 3,000l. there, and 5,000l in another quarter. Now, the Duke of Cornwall was very likely, on the other hand, to be before that House very soon with some such application, and hence it was the interest of Parliament to see that his revenues were economically administered. If the noble Lord would allow the appointment of a Committee, he (Mr. P. Carew) would undertake to show such instances of intolerable oppression on the part of the duchy, that the House would insist on having Parliamentary control over it.

thought the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had not taken a very fair view of the case in comparing the charge of management of the Duke of Bedford's property with that of the Crown. The property in these duchies was not of a private nature, but it was public property, held in trust, and in the proper administration of which the House was deeply inte- rested. He (Mr. Hume) knew that King William the Fourth sent down a message to that House in which he gave up all the Crown revenues; and it was clearly understood at the time that the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster were to be given up. It was found, however, that this could not he done with respect to the duchy of Cornwall, as the revenue of it was always settled on the eldest son of the Sovereign; but with regard to the duchy of Lancaster, he had always understood that the Ministers gave up that duchy. All, however, that he (Mr. Hume) succeeded in obtaining was a clause inserted in an Act of Parliament, providing that an annual return of the income and expenditure of the duchy should be laid before that House. The gross revenue of the duchy of Lancaster was 40,000l, from which, however, 7,000l. was to be deducted, thus leaving 33,000l; but, after deducting the charge of management and the salaries and allowances of the different officers, the whole amount which went to Her Majesty's privy purse was 12,000l All the rest was completely wasted. When any demand was made on that House for aid and assistance for the maintenance of the Royal Family, it was right that the House should see that the property belonging to the Crown was properly managed. He would ask whether it was possible to find any private party having an estate, the expense of the management of which was such that only 12,000l. a year was received, as by the Crown, out of a revenue of 83,000l? If the House would only appoint a Committee, he was sure that fifteen Members of that House could not be found to sit together and hear the evidence which would be given before them without their being satisfied that a much better management might be adopted for the revenues of the Crown, so that their amount might, within a short time, be tripled. The House was most deeply interested in the proper management of the revenue of the duchy of Cornwall, for some years ago they had repeatedly been called upon to vote immense amounts of money to George IV., when Prince of Wales. It appeared, when he ought to have received an income of from 40,000l. to 50,000l. a year from this duchy, hardly anything was obtained, as nearly all the revenue was consumed in pensions, salaries, and allowances. Some years ago a proceeding took place with regard to Cornwall, which he would only designate as a great cheat on the public. He was not in the House during the few weeks that the measure to which he alluded passed through it, or he should have strenuously opposed it. There were certain rates or rentals, or royalties, formerly paid on the metal obtained from the Cornish mines, which amounted to 15,000l. a year. The country Gentlemen of Cornwall, who were a numerous body, and who were united, and possessed great power, persuaded Her Majesty's Ministers to take off the charge on the produce of these mines, and put it on the Consolidated Fund. The result was, that at present a charge of 15,000l. a year was paid out of that fund to the trustees of the Prince of Wales. It appeared that Lord Campbell received 2,000l. a year out of the revenues of the duchy of Lancaster; and he (Mr. Hume) did not know what that noble and learned Lord had to do. Oh, he recollected that the noble Lord had to keep the seal of the duchy. There was also an auditor at 400l. a year. He found, besides, the name of George Edward Anson, who was described as axe-bearer and master of the game in Needwood Forest, with a salary of 300l. a year. He should like to know what income was derived from Needwood Forest, that it required an officer with a salary of 300l. to look after it. Perhaps it was like another forest, which he once got inquired into, and which it was found, instead of producing anything, though 500l. a year was paid to the keeper, cost the country 35l. annually. After a ten years' suit before Lord Hope—he thought it was—he believed his right hon. Friend below him (the Lord Advocate) was engaged in the case, and the result was, that nothing could be done. When they looked at such items as these, he considered that a clear case had been made out to call for inquiry. He did not think that Her Majesty's Ministers had acted properly in opposing this Motion, as it did not affect the revenue of the Crown, for all that was intended was, that this property should be administered in the best possible manner. His own belief was, that the real ground of objection to the Motion was the fear that it might interfere with the patronage of Ministers.

observed, that an inquiry was now being carried on into a matter germane to the present subject. He alluded to the Committee appointed to inquire into the management of the Crown lands, and it was desirable that that Com- mittee should have been appointed to inquire also into the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. He could not agree with the assumption that Parliament was not entitled to inquire into the affairs of these duchies, as they were administered under regulations embodied in Acts of Parliament, and they were vested in the Crown by Acts of Parliament, and it was to Parliament Government must go if they wished to have any alteration in the administration of the revenues. The officers connected with these duchies had duties to perform besides the management of the revenues for separate courts existed in them for the administration of justice, which were under their control; they also had the power of imposing fees, and they enjoyed peculiar privileges, and possessed other extraordinary powers. When he took all these circumstances into consideration, he was satisfied there was not the slightest ground for Parliament not to insist upon having the fullest inquiry into the subject. He thought the matter of jurisdiction was much more important than the pecuniary considerations involved in the question. He should have thought that Her Majesty's Government would have been glad to assent to such an inquiry as was proposed, with the view to the improved management of this property.

thought that it would be most advantageous that some inquiry should take place as to the pecuniary matters involved in the subject, although he confessed he was not well acquainted with this part of the question. He saw, however, the absolute necessity of inquiry since the hon. Member for East Cornwall stated that he was prepared to prove cases of gross oppression and injustice against the persons entrusted with the management of the affairs of one of these duchies. He (Mr. Ricardo) knew, with regard to his own constituents, of a case of tyranny which no private individual would have dared to have perpetrated. The case was this: Some of the mines belonging to the duchy of Lancaster were under the town of Stoke-upon-Trent; and, in consequence of the mode of working them, many of the houses were Undermined and fell down. He believed that between thirty and forty houses had fallen down in that town and its vicinity, and the parties who owned or occupied them could obtain no redress from the authorities of the duchy of Lancaster, and they were refused any compensation for the losses they had sustained. This, surely, was a fair case for Parliamentary inquiry. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had said that this was private property, into the management of which they had no right to inquire; but he could not convince his constituents that they had not had gross injustice inflicted on them on the part of the Crown. When they saw that the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster was a Cabinet Minister, and the property of these duchies mixed up with the Government of the country, they thought they were entitled to a Parliamentary inquiry, with the view of seeing whether they were still to be exposed to such tyranny, without being able to obtain the slightest redress. He did not for a moment anticipate that the Motion for inquiry would have been resisted.

wished to say a few words with respect to the particular case just alluded to by his hon. Friend. Application had been made to him (Sir G. Grey), from the constituents of his hon. Friend, and he bad received a deputation from them, when, in reply to their representations, he stated that the question in dispute did not depend upon the property belonging to the Crown. The question was as to whether the person possessing the ownership of the surface of the land, had the right to prevent the owners of mines mining for ore which was under the surface. The parties who built on this land knew—or at least ought to have known—that mines would be worked under the surface of the land on which they had built. This question had been determined in a court of justice. The case might be a hard one, and the law of the land might require alteration; but this had nothing to do with the question before the House. The point referred to by his hon. Friend did not involve any peculiar right of the Crown, for the same right belonged to private individuals the owners of mines.

said, having been alluded to more than once in the course of the debate, and having been for the last eight years connected with the duchy of Cornwall, and for the last two years with the duchy of Lancaster, perhaps the House would allow him to say a few words on this question. The right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Milner Gibson) appeared to think that he had established a ground for inquiry because another inquiry, germane, in his opinion, to this one, was going on in another Committee upstairs with regard to the management of the Crown property by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Surely the hon. Member could hardly have looked at the matter with that acumen which every one knew he possessed, or with that impartiality which usually characterised him, or he would have seen that there was a manifest and strong difference between the two cases. The interest which the public possessed in the Crown property under the management of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests was patent to everybody. The net proceeds of those possessions of the Crown were paid annually into the Exchequer, and, therefore, the interest which the public had in that property being well administered was considerable. But the two duchies stood in quite a distinct position r they were not at all germane to the Crown property in question; for in one of those duchies, the public, as he should presently show, had no interest whatever; and in the other there was indeed a contingent interest, but one of a very remote date indeed. The hon. Gentleman who made the Motion (Mr. Trelawny) complained of the noble Lord at the head of the Government for having, when he brought forward a similar Motion on a former occasion, stated that the hon. Gentleman wished to sell the property of the duchies. Well, but now the hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity of explaining his views, and as far as he (the Earl of Lincoln) could collect, it was precisely as the noble Lord had stated. The hon. Gentleman said that he believed great advantage would arise to the public from the sale of the property of these duchies; and though he did not state on the present occasion that his object was the immediate sale of these properties, yet with great candour and fairness the hon. Gentleman had shown that his object in moving for a Committee was with a view to their ultimate sale. Now, it was essential that he should show to the hon. Gentleman that the public possessed no right of sale in these properties. The hon. Member for Manchester stated that he conceived it was the distinct right of the public to inquire into the management of the duchy properties, because not only did they possess privileges given by Act of Parliament, but that the duchies themselves were managed under Act of Parliament. Now, if that gave a right to the Legislature to interfere, he would beg the hon. Gentleman who claimed such a right of interference to tell him how many private properties there were which might not be interfered with on the same plea. He would ask the hon. Gentleman what more reason there was for interfering with the management of the duchies—a reason based on the fact that the duchies were regulated by Acts of Parliament—than for interfering with those great properties—he took those instances, because the public had an interest in them, though not of a pecuniary nature, and would long continue to have one—the properties of Strathfield saye and Blenheim. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON: Their royalties are confirmed under the provisions of an Act of Parliament.] Well, he would come to that, and he would show that that supplied no locus standi for the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Tavistock made the same statement; in fact, that was the principal basis of his argument. The right hon. Member for Manchester expressly stated this ground, and so did the hon. Member for Fast Cornwall. [Mr. CAREW: No.] I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I took down his words.

If the noble Lord will allow me, I will tell him what I did say. I said there was a difference between the management of the estates of the Duke of Bedford and the Prince of Wales, as in the latter the nation might be called upon to make good any deficiency.

continued: He was much obliged to the hon. Member for repeating his observation. He would not forget that argument presently, but he would forgive him for saying that he took down his words, and he understood the hon. Gentleman to state distinctly, as one ground for interference, that the duchy of Cornwall possessed royal privileges. Now, there were estates without end which were in possession of royal privileges; and would they say that the establishment of these royal privileges, such as the navigation of a river or the right of fishing, would give a right of interference as to the management of these estates by a Committee of this House? He was really afraid to enter into the question at too great length; but as this was the second time even during the present short Session of Parliament that the question had been brought before them, perhaps the House would forgive him for considering the question with some little care. In considering the question, he thought it was better that the two duchies should be taken separately, as they stood upon a totally different footing. The hon. Gentleman who made the Mo- tion had placed it upon three separate grounds. The first was to what extent the public had an interest in these properties. Now, with regard to the first of these properties—the duchy of Cornwall—he would tell the hon. Gentleman that he would distinctly show him that the present interest of the public in the duchy of Cornwall was nil. He thought he could also show him exactly what was the prospective interest of the public, and how little that entitled this House to interfere. How stood the case with regard to the duchy of Cornwall? The tenure was a very peculiar one. It was granted by Edward III. to the Black Prince—it was granted by charter, which was afterwards confirmed by Act of Parliament. The grant ran in this form, that the property should be for ever vested in the Prince of Wales—or perhaps it would be more correct to say, in the Duke of Cornwall, because the Prince of Wales was a creation, whereas the eldest son of the Sovereign became Duke of Cornwall at his birth; and it was to continue vested in him till his death, or accession to the Throne. On his accession to the Throne, if he had a son, the duchy became immediately vested in the son. If he had no son, it became vested in the Sovereign till the birth of a son. The hon. Gentleman admitted that this was a correct statement, and from these few words he would see that the public could have no present interest in the property. As to the prospective interest, it was simply this, that in the event of the Prince of Wales not having a son when he succeeded to the Throne, and consequently the duchy of Cornwall becoming vested in him as Sovereign, it would then be competent for him, and for the Parliament of that time, to include the revenues of the duchy in the arrangements with regard to the civil list. But how could they do that? They could not do it as Crown property—they could not do it as they could the duchy of Lancaster, to which he would come presently, but simply and solely until the time that a son Was born to him. Therefore, the present interest of the public in the property was nothing, and the prospective interest was very little; for what advantage could there be in an arrangement which would have no permanence after the birth of a son to the Save-reign? The hon. Gentleman had laid great stress upon the return with regard to the revenues being annually laid before Parliament. Now, he would tell the hon. Gentleman how this arose, and if his humble opinion were of any weight, he would say that in the case of the duchy of Cornwall these returns were very unnecessary, so far as the public was concerned. Yet he did not regret that they were presented, because he thought that every publicity as to the administration of the property was advantageous rather than the reverse to the duchy itself. It was done when Lord Monteagle, then Mr. Spring Rice, was Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, looking to the interest—small and remote as it was—which the public had in the property, he thought it right that these returns should be annually presented. But it was never contemplated at the time, nor was it thought of till within these last few years, that by these returns the public had obtained a right of interference. Having stated what that interest was, he would now come to the point which was put clearly and distinctly by the hon. Member for East Cornwall, and which had been hinted at by other Gentlemen. That hon. Member thought the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had made a mistake in comparing this property with that of the Duke of Bedford, because the public had no interest in the management of the estates of the Duke of Bedford, while they had this interest at least in the management of the estates of the Duke of Cornwall, that in the event of these estates being ill-managed during his minority, it was possible, when he came of age, that the Crown might demand a sum of money to make up the deficiency. He admitted the public interest to that extent, and therefore it was he rejoiced that these returns were ordered; but when he came to that part of the question, he thought he should be able to show the hon. Gentleman, and those who complained of the management of the property of the duchy, that in reality the sources of complaint arose not so much from the mismanagement of the revenue, as from cases of individuals who felt themselves aggrieved by the assertion of the rights of the property. But these questions must be settled elsewhere than in that House, for they had no right to deal with the question here, except they could show that the management of the property was hostile to the interest of the public. Now what was the case with regard to the management of this property? He would not go back to ancient times, as the hon. Gentleman had done, to the days of Burke; but when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trelawny) said that if a Committee was granted he would expose some cases of arbitrary management and tyranny, he (the Earl of Lincoln) was inclined to ask the hon. Gentleman why he had not stated some of these oases then? [Mr. TRELAWNY: I shall state them next week, when I mean to renew this Motion.] Really in that case he pitied Her Majesty's Government, who had so much important business to transact. A similar Motion to the present was brought forward a week ago; here it was again to-night; and now they had got an intimation that it was to be repeated that day week. He was sorry he was not aware of the hon. Member's intentions earlier, otherwise he would have reserved his speech till then. The hon. Gentleman stated that the management of the property was arbitrary and tyrannical. He had not stated any cases, and therefore he (the Earl of Lincoln) thought it fair to assume that if the hon. Gentleman stated instances, as his more rash friend the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent had done, he would have received as satisfactory an answer as the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had given to the hon. Member (Mr. Ricardo). But he could not undertake to answer cases of tyranny or arbitrary management which were stated only in general terms. As to the mismanagement of these estates, let them see, without going back to former times, what was the state of the matter at present. There was at present a council, consisting of six members; and they certainly found, when they came into office, that the whole property had been grossly mismanaged. It had been treated as a means of extracting as much as possible for the existing possessor, without looking to the benefit of the property. The system that was adopted, and which was originated by the late Viscount Duncannon, was now rigidly persevered in, by which system, the former one, so prejudicial both to landlord and tenant, of granting leases on lives present or prospective, was altogether done away with. Instead of this no fines were now received; and as lives had fallen in, the property was let on leases for a term of years. This system, he had no doubt, would eventually—he would not say in what term of years—place the Prince of Wales in a perfectly independent position as regarded income. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he would undertake to show to the Committee that the revenue of the duchy of Cornwall might be increased by 50,000l. a year. [Mr. TRELAWNY: I said both duchies.] Well, perhaps the hon. Member would state in his Motion of next week what portion of this he expected from the duchy of Cornwall, and what from the duchy of Lancaster. But he would hint to the hon. Member that it was quite unnecessary to have a Committee for this purpose—it was giving him (Mr. Trelawny) a great deal of trouble. The hon. Gentleman had only to communicate to him (the Earl of Lincoln) or any other Member of the Council, how this 50,000l., or even 20,000l, might be obtained, and provided it could be done with equity and fairness to the landlords and others connected with Cornwall, and to the tenants of the duchy, it would be instantly adopted. Whilst he was upon this subject of leases, he might mention that so rigidly was this system carried out, that even with regard to the minerals, though in that case it was necessary, as every one connected with mining operations knew—to levy fines, yet the fines were carried to the account of the estate, and not to the immediate possessor. The hon. Gentleman would see that everything was done to place the present possessor of the duchy on advantageous terms both as to himself and as to the public. While he admitted there might exist cases of individual hardship, he totally denied the existence of any public grievance. He had now touched on two out of the three points for which the hon. Gentleman wished to have a Committee. The first referred to the extent to which the public were entitled to claim an interest in the duchies; the second referred to an improvement in their management; and the third, to which he now came, was in reference to the suppression of antiquated offices and diminution of the salaries of the officials. Now, as to this last question, he at once admitted that, long since the time of Mr. Burke, the hon. Gentleman might have pointed to gross abuses. But if the hon. Gentleman would but state the case candidly to the House, he would state that in the number and extent of these abuses there had been recently a great diminution; and he would add that no opportunity would be lost of removing those which may remain. In fact, since the birth of the Prince of Wales, every office that could be suppressed had been suppressed. As to the management of the property, the public could claim no interest in the amount of salaries paid by the Prince of Wales, provided the succession were not prejudiced. But how did the matter stand? There was formerly a Lord Warden, with upwards of 1,000l. a year; that office had been held with that salary by the late Marquess of Hertford. At his death, the duties of Lord Warden being regulated by Act, and being therefore in the condition of requiring a total rearrangement—a rearrangement which would include various other matters were the office to be done away with—his Royal Highness Prince Albert was appointed to the post—but without any salary. During the life of the last Prince of Wales there was also a Chancellor of the Duchy, with a salary of 500l. The present holder of that situation was a gentleman respected and honoured by all who knew him—he meant Mr. Pemberton Leigh, who devoted his legal acumen and habits of business to the management of the duchy without any salary whatever. The hon. Gentleman alluded to a surveyor general and a receiver general; these offices were still held. At the accession of the Prince of Wales, however, the salary of the former was 1,600l. a year. It was now reduced to 1,000l., and the emoluments of the receiver general were similarly curtailed. These offices, however, having been bestowed previously to the accession of Her Majesty, it was not thought right that they should be done away with until the death of the present holders, after which both offices would be abolished. As to the Council, the Members acted without any remuneration whatever. [Mr. HUME would rather have a paid and responsible official.] If the hon. Gentleman would only have a little patience, he would find that the arrangement already existing was perhaps that which he desired. There were six Members of Council and a Secretary—the latter, of course, being paid. The Council was composed of His Royal Highness Prince Albert, of the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, who was an ex officio Member, of the Chancellor of the Duchy, of Mr. George Edward Anson, the keeper of Her Majesty's privy purse, and the treasurer of the Prince of Wales; and then there were two Members, who might be called the private Members of the Council, consisting of Lord Portman and himself (the Earl of Lincoln). Now, even upon the supposition that the present salaries were to be maintained, there were many private properties managed on as expensive a scale; but so completely had the Council felt that they were managing as trustees, that they had fixed the salaries at the minimum, so that he believed, upon the whole, that no property of the same extent, and under similar disadvantages as regards expense of management, was administered more economically—always excepting the two cases of high salaries which were to be reduced at the death of the present holders. Now, the hon. Gentleman had asked what had become of the revenues of the duchy? He replied that such a question, in his opinion, the hon. Gentleman had no right to put, but he believed he was speaking in strict conformity with the wishes of those who were most interested in the subject, when he said that there was not the slightest desire for any concealment in the matter. The whole not produce of the duchy was invested for the benefit of the holder. The hon. Gentleman wont on to complain of the small increase in the income of the duchy ever since the introduction of the new system, although the system of changing from the receipt of fines to the system of abolishing fines and renewing leases for terms of years, must of necessity render the new plan less profitable for a time than if the old one had boon retained; though eventually the revenue would be both greatly increased and rendered more equal and certain. But he could toll the hon. Gentleman why the balance-sheet had not looked so well during the last two or three years; and he thought that neither the hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for East Cornwall alluded to the circumstance. When he (the Earl of Lincoln) was in office, in the Woods and Forests, an Act was passed, called "the Assessionable Manors Commission Act." Previously to the passing of that Act, rights existed attached to the duchy property which pressed heavily upon the inhabitants of Cornwall. It was, therefore, with the view of promoting the mining and other interests of the county, that it was thought advisable to disentangle the rights of the duchy from those of the inhabitants of Cornwall, as it happened that the properties of the latter—the beautiful place of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trelawny) for example—were often very inconveniently interlaced with the property of the duchy. Well, the Act in question had certainly been a great pull upon the purse of the duchy. Indeed, upwards of twenty thousand pounds had been spent in carrying out its provisions; but, eventually, he believed that the measure would be found to prove an excellent arrangement for the property; and he thought that when attacks were made upon the management of the duchy of Cornwall, it ought to be represented that although there had been abuses, and that although the rights of private individuals had been heretofore injured, yet that these abuses no longer existed, or, if they did, that they were merely remnants of the old system which was being swept away, and that there was every prospect that the property of the Duke of Cornwall would be arranged on terms which would be considered as perfectly fair and amicable by the inhabitants of the duchy. He had trespassed, perhaps, too long upon the House, but he would like to say a word on the duchy of Lancaster. The position of that duchy was not quite satisfactory; but the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) who now held the chancellorship of Lancaster was most anxious to remove every existing abuse, and to place everything on a satisfactory footing. It would not be forgotten that the Crown had manifested an anxious desire that the affairs of the duchy should be arranged in a manner as beneficial as possible; and two years ago, a council was appointed, not to assist Lord Campbell—for he needed no assistance—but under the idea that it was desirable to effect great improvement, which a permanent administrative body could devise. To this Council three or four of the leading Members of either House gave their gratuitous aid. The hon. Gentleman would not forget, with reference to the interest of the public in the duchy, that it stood on quite a different footing from the duchy of Cornwall, and different also from that of the other possessions of the Crown; and that during the life of her present Majesty the public could have no interest in the revenues. Perhaps the footing on which, in the event of a new accession to the Throne, it would be possible to put the Sovereign, could be so managed as to enable the Legislature to effect a readjustment of the civil list; but he would remind the hon. Gentleman opposite that he had made no opposition to the existing arrangement, although he had had it in his power to call the attention of the House to it on the ac-cession of her present Majesty. Now, he had been asked, how much of the gross revenue of the duchy, upwards of 33,000l., went into the privy purse. He would at once admit, that but a very small proportion found its way there, and that there was very considerable room for improvement. Still he believed that no Committee could possibly place the duchy on the footing on which it ought to stand. That object could only be effected by persever- ance in a good and beneficial system of management. But the hon. Gentleman could not expect, either as to Cornwall or Lancaster, that they could pay either to the public purse or to the private purse of the Sovereign, anything like a proportionate income to that which a private individual might expect to draw from these great estates. He would tell the hon. Gentleman why; because it consisted of a vast number of minute properties scattered over a great extent of country, and therefore requiring a much more expensive system of management than when the same amount of income was derived from one large unbroken estate; but at the same time he sincerely hoped that the duchy would be hereafter more economically managed than it had been. The hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent had made the only gallant charge that they had witnessed against the present system; but the hon. Gentleman had been so satisfactorily answered already, that if he acted wisely He would not return to the contest again, though he would have an opportunity of doing so next week. But the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), in his reply to the hon. Member, had overlooked one point—namely, that the property which was the subject of the action, had been leased to a private individual in whose name the action was carried on. [Mr. RICARDO: Yes; but the defence is at the expense of the duchy.] There were peculiar circumstances in the case, in consequence of which it was thought that the lessee had an equitable claim, and should not be left to fight an expensive battle with a great number of powerful opponents alone. The duchy felt the same obligation to assist the lessee as any private landlord, or as the hon. Member himself, would have felt and acted upon under similar circumstances, but no more. If the hon. Gentleman thought that the lessee of a mine should not be able to work it without being held liable for any damage that might be done to expensive buildings erected by other parties on the surface, then he should bring in a Bill to alter the law of the land; but while the law stood as it now was, let him not bring the state of that law as a charge against the duchy of Lancaster. He had to apologise for trespassing so long on the time of the House; but looking at all the circumstances—looking to the effect already produced of placing the management of these properties upon an altered footing—not attempting to go further than to deny, which he did totally, that the public or that House had any right either to sell the property or to take the management of it out of the hands of the present holders—he trusted that a sufficient case had been shown to induce the House to give a decided negative to the Motion.

bore testimony to the improvement that had taken place in the management of the duchy of Lancaster, although at the same time he thought full room existed for further advancement in the same direction. Some years ago a late Chancellor appointed a gentleman as clerk of the peace for that duchy, who received 1,600l. a year in fees, but who had never been called upon to visit the duchy, all the labour being performed by a deputy, who did not receive half the salary that the nature of his office should entitle him to.

replied. He thought that no grounds whatever had been made out for refusing this inquiry. If he possessed or was ever likely to possess the beautiful place alluded to by the noble Earl, his interest would be directly opposed to the object of his Motion: his object was not to seize upon the property, but to give the Duke of Cornwall 50,000l a year, by establishing a better system of management, and at the same time to save the pockets of the public, by rendering a less amount necessary when they were called upon hereafter to vote an establishment for his use.

assured his hon. Friend that it was not in the power of the Colonial Office—and he doubted whether it was in the power of Parliament—to obtain the return he required. The opinion alluded to in the correspondence now before Parliament was obtained by the Hudson's Bay Company on a case submitted by them to the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, in consequence of the Colonial Office having required from them an assurance, fortified by legal opinion, that they could receive the grant if made. They obtained that opinion, and on the authority of the Attorney and Solicitor Generals as therein laid down, the Colonial Office were satisfied, and conveyed the island to the Company, who were now in possession of it. But if it were not so—if the opinion were in the hands of the Colonial Office, it would, according to all precedent, be refused. It was not usual to lay before the House the opinions obtained from the law officers of the Crown confidentially for the guidance of the Government, nor did he think it advisable that such a practice should be established. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would not press his Motion. Beyond the legal opinion alluded to, Government had no correspondence on the subject except that which was either already on the table, or included in the order which had been made at the instance of another hon. Friend, and which would be produced previous to the discussion. If the power of the Crown to make the grant was disputed, it was open to the parties disputing to obtain other legal authority on the subject.

said, that as regarded the power of Parliament to order papers, that was a matter of some importance, and he believed there were precedents of the opinions of the law officers of the Crown being called for and given. If he was not mistaken, on a very recent occasion the opinion of the Attorney General on the working of the Factory Act had been presented to Parliament. That, however, was not the present question; for here the opinions had not been taken by Ministers, but by another party, and having afterwards come into the custody of one department of the Government, the question was whether they should be called upon by Parliament to produce it. In an ordinary case, he should be disposed, he thought, to oppose such a proposition; but bore a letter was produced by the Colonial Office from the Hudson's Bay Company, accompanying which was a case and opinion referred to in the letter, and which was forwarded to the Colonial Office to guide their judgment. As it appeared to him, therefore, these documents had been part of the Bill, and ought to be produced with it.

thought that in a case like the present, where a part of the British dominions had been ceded to a private Company, in respect to whom it was doubted whether they could legally accept the territory on such a tenure, that the legal opinions on which the Government had acted should be given.