The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY IG, 1848.

manner that inquiry should be conducted. The Hon
Member said that the present amount of destruction to
life and property by the wreck of merchant vessels was
absolutely appalling. lie had reason to believe that
there were no fewer than 1,000 of our merchant vessels
wrecked every year, involving an immense loss of life,
and a most serious destruction of property. In three
years the aggregste loss of coasting and other vessels
was 49 ships, the crews of which were all drowned, and
81, the crews of which were partially saved, and this
was exclusive of those reported in Lloyd's returns.
Taking the average of the three years, 1833, 1834, and
1835, the annual loss by shipwreck of seamen was 750,
and the annual amount of property sacrificed was
3,000,0001, a sum which he believed was below the real
value of the ships and cargoes wrecked. It was net his
wish, if the Committee were appointed, that any
lengthened evidence should be taken, hut it was rather
with the view of bringing to bear the remedies for the
existing evils that had been suggested before former
Committees, and in order to render any measure that
might be brought in as efficient as it was pos-ible. He
hoped the Government and the Board of Trade would be
prepared to take the subject into consideration, and to
bring in a Bill founded on the report of the Committee,
and it was on those grounds he begged leave to move for
its appointment.
Captain FITZROY seconded the motion of the Hon.
Member with great pleasure. The measures for placing
the mercantile navy in a proper state of efficiency had
been neglected and postponed in the most unaccountable
manner by those whose duty it was to have brought
them forward, and many Hon. Members unconnected
with the Government would have introduced Bills for
the purpose, but for the opposition they met with from
the merchants and shipowners. If the Committee asked
for was granted, he would undertake to say that such a
vast mass of evidence would be adduced with respect to
the incompetency of the masters of coasting vessels to
navigate their ships as would prove perfectly convinc-
ing. Those to whom the coasters were entrusted never
underwent the slightest examination as to their capacity
to navigate a vessel round the British coast, and to their
incompetence was to be ascribed the number of wrecks
that annually took place. There would also be another
point upon which the Committee would obtain informa-
tion, namely, as to the state of the coast at Beechyhead ;
a great loss of lives and of vessels annually took place,
and this because there was neither harbour nor any
place of refuge into which vessels might run when over-
taken by storms off that dangerous line of coast.
Mr. L ABOUCHERE said that it was not his inten-
tion to offer any opposition to the appointment of the
proposed Committee; it was to be hoped, however, that
the Committee would avoid going over the same ground
that had been travelled by previous inquirers, and that
the members of it would confine themselves to an in-
quiry as to how the recommendations already extant
could best be carried into execution; in this way the
Committee would perform a most valuable service. The
whole subject referred to by the Hon. Member was one
well deserving the attention of the House. There did
already exist a power of inquiry into the causes of
steam shipwrecks, on the part of the Government; but
this power did not extend to sailing vessels or coasters.
Captain Durham had already furnished more than one
valuable report on the former subject, and no doubt
if the powers of Government were enlarged equally
valuable information as to the causes of the frequent
wrecks of sailing coasters and other vessels would be
procured. He regretted very much to be obliged to
express his concurrence in what his Honourable Friend
had stated with respect to the low and deteriorated
character of the mercantile navy. Government had re-
ceived from the consuls in numerous foreign parts
statements respecting the bad conduct of the English
mercantile sailors, which clearly proved how very much
inferior the characters of the masters and mates were,
in the estimation of foreigners, to those of the seamen
of other nations. And there could be no ground for
astonishment at the preference given by merchants and
shippers to foreign ships and seamen. His Noble Friend
(Lord Palmerston) would shortly lay on the table of the
'louse some information on the subject of British ship-
ping and seamen, which would be thought of the utmost
Importance, and which would probably induce the
House to give a ready assent to some remedial measures,
by which the present disgraceful condition of the
British mercantile navy might be put an end to. He
assured the House that the subject in question had occu-
pied the serious attention of the Government ; and,
indeed, it was incumbent on Ministers to look most nar-
rowly into the state of the merchant navy, at the time
when they proposed to the House to reconsider the exist-
ing navigation lo ws.
The motion was then agreed to.
LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT

(IRELAND).
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that, in moving for leave
to bring in a Bill to amend the law of landlord and
tenant in Ireland, he should probably best consult the
convenience of the House if he at once proceeded to
state what was the nature of the measure, as well as to
give some details respecting the machinery by which it
was to be carried out ; and also the means which the
Government intended to propose for rendering it effi-
cient. The subject was at once delicate, complicated,
and difficult to deal with ; and those characteristics led
him to think that the best plan to pursue was to lay the
whole of the details of the proposed measure before the
Parliament, so that there might exist an opportunity for
judging it, and comparing it with the difficulties which
it was framed to meet. The Bill, therefore, might be
said to embrace two distinct plans. The first was for
affording compensation to tenants for improvements
effected on their holdings. The second would,
he trusted, be found to embody several not
unimportant changes in the present relations between
landlord and tenant. The Bill proposed to encou-
rage the outlay of capital upon his holding by the
tenant, by securing to him an adequate remuneration for
that outlay in all cases where he had not derived the
full benefit from it. This would be effected with as little
interferencewith the rights of the landlord aswas possible.
It was not his purpose to linger over the subject at
present, by insisting on the necessity for conceding this
act of justice to the tenantry. The principle had al-
ready been admitted to be just by a majority within
that House, and out of doors also. It was, moreover, no
new principle; on the contrary, it was one of some
antiquity; for in a work now a century old it was laid
down that, inasmuch as it was not the custom in Ireland
for the landlord to provide farm buildings for the
tenantry, if the tenant, after having built such, was dis-
possessed of his holding before he had derived the full
benefit of his outlay, he was entitled to be compensated
to that extent. That principle came likewise with the
recommendation of the Earl of Devon's Commission, and
it had been embodied in a Bill introduced on
the subject of landlord and tenant by one of
hie (Sir William Somerville's) predecessors, which
Bill had been permitted to be read a first time.
He would proceed to state how he proposed to create the
machinery by which the compensation to be made for
outlay of capital should be ascertained. From the pass-
ing of the Act all tenants having holdings above 101., and
possessing an interest, as specified, whether under a
ease or from year to year, might serve a notice (she
form of which would be given iu a schedule to the Bill)
on his landlord, specifying the nature of the outlay in-
tended to be made, whether it be buildings, or drainage,
or subsoiling, or of any other description, and having
done so the tenant must proceed to name an arbitrator,
calliper' likewise on the landlord to nominate one on his
Own behalf. If the landlord did not nominate an arbi-
trator within twenty-one days, then the tenant might
apply to the petty sessions, where a landlord's arbitrator
was to be appointed and afterwards conjoined to that of
the tenant. The two arbitrators were then to choose
an empire, and if they could not agree in the
Choice, then the petty sessions was again to
applied to, and the person there named
Was to be umpire. The body than constituted would
proceed to examine end decide on the notice served by
the tenant on his landlord. They would have to survey
the land and the projected improvements, and report on
the value and the amount of additional rent which would
accrue from them, and if their decision should be in
favour of the improvements, then they were to be em-
Powered to make an award wherein they were to state
the name of the superior landlord who would be bound ,
thereby.—(gear, hear.) The award thus made would
be deposited with the clerk of the peace, a copy of it
would be served by the tenant cue his immediate land-
lord, and the other intermediate landlords concerned in
the land in question, up to the superior of all, were
likewise to be served with copies of this award. An
appeal might be made against this award within-21 days
of its being notified to the landlord; the assistant bar.
rister of the county would decide upon it, and his de-
cision was to be final. The tenant was then to be em-
Powered to proceed to execute the works thus specified,
and upon their completion the arbitrators were to examine
thorn, and to furnish him with a certificate of their having
been finished, after which they were to decide whether
any deduction was to be made from the rent fixed,
and their decision was to be filed by the clerk of the
Peace- When the tenancy was to bo terminated, it was
proposed that if the period of 21 years had not elapsed
since the outlay was made, the landlord, whatever mode
he might take to regain his possession, wee to proceed
b y first serving a notice on the tenant, calling upon him
o nominate an arbitrator, and in case of neglect or
i: refusal procuring the appointment of one, as in the first
;stance. The arbitrators of both parties would then
rroceed to examine the improvements and to make their
award of the amount of compensation to be trade to the
outgoing
tenant, which, however, was not three years'
ttal of the holding. And the immediate landlord was
to e
1;Ive the power of recovering the same amount from
t 'liPPer landlord, if his interest in the holding termi-
nated within a given and specified time of the improve-
Zen being paid for to the outgoing tenant. All the pro -
a "ens of the Bill which he had detailed were of a pro-
pective nature. There was a great difficulty in making
them
retrospective in some cases, but not so in respect to
holdings under the annual value of 101., although it
th would be a hardship to such a class of tenants to subject
thoein to the machinery of the Bill. For that reason
to, enacted that no tenant, whose holding was
above ten pounds, should be entitled to more
three years' rental for improvements of five
barri ..Canding, sand the decision of the aseistant-
u_
s.arr all cases was toe be final. lie had now
„2_l d his explanation with respect to the tenants' itn-
eTpYinersts portion of the Bill, and would proceed to
14111 that part of it which regulated the relation
en landlord and tenant. There were to be clauses
inserted be • which the occupying tenant was to be pro-
he
w: etonst a double distress for rent—(Hear)—a
diato
hisilefurl,sjunected to at present, as well from his imme-
th
at for the
interests e future a tenant who held laud under certain
tistres should be deprived of the power of making a
hedeb When he sublet his land ; and the Bill provided
desh -tenants in these cases with an equitable defence
ne:uiperior courts of law. They already had such a
tenantt n the courts of the assistant-barristers, but it
,es deprived of
wg,,eud in a court of equity, and consequently the
the benefit of the assistant-bar-
s ision. was proposed, tiwrefgro, to illOrCaSe

the powers of the assistant-barristers, the details of
which would be found in the Bill. The measure pro-
vided al.o that tenants-at-will might be ejected upon
non-payment of their rent. This clause would be bene-
ficial alike to landlord and tenant, and it would not give
the former any advantage which he did not already pos-
sess. Be believed that if the landlord had such a power
the system of holding notices to quit, in 'aroma, over
the heads of tenants, would be no longer resorted to, and
a great source of irritation would thus be done away
with. It was proposed to couple that power of ejection
with a provision that on parol demise no rent
should be recovered which was of more than two years'
standing.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR asked the precise meaning of the
words pare! demise?
Sir W. SOMERVILLE—Where there was no lease;
and the Bill also provided that every receipt given for
rent should specify each particular gale for which it wos
paid, or else that such receipt should he taken as good
for the last gale due.—(Hear, hear.) Ile had now gone
through the chief details of the proposed Bill, and in
answer to the objections of those who urged the im-
propriety of interposing a legislative interference be-
tween man and man in their private transactions, he
would reply, " Look at the state of Ireland, her undeve-
loped resources, her neglected agriculture;" and then he
thought it would be admitted by all that the time was
come when legislation ought to prevail, if ever it was
to do so. For himself, be could only say that,
provided justice was done to the landlord, the more
generously the House legislated for the tenantry of
Ireland, the greeter would be the benefit conferred on
that country.—(Hear, hear.) The question was not a
party one. There was, he felt certein, no gentleman
present who would not willingly help to frame a measure
which should put an end to the existing state of fakirs
between landlord and ,tenant in Ireland. The public
mind there was now becoming fully alive to the im-
portance of agricultural improvement. It was out of
his immediate province to advert to the great and
striking success which had attended the Lord
Lieutenant's exertions to diseminate information on this
subject by means of agricultural lectures. but he could
not help stating that the results of that happy movement
had already far exceeded Lord Clarendon's most
sanguine expectations. All parties had assisted these
gentlemen, and none more actively—and he was grateful
for it—than the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland..—
(Hear, hear.) It was, therefore, evident that never was
there a more auspicious time for commencing the
agricultural improvement of the country.. He hoped
that the Bill he was about to introduce Would tend to
that result, by inducing tenants to sink their capital in
the land, and, if it did so, he should feel most happy at
having in any way contributed to its success.
Mr. S. CRA WFORD feared that the Bill introduced by
by the Right Hon. Baronet would only have the effect of
producing general disappointment in the country it was
intended to serve. The tenantry of Ulster would hear
with dismay that the right which they were accustomed
to call tenant right was about to be thrown overboard.
As this species of right had been much spoken of, he
should endeavour to define it; and he could not do so
better than by reading a petition which had been pre-
sented in the previous year from Derry on the subject.
The Hon. Member then read the petition, which, after
some abstract propositions relative to the sacredness of
the right of labour, defined tenant-right to be the right
which every out-going tenant had to compensation for
all improvements he might have effected in his farm
during occupancy, and a power freely to dispose of such
right to the highest bidder. The Bill was to have
no retrospective action in the case of tenancies of
less than 101. annually, but this would be a small
boon to the Ulster farmers who generally held large
farms. To show the hardships attendant on the non-
recognition of tenant-right, he would mention
one case which had come within his own knowledge.
A man had taken a hundred acres of poor land on a
lease for 31 years, at 10s. per acre. his capital on en-
tering was 8001., all of which he spent on the land, to-
gether with another 8001. of profit=, which his improve-
ments
enabled him to realise, for a house and offices. At
the expiration of his lease he offered 255. per acre for a
renewal, but his landlord refused, alleging that the
profits had returned the original capital invested, and
that the house the tenant had built was too good for the
land. Now, how did the case stand as to the value of
this land? At the commencement of the tenant's occu-
pancy it was worth 10s. per acre, which would give
1,500/. as the value of the fee, but at the termination it
was worth 255., which would raise the fee to 3,6001, all
of which was seized by the landlord. He asked whether
this was not downright robbery ?—(ilear, hear.) The
Bill before the House would not provide for such a
case as that, seeing that by it every claim of the tenant
on his land terminated with his lease of 21 years. It
might be said that this Bill did not: interfere with tenant
right. In his opinion it virtually abrogated it, for it
would be used as a pretenceliy the landlord for inter-
fering with what was merely an old custom. In his
opinion tenant right was the only legislation, not
only for Ireland, but for the whole of the United
Kingdom, and although some might call it
interference with the rights of property, still there were
times when the public interest called upon-the State to
interfere. What was the origin of all the evils under
which the people of Ireland were suffering? Why, want
of eunployinent.—(Haar, hear.) Provisions were neither
scarce nor dear, but the people had no money, nor could
they get any without employment, and employment
would not,spring up unless the employer had full security
for the investment of his capital.—(Hear, hear.) He
gave full credit to the Lord-Lieutenant for good inten-
tions in sending out the lecturers; but their instructions,
however excellent in themselves, would effect little with-
out some improvement in legislation with regard to land.
What was wanted was security for the tenant, and the
want of that security had created ull the recent disturb-
ances in Ireland.—(hear, hear.) There were six counties
in Ulster called the Plantation, which were originally
granted to the undertakers on the condition that they
should let the land at reasonable rents and on cer-
tain tenure. This provision in time was evaded, and
he believed that the present tenant-right was the
substitute. For this reason the Ulster farmers had a
peculiar claim on the Legislature for protection stud con-
firmation in their rights. He did nut wish to be misun-
derstood in his claim for tenant-right. He did not
claim on the score of mere occupancy although he was
aware that such a definition had been given to tenant-
right. His claim was only for cases in which money and
labour had been spent in really improving the land and
increasing its value. He was aware that claims had
often been set up for compensation to the tenant where
the landlord had actually a claim for depreciation ; but
this all arose frum the want of proper security for the
rights of labour. He confidently believed that if
tenant-right were once established, in two years the
spirit of improvement would spread from one end of
Ire land to the other. He believed that the present
Bill had been brought forward with the best intentions,
but unle3s greatly improved, he feared it would fail of
its desired object.
Mr. HERBERT said that the Hon. Member for
Rochdale had spoken of tenant-right as a matter not
generally understood. He quite concurred with the
Honourable Member, seeing that so few of its advocates
understood it themselves.—(!fear.) At a meeting held
lately in Ireland on the subject hardly any two of the
gentlemen present agreed in their definition of tenant-
right. The Honourable Member for Rochdale repudi-
ated any claim for occupancy, while he (Mr. Herbert)
held in his hand a resolution passed at a late meeting in
Tipperary, in which tenant right was defined to be
"occupancy, including improvements." The same defi-
nition had been adopted in the Irish Council, where one
Gentleman looked upon it as a transfer of the land from
the owner to the occupier.—(Hear, }mar.) It had been
said that all legislation should be simple, and certainly
nothing could be more simple than this. If you adopted
the principle of transferring one man's property to
another, you would simplify legislation exceedingly.—
(Hear, and laughter.) Ile believed that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would find finance a very simple study
if all he had to do in making up his budget was to ap-
propriate as much as he might require of the property
of her Majesty's subject for the public expenses.—
But lie (Mr Herbert) believed that that House
would never sanction such a transfer.—(Hear, hear.)
He denied that the sale of tenant-right was any criterion
as to its value, fur there was no Member of that House
who was not aware that in consequence of the intense
competition for land in Ireland any sum, however ridi-
culous, would be promised for its possession. Large
sums might, it was true, have been paid for tenant-right;
but how? By the entering tenant borrowing money,
and thereby impoverishing himself.--(Hear.) Having
read an extract from the report of the Devon Commis-
sion to show that in-coming tenants often exhausted
their capital in paying for tenant-right, and another to
show that outgoing tenants often claimed for tenant-
right when in justice they should be sued for deprecia-
tions, the Hon. Member said that he did not want to in-
fere with the tenant-right of Ulster, but ho protested
against its introduction into Munster, where, he believed,
it would prove, not only prejudicial to the landlord, but
destructive to the tenant. He could not understand how
taking from a man his capital on going into a farm
would assist him in its cultivation or in making im-
provements.—(Hear, hear.) There was one place in
Kerry, called the Commons of Ardfert, where the fruits
of tenant-right were exemplified. There the occupiers
had subdivided the land among themselves, and, at this
moment, they were in the most wretched condition pos-
sible to imagine. He must strongly protest against the
scheme of the Hon. Member foe Rochdale, which could
only have the effect of raising extraordinary expecta-
tions, and thus marring the efforts of those who were
anxious to promote the just rights of the tenants of
Ireland.

Mr. FAGAN said that the great question was how
the cultivation of the land was to be promoted, and it
was only to be done by the !greatest encouragement and
protection. He did not think that the lion. Member
who had just sat down had treated the Hon. Member
for notschild—(Great laughter)—he meant Rochdale,
fairly, in assuming that occupancy was part of his
tenant-right. With respect to the present Bill, he (Mr.
Fagan) did net think it half so good as that of the
Noble Lord the Member for Falkirk, which on its in-
troduction had been so much sneered at in Ireland.
According to the Devon Cinurnision, no less than
400,000 families were living on farms the largest of
which was only seven acres; and what was the remedy?
The development of the resources of the country, by
which not only the tenant, but the landlord would be
materially benefited. Circumstanced as Ireland was at
present, he did not think that itinraut lecturers, or
agricultural associations, could effect any good. Until
the tenant obtained a substantial interest in the
soil and a long tenure of his land he could not
be expected to, and it was not human nature that
ho would, take an interest in those scientific) lectures
upon agriculture which to men of independent means
were not only a subject of interest, but amusement.
They must first improve the condition of the tenant, and
check that undue competition fur land which would in-
evitably continue so long us they had 400,000 families
existing on farms the largest of which was seven acres.

If .the Government would encourage the distribution of
small farms of 20, 30, and 40 acres, they would, without
the nid of emigration, or colonization, or the forced
cultivation of waste land 3, do more to effect improvement
than they could possibly hope to do by the proposed
measure.

Lord CASTLEREAGH said that the measure, as far
as he understood it, would not come up to the expecta-
tions of the people of Ulster. The lion. Member for
Rochdale held out expectations which he did not think
could be fulfilled, and he warned the House against
falling into either extreme, and, by doing too much or
too little, interfering with that good feeling and mutual
interest between landlord and tenant which was in
practice without the aid of law in the north of Ireland.
He must say that he could not consent to any measure
which would constitute mere occupancy as property,
or which interfered with the acknowledged rights of pro-
perty. _ _ _

Mr. F. O'CONNOR was of opinion that no part of
the Bill went to the root of the evil, while its machinery
was too complicated to effect the object proposed by it.
Indeed, he wa satisfied that that object could only be
effected by granting a fixity of tenure to the tenant, who
would then, instead of working like a slave, devote his
free labour to the cultivation of his farm from morning
till night, knowing that he would be remunerated for it.
If Lord Clarendon would carry out the scheme suggested
of establishing the small farm system, they would hear
of no more murders and no more necessity for coercion.

Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN did not think the Bill satis-
factory, particularly in not having a more retrospective
effect respecting compensation for improvements, which
should not be limited to twenty-one years. Ile ob-
jected also to the retrospective clause being limited to
small farmers; he saw no reason why it should not be
general.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL did not think it convenient
to go into the details of the Bill at the present stage.
He, however, concurred in the opinion of the Hon.
Member for Limerick, that the distinction drawn re-
specting the class of small occupiers, towards whom
the Bill was to be retrospective, was not a tenable dis-
tinction. If small holders were to be compensated, it
was still more necessary to encourage the larger class
of farmers. He hoped her Majesty's Ministers would
reconsider that point. He believed that no measure
would be of any use which did not give the compensa-
tion clause a retrospective effect, and there was no
reason why the occupier of twenty acres should not bo
compensated for improvements as well as the occupier
of five or ten acres. He could not, however, concur
with his lion. Friend the Member for Limerick, in say-
ing that there should be no limit to the period at which
those improvements were made, otherwise they migbt
have men claiming to be paid for an out;ay on improve-
ments made a century ago by their ancestors.
Leave wast then given to bring in the Bill.
AGRICULTURAL TENANT RIGHT IN

considered his recantations, frequent as they were
whilst a hope of life remained, were much more deserv-
ing of condemnation than the denial of his master by
Peter. Craniner, however, nobly redeemed his errors by
his death. The book to which he had referred, and
which was published after the 25th Henry and
revised by the King himself, plainly showed confirma-
tion to be a judicial act, and that the archbishop might
reject any improper person presented to him for conse-
cration. The Right Rev. Prelate concluded by presenting
the petition.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said the Right Rev.
Prolate had hoped the power of the Crown in the nomi-
nation of bishops might bo retained, and he also said
that he would not refer to a recent event.
The Bishop of EXETER interposed, and said that he
did not intend to ullude to the Bishop of Hereford.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR said the Right Rev.
Prelate was ready, then, to discuss everything connected
with the proceedings, except the individual to whom they
related. His (the Lord Chancellor's) object was to state
what the law now was, and what it would be if the prayer
of the petitioners should be granted, or if what the Right
Rev. Prelets suggested should be adopted. As the law
now stood, the right of the appointment of bishops was
absolute in the Crown, and the Right Rev. Prelate
wanted it to be altered.
The Bishop of EXE'T'ER—No, no.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that such appeared
to be the prayer of the petition. At present the Crown
appointed bishops without reference to any other power
having the right to intervene. That was so by the Act
of 25 Henry VIII. He did not say anything in favour
of the manner in which it was enforced, but it was quite
clear that it was intended the power should be in the
Crown, otherwise why subject those who did not obey
the letters missive from the Crown to the penalties of
prcrmtrnire ?—(llrar, hear.) The form of the election
might be inconsistent and absurd, as many other forms
were; but what did the petitioners ask? Why, that the
penalty of praniunire might be taken away; or, in other
words, that the dean and chapter might do as they
pleased. Why was the penalty of prcrmunire enacted?
Why, surely, in order that the power of the Crown
might be preserved intact, and that the dean and chap-
ter might not have the power of putting, as it were, a veto
on the nomination of the Sovereign. The petitioners said
it was very hard that the deans and chapters should
be obliged to elect the persons nominated, which meant
" give us (the deans and chapters) the power of electing
the bishop, or, at any rate-, of saying, we will not elect
the person named by the Crown." The Right Rev.
Prelate said, he was satisfied the peace and safety of the
Church depended on the preservation of the royal pre-
rogative in the appointment of bishops; and yet, some-
how or other, he had pointed out the way he wanted the
Church to interfere and take the power from the Sove-
reign.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The nomination of the
Crown, before the Act of Henry VIII., was only formal,
and the power of the Church absolute; but by that Act
the state of things had been reversed; and he thought
their Lordships would not be prepared to say that one
of the bulwarks set up at the Reformation, and which
was necessary for the preservation of the principles then
struggled for, should no longer be supported. As they
valued the Reformation and the blessings which the Act
of Henry VIII. secured to this Protestant country, he
trusted they would not consent to alter the provisions of
that Act.—(Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of CHICTIESTER said the Noble and
Learned Lord had simply regarded the Act of Henry
VIII. as one to uphold the prerogative of the Crown,
but they had high legal authority for saying that its
principal object was to exclude the power of the Pope of
Rome, and any one who attempted to construe it other-
wise would not give effect to its object and spirit. If he
understood the Noble and Learned Lord to lay down
the doctrine that the nomination of the Crown was
absolute, and that no consideration could prevent con-
secration of a bishop so named, he thought they had
arrived at a most important crisis in the history of the
Church, and he could not subscribe to such an interpre-
tation, for he felt that if such a doctrine prevailed there
would be great risk of a schism in the Church.—(Elear.)
Lord DENMAN said, it did not appear to him a very
expedieat course to enter, in this place, into discussions
respecting the execution of the laws.—(Cheers.) He
could only say of this case, that upon no occasion in his
recollection bad he ever devoted so much time, or con-
sidered with so much anxiety, any subject coming before
him. If he had erred in any way, it was not without the
most painful and anxious endeavours to arrive at the
truth ; and he had a most perfect conviction of having
had the good fortune to arrive at it. It was under the
severest sense of responsibility he ever experienced that
he pronounced that opinion which a judge had no right
to withhold. However great the respect be felt for his
Learned Brethren, and the extreme pain with which on
every occasion one judge differed from another, still that
judge must pronounce the dictates of his own conscience
and give full effect to his own opinion. He was far from
thinking that all that fell from him on that occasion
could stand the test of the admirable sagacity with
which the Right Reverend Prelate had observed upon
it,; but he might say, with regard to the particular
passage on which the Right Rev. Prelate had most en-
larged, referring to the alternative of the Archbishop's
resigning, that it was not exactly what he had stated.
He had mentioned that as an alternative, but he had
said also, it was a thing not to be supposed that the
Crown would present any person to the Archbishop
who was unfit to be confirmed in the office. The bishop
is to be nominated by the Crown, and brought before
the Archbishop for confirmation ; and it seemed strange
to him (Lord Denman) that all the world should then
be allowed to come forward, and throw any scandal
upon the Bishop elect. He would only aid, with respect
to the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, that it
must be recollected what the judges of that court were
required to do. They were asked to issue a writ of
mandamus to the Archbishop, to hear any person
who chose to come forward to object to the new
Bishop, on the ground of an ancient form of con-
firmation, in which proclamation was made once in the
church, and once at the door of the church, that all per-
sons might come forward and state their objections—a
form which had never been known in any country or I
in any age, except as a form, and it was a one-sided
form, as had been stated by Bishop Gibson. Now, he
was of opinion with his Noble and Learned Friend (the
Lord Chancellor), that it would be attended with evil
consequences if the archbishop were to have the power
of hearing objections and discussion* as to the fitness of
the person nominated to be a bishop. One expression
had dropped from the Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of
Exeter)l
onthe h
opinions
eonfch his
w(Lord a
had
differede n ma n' s two)from
Im a
whichsto
Brethrenthe
Learned
Bight Rev. Prelate seemed to think it
would confer a benefit upon the Church if they should
become the law of the land. Ile (Lord Denman)
thought that no one who had an opportunity of
the iti g
con-
sidering the subject could doubt that his Learned Bro-
ther, Mr. Justice Erle, and himself had conferred a
great benefit upon the Church by putting a stop to the
issue of the writ of mandamus.—(Hear, hear.) The
Right Reverend Prelate had read a document said to be
written by Archbishop Cranmer, about the year 1537,
which showed that he considered that some special
power ought
ito be given to prevent improper appoint-
ments. But t appeared to him that this document had i
no weight whatever; t only showed that at that time
there was an idea that there should be some special
check to the exercise of the prerogative in tho appoint-
ment of bishops; but none was interposed. With respect
oftoin case of his disapproving
theths archbishopooo.iiat nomination
resigning
the Crown
of an improper person,
he maintained that not any man, in any office, when
called upon to do an act contrary to what he considered
to be his duty, should hesitate to resign his office; he
must resign, he ought to resign, for nothing ought to
induce him to offer violence to his own conscience. Ile
had not referred to the ease of un archbishop, but the
remark applied toevery
case. The archbishop had an
opportunity of previously conferring with the Crown
i
respectng the person
about to be promoted ;
and ho might object, and the archbishop
i e
twhoouulgdh t not
wrong.b calledth
tot theo petitiondo hat
wt h i chhe
by the Right Rev. l'relate, he
aterdshly
of it as his Noble and Learned
Friend the (Lord Chancellor). Ile looked at it as merely
seeking the repeal of the Penalty of prcemunire, as affect-
ing certain of the clergy; and as in his (Lord Denman's)
opinion the archbishop. wax imperatively called upon to
didhad nobteetlniinpkre:hn
confirm the election of a bishop, h© should be very glad
to see! the abohoon. of. the penalty of pramunire.
He thought it very objectionable that persons should be
put, as that penalty placed them, out of the protection
of the law. He shculd not object to see that penalty
entirely expunged from the statute-book. But he thought
he could suggest a much better mode of proceeding, and
he was going to refer to an Act of Parliament which
appeared to have been passed with the same view,
namely, the Act Ist of Edward Vt., C. 2 (afterwards
repealed), passed some years after the document of'Cran-
mar was written, which enacted that the dean and
chapter should confer the episcopal office, by virtue of
letters patent, upon the person the Xing should think
most meet. To this extent he should be most happy to
join in an amendment of the law.
Lord CAMPBELL most highly approved of the line
of conduct adopted by his Noble and
Learned Friend
(Lord Denman), for it would be singular and derogatory
in the highest degree to the character of his office if,
upon the complaint
, • of any one, ho should present him-
self before their Lordships, in an irregular manner, to
justify his conduct in
ajudicial capacity, No judge who
consulted the dignity of his character would do so. He
(Lord Campbell) would abstain from entering into that
question, but ho could not help saying that he considered
that the Court of Queen's Bench had decided the ques-
tion. It was true the judges were equally divided ; but
the rule of law was, that, in that case, there was a de-
cision. The validity of marriages in Ireland without
the presence of a priest was so
_decided. Upon that
question their Lordships voted, and were equally divided;
but the judgment of this House was against the validity
of that marriage, and such marriages were now held by
the law of England as invalid. The object of his pre-
senting himself to their Lordship was to answer the
observations of the Right Rev. Prelate with respect to
the pernicious consequences which would follow if the
law should turn out to be as had been decided by the
Court of Queen's Bench. In the, first place, the Act of
Parliament, though called the 25th of Henry VIII., and
passed at a thee when the Reformation was only begin-
ning, must be considered as an Act of the Ist of Eliza-
beth, when the Reformation was completed, and when it
was considered fit that this course should be adopted.
But the Right Rev. Prelate had compared this course to
that which was employed in Scotland in the appointment
of a minister of a congregation; and ho had referred to
an Act introduced by a Noble Earl (the Earl of Aber-
deen), by which a power was given to object to the
sufficiency of any perste:, appointed to a living in Scot-
laud. Both in Scotland and England there was, and
ought to be, a power to object to the sufficiency of a per-
son nominated by a lay patron, against his morality, his
doctrine, or his learning; but when the Right Rev.
Prelate said that a Jew, or a Turk, or an infidel, might
be made ezrelute of the Church of Ecglud, thmt was in
A

exaggeration. his Noble and Learned Friend had an-
swered this objection, by saying that a bishop must have
been previously ordained, and must be nominated by the
head of the Church; and, as his sufficiency must be deter-
' mined in some quarter, he (Lord Campbell) said, with
great respect, that it sass as possible that the Sovereign
might come to a right conclusion as any other authority,
with respect to the learning, morality, and orthodoxy of
the party nominated. The Right Rev. Prelate laboured
under a mistake in supposing that the subject under
consideration by the :judges of the Court of Queen's
Bench was whether all mankind assembled in Bow
Church should be at liberty, at the confirmation of a
bishop elect, to bring forward all objections they thought
proper.
.All that was to be done on the :occasion of a
confirmation was to see whether the election had been
ri e
ut, h e
which the
hpe elect
eg slet
properly conducted. But there was another ceremony
whichat
passedure
thought:
ett hr
sufficient test,
and, that of conests
and, unless the bishop elect could go through it, he
would not be competent to assume the functions of a
bishop. The Church and the Legislature had come to
the conclusion that, with a Christian ruler of the land,
there were sufficient guards against the consequences to
which the Right. Rev. Prelate referred.—(The Noble
and Learned Lord here read parts of the office for con-
secration of bishops.) Did not this afford a guard
against the consequences to which the Right
Reverend Prelate referred ? And was a new system
now to be introduced, eontrary to the notions
of the Church in former times, and contrary
to the practice of three hundred years? His Noble and
Learned Friend (Lord Denman) and Mr. Justice Erie,
by refusing the rule for a mandamus, had been the
saviours of the Church. With respect to the penalty of
pramunire, he thought it might be repealed, leaving the
law substantially as it was; but if any attempt was made
to alter the law in this matter, it would be productive of
the most mischievous consequences.
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S did not think that their
Lordships should be impressed with the belief that all
the objections urged by the Right Rev. Prelate met with
the unanimous concurrence of every Prelate on that
bench. There were many parts of the Right Reverend
Prelate's argument in which ho most fully and heartily
concurred; but he could not take the same view of his
arguments as the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool-
sack, or consider them of so alarming a character. It
was unavoidable that he should take some exceptions to
the remarks of his Right Rev. Friend. He might even
say that in the whole of his Right Reverend Friend's
address there was something which he (the
Bishop of St. David's) had regarded as the
sinister augury of an approaching storm, which
might, perchance, unless averted by the firmness and
wisdom of Parliament, shake the Church, and even the
State, to their very foundations. There might be
reasons why an alteration in the direction pointed out
would be advisable; but though the evil pointed out re-
mained precisely as it was, he could not see that the
epithets " tyrannical," " monstrous," or " oppressive,"
would be at all applicable. If the petition had gone no
further than to express a wish for an alteration in the
law so far as regarded the appointment, election, con-
firmation, and consecration of a bishop, he should have
opposed no objection to the prayer. Such a petition
would probably have had the concurrence of the great
body of the members of the Church. The time had
come when circumstances required a decided change in
the law, and he was glad that his Noble and Learned
Friend (Lord Campbell) seemed to bo of that opinion.
Some persons were loud in their demand to sweep away
all sorts of "fictions," constitutional and ecclesiastical)
and if, indeed, a " fiction" were proved to be mis-
chievous and troublesome, it was high time to alter it,
and to supply an effective substitute. So far, there-
fore, in desiring an amendment in the law, he ap-
proved of the petition, and agreed with his Right Rev.
Friends; but they went much farther than this—they
proposed the remedy. The inevitable tendency of that
which they now proposed was, to make a transfer of the
power which now rested with the Church to some other
body.

The Bishop of EXETER—No, no.
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S did not mean to say
that his Right Rev. Friends had mentioned the parties
to whom they would entrust such a power; but the real
tendency of their suggestions based upon the petition
had undoubtedly been, and it was pointed out by the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, to effect some
such object. They asked that the power of the Crown
should be taken from the Crown, and the only point in
their recommendation which they reserved was, as to
the body in whom they would invest such authority.
The alteration which he, however, contemplated was,
that the power which now substantially resided in the
Crown should be really secured to it; he was not at pre-
sent prepared to go one step further. He trusted and
believed that it was not desired, among the great body of
the community, whether laymen or ecclesiastics, that the
Legislature should attempt more than this, and he did
not at all think that there was abroad that deep discon-
tent with the institutions under which they lived hinted
at in the course of this debate. His Right Reverend
Friend was undoubtedly right in his condemnation of
the anomaly in question, but a great number of modify-
ing circumstances had been entirely overlooked. His
Right Reverend Friend had spoken as if the power
which had hitherto been exercised, in substance, by the
Crown had been an absolute and irresponsible power.
Now, it was not by any means a power of that descrip-
tion. His Right Rev. Friend had forgotten this very
important feature in the case, that when the Crown
exercised this power it was strictly limited as to the
object selected for nomination. It was not a power to
nominate anybody whom the Crown might think proper;
but it was a power limited to a certain known class of
persons, who in the eyes of the law were equally well
qualified to be the object of nomination. His Hight
Rev. Friend, in arguing this point, had made much too
great a distinction between the inferior and superior
orders of the Church; he appeared, at the moment, to
have forgotten that ,there was no ulterior qualification
required for the functions of a bishop which was not
equally required for the functions of a presbyter. The ,
qualifications required for the presbyter, and which fitted
the presbyter for the after functions of a bishop, were
the main qualifications; all others were secondary and
comparatively immaterial. His Right Rev. Friend had
given imaginary cases of unfitness, and, no doubt, there
were various degrees of unfitness. The choice of the
Crown in every instance might not fall upon the
best qualified and most suitable individual; but, being
one of a class, those qualities in which he was found
deficient were of a very inferior and comparatively incon-
siderable moment. The law presumed, until the case be
preyed to be otherwise, that all presbyters, the only
class from which bishops could be selected, were all
equally well qualified to fill that high office. In in-
vesting the head of her Majesty's Government with such
a power as this, the Church, therefore, was not sub-
mitting to a state of things of which any of her members
had reason to complain as a great grievance or a grinding
tyranny. And this was not the only limitation to which
the license of the Government was subjected. His
Right Rev. Friend would surely acknowledge that the
force of public opinion frequehtly directed the nomina-
tion. There never, in fact, was a period in which the
power of the Crown in the appointment of a bishop was
more subjected to'the: wholesome and legitimate influence
of public opinion, and—he would go one step further—
there never was a time in the history of this country
when there existed more probability of the public exer-
cising a wholesome and legitimate opinion on such
a matter. Tho petition now before their Lord-
ships was for a radical and fundamental al-
teration in the law, and it was certainly a
remarkable circumstance that in this particular epoch in
the affairs of the Church such a demand should have been
made. The petitioners, it was quite clear, laboured
under an exaggerated fear of the evils of the present
state of the law, and it was only natural that the reme-
dies they proposed should be excessively imperfect and
confused. He was ready to admit that their present
position was not the best possible; he might see as clearly
as another man the wide difference which separated the
present form of procedure from that which prevailed in
the primitive ages; but this was not the point for con-
sideration. The evil being pointed out the Legislature,
in inquiring for a remedy, would have to compare the
present state of things,; not with one which existed
in a time long past, but with any which existed in
their own day, or which by any legislative enactment
they would be able to bring about. And, however
bad might be the state of things in the Church of
England in this respect, when he compared the cir-
cumstances with those in other religious communities,
he did not see the difference was at all so disad-
vantageous or so humiliating to the faithful members
of the Church of England as would appear on the face
of the statement made by his Right Rev. Friend. He,
for these reasons, did not wish to see the power of the
Crown transferred either to an ecclesiastical conclave
or to a popular assembly; he preferred to retain exist-
ing institutions, with all their admitted anomalies and
inconveniences, to the evils which such remedies would
produce. He would leave the question with perfect
tranquillity in the hands of the Legislature, and, even
if they should do 'nothing, even if the law should re-
main unaltered, his Right Rev. Friend might find con-
solation in the fact that, then, they would only continue
to suffer from grievances which had been endured un-
complainingly for some centuries past. He entertained
strong hopes that they would be able to accomplish some
wise and cautious change in the form of the law, but at
the same time he would prefer things being permitted
to remain as they were, rather than open the door to an
invasion of which no man could foresee the legitimate
results, but which clearly threaten both the Church and
the State with consequences the most calamitous.
The Bishop of EXETER replied. His Right Rev.
Friend had mistaken his object in presenting and sup-
porting this petition. No one thought it of more im-
portance than he did that the Crown should retain the
power of appointment. He desired no change in this
respect; he wished the Crown absolutely to nominate ;
but what he further sought was, that the Archbishop of
Canterbury in the province of Canterbury, and that the
Archbishop of York in the province of York, should
have a right to decide if they would consecrate the party
nominated, and in the event of substantial charges being
brought against him, to exercise the privilege of pro-
nouncing him unfit as uneanonical. He regretted their
Lordships had been so long detained upon the presenta-
tion of a petition, but hoped that some good might arise
if he had been able to lay before her Majesty's Govern-
ment a practical mods of getting oat of the difficulty
which Low prevailed.
Their Lordships then adjourned, at a Quarter to
Eight o'clock.

(ADVERTISEMENT.]—THE EARL OF ALDBOROUOR
atm Hottoway's Pitts.—An astounding cure by this miraculous
medicine, after every other means had failed. Sea extract front kis
Lordship's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb. 21, 1845.
Professor Holloway—Sir : I beg to acquaint you that your pills have
effected a cure of a disorder in my liver and stomach all the most
eminent of the faculty, at home and all over the continent, had not
than able to effect; nay, not eves the waters of Carlsbad or Ma-
fionbad. (Signed) " ALDnosoues." These wonderful pills will
ore aay disease of the liver or stoinaeli.—Sold (also Holloway's
sant:Meat) at Frofissor Holloway's Eistablislusent, 244, f3tr3t3Q, s
to W medlcttp /plea tArog&tszo dtv4,l4 trod_.

!TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION.
Sir,—On Monday, the 14th, the New Zealand Bill
went into Committee. New lights are brought out
in the progress of debate. I request to correct an
inaccuracy in my earlier reports. It was not for the
office of town-councillor, but for the exercise of the
elective franchise; that reading and writing were re-
quired in a New Zealander. Out of sixty-seven
natives employed in the Ordnance department, the
whole could read in their own language, and all but
one could write. This is the missionaries' doing,
who are manifestly going to be the founders of an
empire at the Antipodes. The state of things. is extra-
ordinary ; and was explained, between joke and
earnest, in a most amusing manner by Sir Robert
Peel. The Governor of New Zealand holds
his ground by the assistance of one half
of the native inhabitants against the other half,
his own strength being barely sufficient to turn the
scale; and he writes very deliberately to the Govern-
ment, to intimate that there can be no such thing as
taxing his native friends without their consent.
Would that the nations of Europe had their Govern-
ments at this bay ! What is clear at the same time
is, that the Governor of New Zealand has made up
his mind to be the father of free institutions with
their feet towards ours, and he and the Pope must go
down to posterity together.
On Tuesday, the 15th, in reply to a motion by Dr.
Briring for correspondence, the Secretary fcr Fo-
reign Affairs repeated the scene in wriich he gave so
much satisfaction to the House and the country on
the question of Switzerland. He gave the most une-
quivocal assurance of the interest felt by the Govern-
ment in the progress of liberal institutions in Italy,
and added the agreeable intimation that within
twenty-four hours he had received distinct informa-
tion that it was not the intention of the Austrian
Government to attempt any forcible interference.
The House adjourned at nine o'clock.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. PERRONET THOMPSON.
Blackheath, London, Feb. IG, 1848.