agree

to the clause, similar to that of last year, which the Lords had inserted in the bill, there seemed to be no alternative but to drop the bill; thus bringing into operation the jurisdiction of the lord chancellor. The lower house, however, resolved to adopt one course which was still open to them, that of a free conference, at which the matter in dispute is, or may be, debated between the managers viva voce. It could scarcely be any confidence entertained by the Commons in the superiority of their own powers of argument and oratory over those of the men whom the House of Lords could put forward, that urged them to this expedient. On the 10th of August, they sent a message to the Lords, requesting a free conference on these amendments. On account of the novelty of the proceeding, of which no instance had occurred since 1740, the consideration of the message was postponed, on the motion of lord Melbourne, till next day, when the conference was granted. It passed off, however, without any discussion; lord John Russell having briefly stated that the Commons adhered to their disagreement from the amendments; and the earl of Ripon having as briefly answered that they would receive the serious consideration of the House of Lords. Mr. Hume, who had expected a debate, waxed wrath at this mode of doing business. He had understood, he said, that when a free conference was demanded, the questions at issue were to be argued, reasons assigned on both sides, and that by this means the difference, if possible, was to be accommodated. He had attended the conference, and he saw no difference between the present conference and others, except

that in other cases a written paper was delivered to the managers appointed by the other house, instead of a short speech, as on this occasion, from the noble lord. It appeared to him that, of the two, the old custom of having a written report was the best. The proceedings just concluded had been little better than a mere farce, and not calculated to lead to the object which they had in view. He could not believe that their ancestors, if on any occasion they differed with the Lords, would have been satis. fied with such proceedings as they had just gone through. Lord John Russell explained, that the practice, in former times, with respect to free conferences, certainly was, that both the Commons and the Lords stated freely their different opinions as to the subject matter; but it was always in the power either of the managers for the Lords or the managers for the Commons to break off the conference, and defer it till another time. The last precedent, which he had now before him, occurred in April, 1740. On that occasion, after the managers for the Commons had stated the reasons which induced them to disagree with the other house, the managers for the Lords acquainted those for the Commons, that as new matter, respecting which they had no instructions, had been offered to their consideration, they could not take on themselves the responsibility of giving an immediate answer to it, but would communicate to the Lords the reasons which the Commons had assigned for disagreeing to their lordships' amendments. What was done then was, in fact, what had been done on the present occasion. Certainly a longer speech had been then made than he had

made at the conference just terminated. It seemed to him that it was far better, as there had been no free conference for a long time, not to enter much into matters likely to provoke debate. Even if he had done so, it was in the power of the Lords to refuse to make any reply; it was competent for the managers for the Commons to make any speeches they thought proper, but not to oblige the Lords to answer them. It was always in the power of the managers for the other house to say, "We will acquaint the lords with your reasons, which shall be maturely and deliberately considered, before we make any reply."

Ir the Lords, lord Lyndhurst, after this first stage of the free conference, moved that the house should insist on its amendments. In regard to charitable trusts, the matter had come to this, that, for the next year, they must either continue in the same hands in which parliament itself had placed them last year, or be administered by trustees named by the lord chancellor; and no rational man could doubt that the latter was the less desirable course. Before the chancellor could appoint, it would be necessary for every one of the charities to present to him a petition, that being done, he must then consider the matter and prayer of the petition-it would then be referred to the master to appoint new trustees for that purpose the master must be attended by parties interested-evidence must be heard -after a long litigation the Master would make his report-that report would come under the consideration of the chancellor, before whom it might be again discussed, and, on opposition, sent back to the master to review; and it was only after

all this waste of time, and expensive litigation, that the chancellor might at last be in a condition to make his order. Thus it was manifest, that, for the mere purpose of appointing trustees, much time would elapse and great expense would be incurred. Of that expense the greater part would necessarily come out of the charitable funds, many of which were so small (as every one who had read the report of the commissioners must know) that the expenses of such controversies as he had described would wholly exhaust them. If it were inconvenient, as suggested by the other house, that the present trustees should be continued for another year, how much more inconvenient was the alternative, namely, that the trusts should be administered by the lord chancellor, attended, as that administration would be attended, by all the circumstances to which he had adverted. And what was the other proposition to which this was preferred?Simply to continue for a year the existing management. These managers had been parliamentary trustees during the last year. Nothing had occurred to render them not trust-worthy for another twelve months. There existed not the slightest evidence of misconduct. No complaint had been made against them, though it was open for any one to do so. Nay, it seemed almost impossible, considering the situation in which these trustees were placed, that they could have misconducted themselves, or attempted to have done so, even if they had been so disposed; for in every place they had been watched with most vigilant eyes by persons most desirous to find fault with their conduct. If, therefore, these trustees were

deemed fit to be trusted

session -if they were then trusted with the entire concurrence and approbation of the other house of parliament what ground was there now for saying that they were incompetent to discharge the trust for another year, while, during the past year, they had conducted themselves honestly, faithfully, and honourably? Rather than do this, the Commons preferred a Chancery administration; and with them let the responsibility rest.

As Mr. Hume had expected, at the conference, a harangue from the managers of the Commons, so lord Melbourne seemed to be offended at the managers of the Lords, for not having addressed to the representatives of the Commons, the arguments now pressed upon the House of Lords. Considering, he said, that this had been a free conference, in which the case of this House was to be sustained, he did not understand why the argument urged by the managers on behalf of the Commons had not been met by the managers for this House, or why the dignity of this House had been abandoned, its character lowered, and its interests deserted by the arguments just uttered not having been urged in that place where they were naturally expected. But the arguments themselves were totally insufficient. The clause in reference to the charitable trustees was adopted in the municipal bill of last year, on the eve of the termination of the session, on the understanding, that it was to be a mere temporary arrangement, until parliament could legislate more fully and completely in the matter. Since that period a bill entirely providing for

-a course

the whole matter, had been sent up from the other House; and that bill, on its second reading, without a consideration of its provisions, without going into committee, their lordships had thought proper to reject. Such being the case, he must say, that their lordships were not in a condition to require the House of Commons to yield to them on this question. The earl of Ripon, who had managed the conference on the part of the Lords, said, that the reproaches of lord Melbourne against these managers could have arisen only from his lordship not knowing the course which had been taken by the managers on behalf of the Commons,most certainly consistent with their rights and privileges; but one which made it impossible for their lordships' managers to enter into any verbal discussion, with a view to enforce the opinions to which the House had arrived. In point of fact, the representations made to them were not made viva voce, but were read from a written paper, which he really believed was verbally the same as that sent up on a former conference. It certainly appeared to him, that nothing was more natural and proper, than that the managers on behalf of the Lords, not having been invited to enter into any discussion, should pursue the same course as that followed by the managers for the Commons; and, that in doing so, they had not done anything that was at all derogatory to the character and dignity of this House.

The motion to insist on the amendments being carried, a message was sent to the Commons, requesting a free conference

to communicate the result. The managers for both of the Houses immediately met, and the question of the amendments was debated amongst them (August 11). The managers for the peers were, lord Lyndhurst, lord Abinger, the earl of Ripon, lord Wharncliffe, lord Ellenborough, lord Fitzgerald, and the bishop of Gloucester; on the part of the Commons, there were opposed to them, lord John Russell, the Attorney-General, Mr. Hume, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Wakley, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Cutlar Fergusson, and various other members. The discussion lasted upwards of an hour, and ended, as was to be expected, in the opinions of each party remaining unchanged. The earl of Ripon reported to the Lords, that their managers had stated to the managers on the part of the Commons, that the Lords adhered to the amendment in line twenty-five, because, the municipal corporations act not having provided, that a fresh election should take place, in the event of an equality of votes, the Lords considered it would be in accordance with the principle of that act to meet the difficulty which might arise from the equality of votes, by giving the casting vote to the person presiding at the election; that the Lords also adhered to clause L, because they thought, the inconvenience which would arise from placing the charitable trusts under the management of the lord chancellor would be much greater than that which might arise from allowing them to remain, until next session, or until parliament should otherwise provide, in the hands of those persons to whom both houses of parliament had VOL. LXXVIII.

last year concurred in thinking they should be confided; that the Lords had not observed, that any practical injury had arisen from allowing these trusts to remain in the same hands in which they were placed last session; but, that they were nevertheless anxiously desirous that the management of those funds should be placed upon a footing, whereby they might be divested, as far as possible, of all party interest. The managers for the Commons stated, that they were not instructed to yield with respect to the two clauses relating to the giving of the casting vote by a person to be chosen by lot, inasmuch as they were inconsistent with the spirit of the act, but, that they would have been willing to have referred that point to the House of Commons; that, with respect to the provision in clause L, whereby the present charitable trustees were continued in power, they hoped it would not be considered necessary to introduce it in this bill, as the conduct of those persons was not satisfactory to their (the Commons') constituents; and they could not, therefore, agree to continue them on any terms; that the provision made last year showed that parliament was not of opinion, that any serious inconvenience would arise from the power over these trusts devolving upon the lord chancellor; that the Commons were apprehensive, if they conceded this point now, they might be asked on similar grounds to acquiesce in placing them in the same hands, they were at present placed in, at a future period; that the Commons thought this a valuable bill, and that the Lords should recollect, that by their [M]

amendments all that was valuable in the bill would be lost. The managers on the part of the Lords replied, that they were always anxious to maintain a good understanding with the House of Commons, and would defer to their opinion on any point, that could be conceded consistently with the public interest. The managers then detailed the manifold mischiefs and inconveniences which might arise from allowing the management of these trusts to devolve on the lord chancellor, and states that it had not come to their knowledge, that any abuse had taken place since the act of last year; nor was it probable, that the persons who had had the management of these funds would venture to abuse their trust, It was further suggested, that it was competent for the House of Commons to introduce clauses for the auditing and superintending of these trusts. And, finally, that the managers of the Lords, having enlarged upon the reasons already detailed, and no agreement having been come to, left the bill with the managers of the Commons.

Lord Melbourne thought this a very odd way of doing business. They had not argued the matter at the first conference, when their hands were free; and now, after they were tied up by a resolution to insist upon their amendments, they had entered into a full discussion. Lord Wharncliffe explained, that the Commons, at the first conference, which they had requested, did not enter into any debate, and the Lords had merely followed their example; and that, at the second conference, it was the Commons who originated the debate which had taken place.

In the House of Commons, lord John Russell reported, that the Lords still adhered to their amendments; and as as it was therefore obvious, that the two Houses could not come to any agreement on these clauses, he moved, that the farther consideration of the amendments should be postponed till that day three months, which motion was agreed to. Certain bills were then brought in and passed, to supply some parts of the dropped bill, on which both Houses were agreed.

The attempts, which had been made more than once, to obtain an act for allowing prisoners on trial for felony the benefit of counsel to address the jury on their behalf, were attended with success in the present session. A bill to that effect had passed the House of Commons in 1834: it had been read a first time in the House of Lords, and had then been dropped. In 1835 the same bill was renewed, passed the Commons without a division, and, being sent up to the Lords, was by them referred to a select committee. These proceedings, however, had been adopted so late in the session, that it was impossible for the committee to make a satisfactory report, and nothing more had been done, than to print the evidence which had been taken before them. Government had directed the commissioners appointed to investigate the state of the criminal law to consider this subject; and the commissioners, after investigating the subject fully, and examining the witnesses best qualified to throw light on the subject, had made an elaborate report, unanimously recommending that the principle should be adopted.