Commons Sitting of 27 June 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Coroner's Inquest Expenses.—Read a second time:—Civil Bill Courts Ireland; Treasurers of Counties Ireland; Coroners, Durham. Read a first time;—Court of Exchequer Scotland; Military Commissions; Patents Amendment Act.

ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
Lord John Russellbrought up her Majesty's Answer to the Address voted to her Majesty upon the demise of the late King, and upon her Majesty's accession to the Throne; which, as far as we could collect it, in consequence of the low tone in which his Lordship read it, was to the following effect:—
"Victoria Regina.
"I have received, with the most sincere satisfaction, the loyal and dutiful Address of the House of Commons with the assurance of their great grief at the loss the nation has sustained in the demise of his late Majesty. The expectations that I have always entertained have been realised by that Address; and it will be the study of my life to preserve the liberties and maintain the glory of this great country. I receive with great satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address, in which you state you will without delay proceed to the consideration of such measures and make such provision as the public service may require."

FORGERY.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report on the Forgery Bill.
Lord Stanleysaid, before the House proceeded further, he wished to ask the noble Lord a question on a subject of considerable importance, which referred in a certain degree to the subject matter

1661
of the Bill under discussion. He had stated to his noble Friend, some three or four months since, that a communication had been made to him, as foreman of the spring grand jury of Lancashire, to the effect that there had been an increase of the crime of forgery, and that there had been, contrary to the expectation of those who thought that a diminished severity of the law would be beneficial, a growing feeling against prosecuting, and that the tendency of the alteration of the law was too much to induce parties to look to the recovery of moneys, rather than the punishment of the offence committed. He had stated to the noble Lord the authority on which this information was given to him; he had since seen the person who gave this information, but he did not ascertain from him that he had had any communication with the noble Lord on the subject. He, therefore, wished to know what had been the result of the noble Lord's inquiries elsewhere?
Lord John Russellsaid, he had certainly not had any communication on the subject with the manufacturing districts; but the result of his inquiries in the metropolis was, that forgeries had not considerably increased, and that the effect of the present measure would be to afford an increased security against forgery.
Report received. Bill to be read a third time.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report of the Offences against the Person Bill.
House in Committee.
On Clause 2,
Mr. Aglionbyproposed an amendment, the object of which was, to separate these offences into two classes, making all cases of murder punishable by death, and all cases of attempts at murder subject to periods of transportation to be fixed upon. The subject had given rise to considerable discussion in the Committee, and he, for one, did not disguise his opinion, that if the punishment of death was to be continued on the Statute-book, it ought to be limited to murders alone. He hoped his Majesty's Government would have considered the question, as upon the former occasion, the punishment of death had been carried by only a very small majority. He regretted, that his hon.
1662
Friend, the Member for Liverpool, who had for many years attended to the amendment of the criminal law, was prevented from attending in his place by a severe domestic calamity; but as the proposition for continuing the punishment of death in any cases, except actual murder, had been carried merely by a majority of one; and as the opinion out of doors was strongly against the proposition, he had earnestly hoped that the Government would have taken the question into its own hands, as one not unworthy its consideration. By this means, they would get rid of great difficulties and many legal technicalities. Unless there was a very strong opinion expressed against it, it was his intention to take the sense of the Committee upon that point.
The Attorney-Generalobjected to the amendment. He had given his best attention to the subject, and he questioned whether the punishment of death should be confined to cases of actual murder only. The clause objected to by the hon. Member had been framed upon the suggestion of one of the most eminent judges in the land. He trusted, therefore, that the House would adopt it.
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell moved, in place of Mr. Aglionby's amendment, that after the word "death," at the end of the clause, there be inserted the following words:—"or, at the discretion of the court, be transported for the term of the natural life of such person, or for any term not less than fifteen years."
Mr. Shawobjected to the amendment, because it would place the judge in the painful situation of deciding, in all cases that came within the meaning of the clause, whether the offence should be visited with a capital punishment, or not. this would be new to the law, and, in his opinion, far from an improvement of it.
The Attorney-Generalalso objected to the amendment, and upon the same ground. Leaving it to the judge to determine whether an offence should or should not be held capital was contrary to all rule, and wholly anomalous. It would, b sides, have the effect of placing the judges in an embarrassing, a most painful, and oftentimes, perhaps, a most odious, situation. Every body, he thought, would perceive how very different the situation of the judge would become when it was known that the decision of life or death was left entirely to his discretion.
The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 36; Noes 60: Majority 24.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Viscount

Lynch, A. H.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Brien, W. S.

Baines, E.

O'Connell, M. J.

Beauclerk, Major

Pease, J.

Blake, M. J.

Pechell, Captain

Brotherton, J.

Potter, R.

Buller, C.

Power, J.

Chapman, L.

Pryse, P.

Codrington, Admiral

Robinson, G. H.

Dennistoun, J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Ellice, E.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fector, J. M.

Surrey, Earl of

Fenton, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Gaskell, D.

Vigors, N. A.

Goring, H. D.

Wakley, T.

Hawes, B.

Wallace, R.

Hodges, T. T.

Williams, W.

Hutt, W.

Lennox, Lord G.

TELLERS.

Lennox, Lord A.

O'Connell, D.

Lister, E. C.

Grote, G.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Lowther, J. H.

Alston, R.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Baillie, H. D.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Baring, F. T.

Paget, F.

Bewes, T.

Palmer, R.

Biddulph, R.

Parker, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Pattison, J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Poulter, J. S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Pusey, P.

Darlington, Earl of

Richards, R.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Ross, C.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Elley, Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Fergus, J.

Scourfield, W. H.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Seymour, Lord

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Sheppard, T.

Gordon, R.

Stanley, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Steuart, R.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Thompson, T. B.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Grey, Sir G.

Williams, W. A.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Wilson, H.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Worsley, Lord

Hoskins, K.

Woulfe, Serjeant

Houldsworth, T.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Howard, P. H.

Young, G. F.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

TELLERS.

Knight, H. G.

The Attorney-General

Law, hon. C. E.

The Solicitor-General

The clause agreed o. House resumed.
The other ills for the amendment of the criminal law were forwarded through the same stage.

EXECUTION OF WILLS.
On the Attorney-General moving, that the House
1664
resolve itself into Committee on the Execution of Wills Bill,
Sir R. Inglisrose to draw the attention of the House to the extraordinary changes in the law which this Bill proposed. It would materially injure the small proprietors of property, by whom a large proportion of the wills were made. He found, by returns made to that House, that in the year 1829 five-sevenths of the probates granted in London were for property under the value of 3,000 l.; and that nearly one half of this proportion was for property under the value of 450 l. This measure, therefore, could not materially injure the millionaires, but would seriously affect the many. It would lead to considerable expense, great vexation, and would almost prevent the execution of wills. The object of the Legislature ought not to be to regulate the descent of property, but to encourage its acquisition. The more unfettered it left the disposition, the more would it carry out the proper designs of a paternal government. The present Bill made alterations in the law as it now stood in three important particulars:—1st, it regulated personal property by the same rule as real property; in the next place it prevented minors from making provision for their offspring, though it was not intended to prevent them from marrying; and, lastly, it annihilated holograph wills, and rendered two witnesses necessary in every case; thus making professional advice indispensable in their preparation, and leading to publicity. He thought it would be better to say at once that a man had no right to dispose of his property, rather than to put upon its disposition such restrictions as would in the majority of cases nullify the will; and he thought, also, that there was no evidence of the intentions of the parties so good as when they put such intentions upon paper in their own handwriting. He objected to the bill so much, he felt so little satisfaction with it, and had heard so little in its favour, that he would much rather vote against the bill altogether than allow it to go on, especially as he thought that it would lead to more fraud, litigation, and intestacy than by leaving the law as it now stood; but, though he should not move that the Committee should be appointed for this day six months, yet he would reserve to himself the right of moving clauses to postpone the operation of the bill till the first

1665
of Jan. 1839, and to declare that all wills declared to be published before that time, should be considered as duly published for all future time, but that all codicils executed subsequently should be placed under the same law as existed at the time of the execution of the will.
The Attorney-Generalentirely despaired of convincing the hon. Baronet of the propriety of this measure if he were not already convinced by all that had Deen written in its favour. It had received the approbation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, had been approved of by the real property Commissioners, had twice passed that House, had been twice carefully considered by a Select Committee, and in the House of Lords had obtained the support of the Lord Chancellor and Lords Brougham, Lyndhurst and Abinger. The heads of the courts of common law, of equity, and of the ecclesiastical courts also concurred in its propriety, whilst the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and other right rev. Prelates united in strenuously recommending this alteration of the law. Sir N. Tindal and Lord Tenterden also approved of it; and if the hon. Baronet still thought, in spite of authorities such as these, that the Bill was wrong, he was right, manfully to come forward and state his objections. He had, however, omitted one material evil which this Bill remedied: there were parts of the country where no will was sufficient directly to pass real estate, and he well recollected when he had the honour to be one of the property law Commissioners, that this defect was pointed out to him, in an able paper he received from the hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland. Now this Bill would remedy this, and would render uniform the method of making wills relating to real and personal estate. Nothing could be more absurd than the present law upon this subject; for whilst a single perch of freehold land could not be disposed of by will, unless such will were executed in the presence of three witnesses, yet no witnesses were required to a will relating to a copyhold estate of the greatest value, and it might pass by a mere memorandum put into one's pocket book, without signature or attestation. Again, with respect to funded property, two witnesses were generally required to a will; but none if it related to other kinds of personality. The present Bill would put an end to ligitation, and
1666
would thus diminish the profits of the legal profession; and though professional men might be oftener employed than heretofore in the preparation of wills, yet he thought it far better that a small fee should be expended for such a purpose, than that thousands of pounds should be expended in, and the family be impoverished by, litigation, which was too frequently the case now. The statute of frauds required witnesses to the execution of wills relating to real property, and he thought that the same solemnities should be required and the same care taken against fraud for each, and this was all that the present bill provided. At present there was this anomaly, that the same will might be bad as regarded real property, whilst it was good as regarded the personality included in it. The present Bill only required two witnesses; it did not render professional assistance absolutely necessary, and it led to no publicity. He hoped, therefore, that after the mature deliberation which had been given to it, and the high sanction which it had received, that it would be allowed to pass that House. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded with saying, that he should oppose the amendment of the hon. Baronet, both as regarded the time at which the Bill should come into operation and as regarded the general principle.
Mr. Tookedid not intend to oppose the Bill going into Committee, as there was much in it that he approved of, but to many of its clauses he could not give his consent without great alteration.
Dr. Lushingtonhad no doubt that the passing of this Bill would render the wills of the humbler classes of society more valid than they were under the present state of the law, for it was notorious that they were in the habit of having attestating clauses without the signature of witnesses. He had had at least fifty cases of this kind come before him during the present year. He denied that this Bill would increase the expense of making wills, and at any rate it would greatly diminish litigation. The only objection that he had heard against this Bill was the difficulty of procuring two witnesses to a will—an evil which he did not believe could exist.
The House went into Committee.
On the 7th clause being proposed,
Sir R. Inglis Sir R. Inglis moved its omission.
The Committee divided on the clause:—Ayes 80; Noes 2; Majority 78.

THE FIRST DIVISION.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Lefevre, C. S.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Alsager, Captain

Lennard, T. B.

Baring, F. T.

Lennox, Lord G.

Beauclerk, Major

Lennox, Lord A.

Benett, J.

Lewis, D.

Bewes, T.

Lushington, Dr.

Biddulph, R.

Lynch, A. H.

Blake, M. J.

Macleod, It.

Boldero, H. G.

Murray, right hon. J. A.

Brocklehurst, J.

Brotherton, J.

Palmerston, Viscount

Butler, E.

Parker, M.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Parker, J.

Callaghan, D.

Parnell, right hon. Sir H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Chalmers, P.

Pease, J.

Collier, J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Crawford, W. S.

Pigot, R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Potter, R.

Dennistoun, J.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Ebrington, Viscount

Roche, W.

Elley, Sir J.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Elphinstone, H.

Russell, Lord J.

Evans, G.

Seale, Colonel

Farrand, R.

Seymour, Lord

Fergus, J.

Shaw, right hon. F.

French, F.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Gaskell, D.

Smith, R. V.

Gordon, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Thomson, right hon. C. P.

Graham, right hon. Sir J.

Thornley, T.

Grey, Sir G.

Tooke, W.

Hawes, B.

Townley, R. G.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Vivian, J. E.

Howard, R.

Ward, H. G.

Howick, Viscount

Williams, W.

Hume, J.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Jervis, J.

Wyse, T.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Young, G. F.

TELLERS.

Knight, H. G.

Steuart, R,

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Wood, C.

List of the NOES.

TELLERS.

Halse, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Hinde, J. H.

Plumptre, J. P.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 9,
Sir R. Inglisproposed the addition of a proviso to the effect that any will of personal estate written wholly by the testator, and dated either in the introduction or at the close, or in any part thereof, and signed by him at the foot thereof, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, without need of any acknowledgment before witnesses, or any attestation thereof.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 65: Majority 50.

THE SECOND DIVISION.

List of the AYES.

Beauclerk, Major

Seale, Colonel

Collier, J.

Tooke, W.

Crawford, W. S.

Townley, R. G.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Tulk, C. A.

Hinde, J. H.

Vivian, J. E.

Hume, J.

Wilson, H.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

TELLERS.

Law, hon. C. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

North, F.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Lennox, Lord A.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lewis, D.

Alsager, Captain

Lushington, Dr.

Benett, J.

Lynch, A. H.

Bewes, T.

Macleod, R.

Blake, M. J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Brocklehurst, J.

Murray, right hon. J. A.

Brotherton, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Burrell, Sir C.

Palmer, G.

Callaghan, D.

Palmerston, Viscount

Campbell, Sir J.

Parker, M.

Chalmers, P.

Parker, J.

Corbett, T. G.

Parnell, right hon. Sir H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Ebrington, Viscount

Pease, J.

Elley, Sir J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Elphinstone, H.

Potter, R.

Euston, Earl of

Richards, R.

Forster, C. S.

Russell, Lord, J.

Gaskell, D.

Seymour, Lord

Gordon, R.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Graham, right hon. Sir J.

Smith, V.

Steuart, R.

Grey, Sir G.

Tancred, H. W.

Hindley, C.

Thomson, right hon. C. P.

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Thornley, T.

Hogg, J. W.

Verner, Colonel

Howard, R.

Williams, W.

Howard, P. H.

Wood, C.

Howick, Viscount

Woulfe, Sergeant

Jervis, J.

Young, G. F.

Knight, H. G.

Lefevre, C. S.

TELLERS.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Lennox, Lord G.

The Solicitor-General

The clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses, House resumed and the report brought up.

EXCISE ACTS (BEET-ROOT SUGAR.)
The House in Committee on the Excise Acts.
Mr. Poulett Thomson Mr. Poulett Thomson moved, that a duty of 24 s. per cwt. be charged on Sugar manufactured from Beet-root. He said he moved the resolution to enable him to

1669
bring in a bill to levy the duty through the medium of the excise department. Hitherto very little Beet-root had been grown in this country with a view to the manufacture of Sugar; but lately some attempts had been made to create a trade in Beet-root Sugar, and, unless some measure on the subject was adopted by Parliament, those attempts must, considering the present duty on Colonial Sugar, be attended with success. A duty of 24 s. per cwt. was charged on Colonial Sugar; and as the price of Sugar, independent of the duty, varied from 24 s. to 34 s., the average charge to the consumer was, duty included, about 54 s. per cwt. It was clear, therefore, if Beet-root Sugar could be manufactured and sold for 54 s. per cwt., that, though the consumer would enjoy the benefit of a reduction of price, the revenue would be defrauded to a considerable extent. He would not at the present moment enter into the question whether the existing duty on Sugar was too high or too low; but the revenue of 5,000,000 l. supplied by Sugar must, it was obvious, be raised somehow or other; and if the manufacture of Beet Root Sugar was allowed to go on untaxed, the consumer would not be able to obtain the article materially cheaper, but the large revenue which he had just mentioned would run a risk of being entirely lost. In fact, the duty on Colonial Sugar would serve as a bounty on the manufacture of Beet-root, unless a similar duty was imposed on the latter production; and it was for this reason he called on the Committee to adopt the resolution he had proposed.
Mr. Humeobjected to the motion on several grounds. He thought it impossible to introduce a new excise regulation which was to operate through the whole country at a time when Parliament was about to expire. There was no such pressing necessity for the measure, and it was one of so much importance that, in his opinion, it ought to be reserved for the meeting of Parliament when the House was full. He did not see that any great injury would result from a postponement of the question. He begged to ask why agriculture was to be deprived of the benefit which it would enjoy if the cultivation of Beet-root for the manufacture of Sugar were encouraged? Another suggestion he had to make was, that the duty of 24 s. per cwt. be reduced. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House whether Beet-
1670
root Sugar had been made in any quantity, and at what expense? One of the grounds of his objection to the resolution was, that there was no information whatever before the House to enable them to form an opinion on the subject.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, he had been asked if any facts had come to his knowledge that induced him to press the Bill this Session? To this question he must reply that such facts had come to his knowledge. An attempt had been made in Ireland and another in the neighbourhood of London to establish the many facture of Beet-root Sugar, and a considerable amount of capital had been invested in the undertaking. These parties might come forward and ask for compensation if a law were passed which put an end to their manufacture. Before, however, it was established he and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated, that if an attempt were made to manufacture Beet-root Sugar in this country, in consequence of the bounty afforded by the duty on foreign sugar, they should consider it their duty at once to bring in a Bill to impose a duty on the Beet-root Sugar. The parties who had engaged in the manufacture now said, though such a statement was made in Parliament, they unfortunately did not know anything about it. He thought it necessary for Parliament under these circumstances to interfere at the earliest possible moment, and pass a law which would put an end to any such pretensions. The hon. Member for Durham asked, why impose a duty of 24 s.? His answer was, because that amount of duty was imposed on West Indian sugar. He objected to bolstering up the manufacture of this country, and maintaining it at the expense of the revenue. The artificial manufacture of sugar from Beet-root was so expensive that but for the duty operating as a bounty the Beet-root Sugar could not compete with the West Indian sugar. As regarded agriculture, he thought it would be an injury instead of a benefit to it to encourage the manufacture of Beet-root Sugar by such artificial manner.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 19: Majority 60.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Blake, M. J.

Alsager, Captain

Bowring, Dr.

Angerstein, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Archdall, M.

Buller, C.

1671

Burrell, Sir C.

Macleod, R.

Campbell, Sir J.

Martin, T.

Chalmers, P.

Morpeth, Viscount

Cole, hon. A. H.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Dillwyn, L. W.

North, F.

Donkin, Sir R.

Palmer, G.

Elley, Sir J.

Palmerston, Viscount

Euston, Earl of

Parker, M.

Forster, C. S.

Parnell rt. hon. Sir H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Pechell, Captain

Goulburn, Sergeant

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Richards, R.

Grey, Sir G.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Harvey, D. W.

Seymour, Lord

Hay, Sir A. L.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Smith, R. V.

Hinde, J. H.

Stanley, E. J.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Steuart, It.

Hodges, T. L.

Stuart, V,

Hogg, J. W.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Howard, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Howick, Viscount

Thomson, rt. hon. C.P.

Hutt, W.

Townley, R. G.

Jackson, Sergeant

Verner, Colonel

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Wigney, J. N.

Williams, W. A.

Knight, H. G.

Wood, C.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Wood, Alderman

Lambton, H.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Law, hon. C. E.

Young, G. F.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Lennox, Lord G.

TELLERS.

Lennox, Lord A.

Gordon, R.

Mackenzie, T.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Pease, J.

Brotherton, J.

Potter, R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Thompson, Colonel

Collier, J,

Tulk, C. A.

Crawford, W. S.

Vigors, N. A,

Ellice, E.

Wallace, R.

Elphinstone, H.

Williams, W. A.

Hastie, A.

Wilson, H.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Howard, P, H.

Beauclerk, Major

Jervis, J.

Hume, J.

Resolution agreed to. The House resumed.

COMMON LAW COURTS BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the third reading of the Common Law Courts Bill. When the measure was last under consideration, he had intimated his opinion that, in conformity with the opinion of the Commissioners on the subject, the number of officers in those courts should be reduced. He had since, however, had communications on the subject with Lord Denman, Sir Nicholas Tindal, and Lord Abinger; and they had assured him, that the number of officers now employed were
1672
essential to the satisfactory discharge of the business of the courts. To those representations he had felt it his duty to yield; but he had prepared two clauses; the one providing, that in the event of a vacancy among the officers of the courts in question, that vacancy should not be filled up without a certificate from one of the chief judges of the necessity of filling it up, and without the sanction of Parliament; the other, providing that no compensation should be granted, except in certain cases.
Mr. Harveyopposed the Bill, condemning the departure from the recommendation of the Commissioners. He objected, moreover, to this Bill, because it went, in the face of the recommendation of a Commission which sat for a long period, to create three situations with salaries attached to them, of 1,200 l. each. The whole of this was a judicial job. It was said, fifteen officers were necessary, though the Commission declared twelve sufficient. He contended, it was most improper to set aside the recommendation of the Commission, made upon the representation of the judges. He objected to the mode of granting the certificate by the judges, inasmuch as this might lead to great abuse, because they might certify to their sisters' sons, or other parties equally nearly related. The appointment of the three additional officers ought, surely, to be delayed till it was found whether they really were required. He should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House, with reference to the creation of these three additional officers.
Mr. Sergeant Goulburnsaid, that this Bill was brought in in pursuance of the recommendation of a Commission, of which he (Mr. Goulburn) had the honour to be Chairman. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark, had not opposed the measure until the last occasion, when he made a speech precisely similar to that which he had first made. With reference to the appointments which had been made of relations by the judges, would the hon. Gentleman say they were not fully competent to the duties of the offices to which they were appointed, or were not fit and proper persons to be so recommended? He denied, that the salaries of l,200 l. a-year each were too high. The object of the Bill was to reduce the creation of new offices by aged persons holding offices under the courts;

1673
and, assuredly, the proper persons to fill up the vacancies as they occurred, were the judges of the land.
Mr. Hodgson Hindethought the House was bound to abide by the recommendation of the Commission to limit the number of officers to twelve; and unless he heard something more satisfactory than had fallen from the learned Sergeant, he would vote for the amendment.
Bill read a third time.
A clause, by way of rider, was brought up.
Mr. Tookeconcurred in everything which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, because the creation of these three additional appointments, contrary to the recommendation of the Commission, was a most outrageous job. He would take this occasion of asking, how it happened that the recommendations of the Commission, in regard to the Crown-office, had not been acted upon and framed into a Bill? Had this been done, there would have been some consolation for the expense which this Commission would cost the country.
The Attorney-Generalcomplained of the course pursued by the hon. Member for Truro. He believed, that the judges of the land had acted upon the purest and most conscientious feeling. The business in the taxation of costs in the courts, in consequence of recent regulations, had been much increased; and as the duties of their officers would, in a great degree, apply to this branch of business—though he had the highest respect for the recommendation of the Commission—the additional number of three was not too great. He protested against the attempt made, to impugn the motives of the judges in reference to these appointments.
The House divided on the clause:—Ayes 39; Noes 17: Majority 22.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Alsager, Captain

Hawes, B.

Baring, F. T.

Hodges, T. L.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Howard, P. H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Howick, Viscount

Chalmers, P.

Jackson, Sergeant

Dillwyn, L. W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Ebrington, Viscount

Knight, H. G.

Elphinstone, H.

Law, hon. C. E.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Forster, C. S.

Lennox, Lord G.

Gordon, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

1674

Palmerston, Viscount

Steuart, R.

Parker, J.

Stewart, P. M.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Tancred, H. W.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Richards, R.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Rushbrooke, Colonel

TELLERS.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Stanley, E, J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hume, J.

Beauclerk, Major

Maher, H.

Bewes, T.

Pease, J.

Blake, Martin Jos.

Pechell, Captain

Bowring, Dr.

Thompson, Colonel

Brotherton, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Callaghan, D.

Wallace, Robert

Chichester, J. P. B.

TELLERS.

Crawford, W. S.

Harvey, D. W.

Hinde, J.H.

Tooke, W.

Clause agreed to. Bill passed.