Lords Sitting of 19 February 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—3a Office of Messenger to the Great Seal Abolition.

GUNPOWDER TRAFFIC AT THE CAPE.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, that on a previous occasion he had spoken in terms of censure of the conduct of cen-

747
sure of the conduct of certain parties whom he understood to have shipped gunpowder from this country for the purpose of supplying the Kafirs with it. He thought it fair now to state to the House that he had received a letter from Messrs. Walton and Bushell, declaring that though a quantity had been sent by them, as stated, to a merchant at Cape Town, they were quite ignorant of the destination at which it seemed to have arrived. They went I further, and professed the greatest horror at being supposed capable of sending ammunition and powder to the enemies of their country, and denied the charge in toto.

MONTGOMERY'S ESTATE.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNpresented a petition from James Hamilton Story, of No. 17, Bryanston Square, Middlesex, Esquire, "praying Leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of 44 Geo. III. [1804], for the more effectual and beneficial raising of certain sums of money decreed by the High Court of Chancery of Ireland, to be raised out of the Estates of George Montgomery, a Lunatic, in the Counties of Cavan and Fermanagh in Ireland, by Sale of the Inheritance of a competent part of the said Estates as is inconsistent with the uses and trusts to which the said Estates stood settled and limited before the passing of such Act." He had no interest whatever in any of the parties implicated in the case, and did not even know the petitioner beyond having met him at the few interviews they had had about the petition. His Lordship explained the case of the petitioner, which he considered a particularly hard one, and said that his object in wishing it referred to two English Judges was to found upon their report a Bill for the repeal of the Act of 1804. As he considered that great injustice had been done to Mr. Story, in depriving him of his ancestors' estates in Ireland, he trusted their Lordships would not hesitate to accede to his Motion. There were precedents for adopting the course he now proposed, their Lordships having on previous occasions passed Bills to correct mistakes which had occurred in previous Acts with regard to the disposition of estates; and if the petition were referred, as he proposed it should be, to two English Judges, they might decide, first of all, whether, if the Act of 1804 had not been passed, Mr. Story would be entitled to the estates, and in the next place whether, if he were entitled, the Act should be repealed.
"Moved—That the petition be referred to two English Judges to consider,
"1st. Whether, if the Act of 1804 had not been passed, Mr. Story would he entitled to the Estates?
"2nd. Whether, if he should he so entitled, that Act ought not to be repealed?"
LORD REDESDALEfelt it his duty, as the person to whom these Bills were referred, to oppose the Motion; since to have been silent would have been to seem to sanction their Lordships passing a slight upon the Irish Judges. It was the invariable practice of the House to refer Irish Estate Bills to Irish Judges. The same practice was pursued with regard to Estate Bills in England and Scotland; and he saw no sufficient reason why in this case it should be departed from.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he feared it was too late for them now to interfere. He felt a very great sympathy with those who had suffered from the gross irregularity of 1803 and 1804; but the time had passed when it would have been expedient that the subject should be revived.
LORD BEAUMONT,agreeing as to the great hardships which these parties had endured, yet thought that, under the circumstances, the House could not possibly do anything now, except indeed as regarded the future, when in all cases of private Bills it must act with much greater caution in reference to the circumstance of notice being served on the parties.
Motion (by leave of the House) with drawn; and Petition ordered to lie on the table.

AFFAIRS OF INDIA.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH,after referring to what had passed on a former evening (see p. 534), relative to the production of information respecting the affairs of India, said, he must again call the attention of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) to the preparation of the information to be laid before the Committee on East India affairs. Perhaps he had not correctly understood what fell from the noble Marquess; but if he had correctly collected it, the statement was, that no preparation had been made for the laying of this information before the Committee, and that it would be for Parliament or the Committee to ask for such documents as they might require. If that were indeed the actual state of things, it would be to him a subject of very deep regret; for, in the first place, he thought it would show that Her Majesty's Government were by no means alive to the peculiar impor-

749
tance of the question now to be submitted to the consideration of Parliament—a question upon the consideration of which they were to decide what should be the future government of India, under circumstances materially different from any which had hitherto existed. Then, in the second place, the want of preparation would be productive of very great and inconvenient delay; and it would be obvious that their Lordships, if left to themselves, would be able to collect but a very small amount of information, compared with what the Government would be able to procure by-taking proper measures in anticipation. He had understood the noble Marquess to say, that he had applied at the India House and at the Board of Control, and to have found a difficulty in getting the papers connected with his recall from India, which consequently had only been in his hands a short time before he spoke the other evening. Now, he could not imagine what could have been the difficulty, because the papers were at both offices, and at whichever office he applied he could have got them. They had at the India Board in their possession the letter in extenso which he wrote in vindication of his Indian policy, and they had at the India House the portion of that letter which was communicated to the Court by the President of the India Board. If the noble Marquess had now read these, he would be able to state distinctly what difficulty there was about producing them, and to tell the House whether any inconvenience would arise from his doing so. So far as he (the Earl of Ellenborough) could judge, not only would there be no inconvenience from their production, but it was absolutely necessary to the just consideration of the whole question. He could not (as the noble Marquess had on a former evening seemed to do), treat this as a question personal to himself. If the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Department thought it essential to the performance of his duties to recall Sir H. Smith, there could be no doubt that that was a public question of the greatest importance, not merely a personal question between him and Sir H. Smith. The noble Earl had publicly assigned his reasons for it; and he would think it an act of the grossest injustice were he to hesitate to communicate to Parliament any reply which Sir H. Smith might make, although he no longer continued to be the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. No doubt the rea-
750
sons for his (the Earl of Ellenborough's) recall were not published; so much the worse, for that enabled people to put the worst construction upon it. He asked in justice to the people of India, as well as to himself, that these papers should be produced, for they were most deeply and essentially concerned in the relations between the Governor General and the authorities at home. He had stated that only a part of the letter which he had written in defence of his measures, had been communicated to the Court of Directors. If the noble Marquess thought that only that part of the letter should be produced, although lie should regret the decision, he would defer to it. But he did hope that at least that part of the letter which had been in the possession of the Court for seven years, might now be given to the whole world. If the noble Marquess had no objection, he would at once move for the production of that extract, and also of two enclosures in the letter sent to the Board of Control— namely, his letter from Gwalior in defence of the alterations in the administration of Saugur, and a minute on a purely legal question connected with the position of the fourth Member of the Council of India under the Act of Parliament, which had strangely 'seen adduced as one of the reasons for his recall.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwould first reply to the observations of the noble Earl on the production of papers for the information of the House, and also of the Committee hereafter to be appointed to consider the expediency of renewing the Company's Charter, The noble Earl had not stated correctly what he had said on a former evening. He had not stated that papers would not be presented by the Government, either to that House or the Committee; but he had stated, that in addition to the papers which Government would feel itself called upon to lay before Parliament and the Committee, it would be competent for the Committee, or for any member of it, to move for such papers as were necessary to enable it to form a competent judgment on the subject. Information, he repeated, would be laid before the House and the Committee when the inquiry was commenced, and then it would be in the power of the noble Earl to call upon the Committee to decide whether the information was complete, or whether more ought to be demanded. With regard to the information which the noble Earl wished to have laid before the Committee, relative to the cir-

751
cumstances and causes of his own recall, he had only to say that it would he his own wish to do full justice to the noble Earl, and to have all that information laid before the Committee. When he had stated on a former occasion that this was a personal question, he by no means meant to say that it was merely a personal question, and that it contained no matter of interest to the public; for a question touching the recall of a Governor General or a Commander-in-Chief might be of private interest, and yet deserving of the deepest inquiry and judgment of the public. At the same time, he submitted to the noble Earl himself that it might not be convenient to produce those papers and to make that inquiry which he proposed, as a particular case, and not in connexion with a general system. The case in question had now been before the public for the last eight years and more. It was not thought fit by the Government of that day to produce the papers connected with the noble Earl's recall, and Parliament had not called for any inquiry. The subject had slept ever since, and he should regret going at this time, and after so many successive Governments, into any inquiry into that single event. But, considered as one of a series of events, which marked the tone of the Government in India, and of the progress of the relations between the Governor General and the Court of Directors, it might be deserving of inquiry; and, in that point of view, he agreed with the noble Earl in thinking the papers might facilitate the inquiry, not as a matter by itself, but as a matter connected with the general system, and, therefore, it might be expedient, together with any information which might be called for by the Committee, to furnish such information as could be obtained with respect to the noble Earl's recall; and he should be happy to do his utmost to promote that object. He had read the papers in question, and with great interest; but in reading them he had found that that letter, which he had no doubt the noble Earl considered most material to his case, had no existence either in the records of the Board of Control, or in extenso at the East India House. One reason for this might be, that the Earl of Ripon, who was then President of the Board of Control, and who, unfortunately, did not now take much share in their debates, had considered it so far a private letter that he felt himself authorised to take it away with him when he left his office. Now, whether the noble Earl considered it a private letter or not, he
752
should like, before he consented to produce it as a public document, to communicate with the Earl of Ripon and with others. In justice to the noble Earl opposite, he was most anxious to produce all the information he could to illustrate that transaction, considered as a part of the whole system; but, for the reasons which he had already stated, he submitted that it would not be expedient to revive that particular case. He submitted to the noble Earl that he should not move now for these papers. He pledged himself that in the interval between this time and this day se'nnight he would ask Lord Ripon whether he had any, and what, objections to the production of these papers; and that, as soon as he received Lord Ripon's answer, he would communicate it to the noble Earl. He hoped that on consideration the noble Earl would make his Motion, not in that House, but in the Committee.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that after what had fallen from the noble Marquess, he should not press the Motion for the immediate production of the Papers. He was perfectly satisfied that the papers connected with the question of his recall should be considered in conjunction with all the great questions that would come before the Committee. By law, the Court of Directors had no power to send to India one single syllable of directions as to measures; and yet they had most strangely continued to have the power of recalling the Governor General, by whom the measures were to be executed—a vestige of a former state of things which had now ceased to exist. They had, too, the power to recall without the authority of the Crown the Governor General whom the Crown might think best fitted to carry into effect those measures which, through the Board of Control, the Court of Directors might be compelled to adopt. So monstrous an absurdity had never before obtained admission into the system for governing any empire. The reason he asked for this information was, that he thought the question, whether this state of things should continue, ought to come before the Committee, and that they should have the means of judging of the manner in which that authority was exercised in this particular instance. But even if the unanimous opinion of Parliament should be in favour of the manner in which that authority was exercised in this particular instance, it would not in the slightest degree touch the general question, of whether two such contradictory authorities should exist;

753
one having the power to order measures, and the other to remove the Governor charged with executing them. He had heard with the greatest astonishment the statement of the noble Marquess with respect to the non-appearance of his letter in the records of the Board of Control. He sent it to the Board of Control by the very first mail which left India after he knew of his recall. He obtained a knowledge of that on the 15th June; and his letter, which was dated July 4, must have been received in England in the beginning of September. Undoubtedly he (the Earl of Ellenborough) was not then in office, but still he had to defend himself; and would any man prevent Sir Harry Smith from writing a letter for presentation to Parliament, in defence of his conduct against the strictures of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey)? He heard with indignation that at the time an attempt was made to treat his letter as a private one, which could not, therefore, be sent to the Court; although it was a public letter, written by a public man, on a most important public matter It should have been so considered at first as it was at last, for he could show the noble Marquess a copy of Lord Ripon's letter to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Court of Directors communicating the extract of that letter; and when he (the Earl of Ellenborough) understood that an extract only had been communicated, he wrote to Mr. Waterfield, one of the clerks and secretaries of the Board of Control, and from him or from Lord Ripon he had a distinct assurance that, although an extract only was communicated, the whole letter in extenso should be recorded at the Board of Control.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthen gave notice that on Friday, the 27th inst., he should move the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the Expediency of renewing the Charter of the East India Company.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that he thought it would be convenient for him on that occasion to state, as succinctly as he could, the alterations which it appeared to him desirable to make in the present system of the Government of India —first, on the supposition that the Court of Directors were retained with powers similar to those which they possessed at present; and also, further, what fundamental alterations he thought it would be most expedient to make.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEre-
754
marked that it was open to the noble Earl to use his own discretion in stating his own opinions and views with respect to the subject of the Committee's inquiry; but he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) wished it to be understood that it was not his wish to anticipate inquiry, but that he wished the whole question should go to the Committee unfettered by any previous observations on the part of Government. It was upon the result of the inquiry of that Committee that Parliament would be called to come to a definite decision.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that he only wished to take that course which, considering the knowledge he had: of Indian affairs, would be most convenient, especially to the Government. He would reserve the statement of his views for the I Committee, if the noble Marquess wished.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEdid not wish to object to the noble Earl's taking the course which he might consider most convenient. But he wished to state that he did not think that it would he convenient that the Government, or Members who were not so well acquainted with the subject, should deliver their opinions.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that forty years ago Lord Grenville thought it of importance that the earliest announcement should be given of his opinions of the future government of India, and he took an opportunity of making them known to the House at a great length before the Committee was appointed.

COUNTY COURTS FURTHER EXTENSION BILL.
On the Motion that the Report of the Amendment of this Bill be received,
LORD LYNDHURSTclaimed the attention of their Lordships for a few moments to a point of law which had arisen under the present Act. He would state in a few words the case out of which the point of law arose. A tradesman sued his debtor for 51., and obtained a judgment for his claim, and costs. Those costs included the fees, as limited by the Act, given to the attorney. Having received his money and the fees for the attorney, he was satisfied with the decision of the court and the speedy administration of justice. In a few days afterwards, however, his attorney called upon him, and presented him with a bill of costs for 22 l. The tradesman was astonished, and said, "I received the sum for which I sued, and paid you the fees sanctioned by the Act of Parliament.

755
What is the meaning of this application for 22 l?" The attorney's reply was: "The costs which you paid me are costs for the proceedings in court, but these are preparatory costs out of court; here are costs for entering proceedings, for instruction to sue, for examination of witnesses, &c." This answer did not satisfy the tradesman, who refused to pay. The attorney then made application to the County Court for these costs. A County Court Judge, whose keenness for scenting out the meaning of an Act of Parliament is most extraordinary, said at once—"The attorney is right. He is entitled to recover his costs for proceedings in this court, but he has also a right to his costs for the necessary proceedings out of this court." The order of the Court then was that this bill of costs, amounting to 22 l., should be taxed, and it was then cut down to 11 l. 4s. So that the result to this tradesman was, that he received his debt of 5l. and costs, but was made to pay 11 l. As for it, leaving him about 8l. out of pocket. This, however, was not all. If he had sued in the Superior Courts of Westminster he could have recovered this sum from the other party, the defendant; and it was most just and reasonable that he who had refused to pay a just demand should pay the costs of the proceedings resorted to to enforce it. But, according to this County Courts system, the successful suitor, or the plaintiff who recovered the debt, had to pay all the costs of recovering it, except the small sum of 15 s. Such a system seemed so inconsistent with the plainest principles of justice, that he had deemed it his duty to state the case, with a view to the grievance being remedied. He certainly very much doubted whether the persons who framed the Act, or the Legislature who passed it, supposed that it would admit of the construction now put upon it by the learned Judges.
LORD BROUGHAMquite agreed with his noble and learned Friend in his latter observation; but it was not at all unusual for judicial constructions to be put upon Acts of Parliament which the framers of them had never expected; and he thought with him, that the construction recently put upon the Act of 1846, which was, he believed, introduced by the noble Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), and adopted by the late Lord Cottenham, must have been a surprise to its authors. Very great difficulties, however, existed upon the whole subject of costs, which was a question very
756
hard to deal with, whether as regarded costs in superior or inferior jurisdictions. He held it to be perfectly impossible that the abuses now existing could be allowed to continue. There must of necessity be some remedy applied. It must either be stated by a declaratory enactment that the construction put upon the Act of 1846 was erroneous; or, if that construction was held to be right and sound, some remedy must be provided for the mischief. The evils that arose from the malpractices of some persons engaged in the lower branch of the profession, not only in the County Courts, but also in the Supreme Courts, were too well known to need any observation from him; but he would fain hope that the public voice, which had been frequently raised upon the subject, was influenced by the ordinary mistake of applying to many what might be the faults of a few. That the law should be such, however, as to enable any persons to commit offences—for he could call them nothing less—-of this kind, was a matter, in his opinion, deeply to be regretted.
LORD LYNDHURSTexplained, that he had not meant for a moment to suggest that the construction put upon the Act of 1846 by the Courts of Law was not correct. The question had been first decided, he believed, in the Court of Common Pleas, and the decision of that Court was afterwards confirmed by the Court of Queen's Bench.
LORD CAMPBELLobserved, that ha had no idea that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) would have fallen into such an error as to call upon their Lordships, when sitting as a legislative body, to deal with the decision of the Superior Courts of Westminster Hall. If the decision of those Courts was wrong, it might be subjected to the review of their Lordships when sitting as a Court of Appeal; but the present occasion was not the time to deal with the decision of the Courts of Law. He quite concurred in the decision which the Courts of Law had come to upon the subject; and he was sure that if his noble and learned Friend looked at the language of the County Courts Act, he could not fail to come to the same conclusion, namely, that the restriction Was confined to the costs incurred by the proceedings actually taken in court, and not to the costs of the preparatory steps taken in a cause. He thought that it was highly desirable that this subject should be reconsidered, but it was one of great difficulty;

757
and it was necessary to guard against a suitor being unable to obtain respectable professional assistance, by making the amount of remuneration too low. It was necessary in bringing an action to employ a respectable attorney, and that he should be a person of intelligence. It was often requisite that long accounts should be examined into, and other matters attended to, and it could not be expected that a respectable solicitor would take all that trouble for 15 s. If a client were restricted from paying any more, it would have the effect of depriving him of professional assistance. If any means could be proposed by which the clue administration of justice could be secured, and an attorney could be satisfied with the payment of 15 s., he would most willingly consent to their being adopted.
LORD LYNDHURSTbegged again to say that it was not his intention to suggest that the decision of the Courts of Law upon this subject were erroneous. He was satisfied that, looking at the words of the Act of Parliament, they could have come to no other decision. He believed, however, that he was justified in stating that his noble and learned Friend had given two contrary decisions upon this point. The Court of Queen's Bench at first decided that the costs which an attorney could demand were restricted to the costs mentioned in the Act. The question was then argued before the Court of Common Pleas and the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench referred to. The Court of Common Fleas, however, decided contrary to the Court of Queen's Bench. The matter was then argued a second time in the Court of Queen's Bench, which Court pronounced a similar opinion to that given by the Court of Common Pleas, thus overturning its first decision, he was quite justified in saying that the person who framed the County Courts Bill, and the Legislature which passed it, did not think such an interpretation would have been put upon one of the clauses. It had been said that it would be injurious to the suitor not to allow him an attorney of respectable character to get up the case before it came into court; and he entirely agreed in that opinion. His complaint, however, was this. In a Superior Court, if a person was defeated, all the just costs fell upon him as they ought to do; whereas in the County Court a great portion of those costs was obliged to be paid by a party, even though he succeeded in his action.
LORD CAMPBELLwas understood to say, that with respect to the contrary decisions of the Courts of Law upon this subject, he did not preside over the Court of Queen's Bench at the time when their first judgment upon the matter in question was given. The point was decided by the Court of Common Pleas, and afterwards it came before the Court of Queen's Bench. He entirely agreed with the decision given by the former Court, and so did the other learned Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench. He might mention that very high legal authority, Sir John Patteson, whose loss as a Judge was now deplored, was of a similar opinion with the rest of the Judges. It was true that he was rather inclined to think that an attorney could only recover the costs mentioned in the Act of Parlialiament; but he afterwards admitted, with that candour which characterised him, that he had altered his opinion; and the Court of Queen's Bench, therefore, were unanimous in the decision which they had given upon the subject.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that this showed that there might very well be doubt as to the meaning of the Act, and that the construction put upon it might have surprised its author. If there was any doubt upon the point, a declaratory Act would satisfy all the requirements of the case; but he understood that there was no doubt whatever, and therefore there was no need of such a proceeding. It should be recollected, in fairness to the Act of 1846, that a party had the choice of his court, and if he thought the case would require a greater preliminary expenditure than could be recovered as costs in a County Court, he might bring his action in a Superior Court. He did not say that that was a sufficient remedy. The point would be matter for consideration, and he had no doubt that upon consideration means might be taken to make the Act work more effectually.
The EARL of DERBYmust apologise for saying a single word when so many noble and learned Lords had discussed this point. It appeared that there was no question that the Courts of Law were now agreed upon this subject, and that a decision had been given, which decision also appeared to be contrary to the meaning and intention of the framers of this Act. And it was not a question, as it appeared to him, of very slight importance with reference to the future interests of suitors in the County Courts; because the object of the framers of the Bill was clearly to

759
limit the amount of the expense, and thereby to induce suitors to go to what was to be at once an economical and an expeditious tribunal for the adjustment of small debts. After holding out these inducements, however, it was subsequently found that the law by no means secured this economy; but that along with the same costs as were paid before, they actually inflicted an additional injustice; because, although it was true that the plaintiff could not recover more than a certain amount of costs, yet it was clear that his attorney might charge any extent of costs under the new construction that had been put upon the statute. The consequence was that the suitor was put to greater expense. [Lord CAMPBELL: The costs maybe taxed.] He was aware that costs might be taxed in the inferior as well as in the Superior Courts; yet they might be as large in the fermer as they were in the latter. But the evil and injnstice was this—that the plaintiff in the Superior Courts would be entitled to receive the costs, but in the County Courts he would not be entitled to receive them; and he who was proved to be in the right was called on to pay expenses, which, if the action was brought in the Superior Courts, would be thrown on the party—the defendant—who, by the result of the action was proved to be in the wrong. That state of things had been brought before the House by his noble and learned Friend with all his usual clearness; and surely, when they were proposing to pass a measure for the extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts, it was now the fiting time to consider how they might remedy this acknowledged evil. He did not presume to suggest what that remedy ought to be; but he did think that when a measure was in progress for extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts, it was their bounden duty to see that the operation of those Courts did, in point of economy, meet the object for which the Act constituting them was originally framed.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that it was a mistake to suppose that this Bill would enlarge or extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts, in the sense of giving them the power to deal with debts of larger amount, or with cases of a different nature from those which already came before them. It was merely intended to enable the Court of Chancery to entrust to the County Courts the conduct of certain inquiries which at present took place in the Mas-
760
ters' Offices. He did not think, therefore, that the suggestion on the subject of costs was germane to the object or scope of this Bill. The costs arising under this Bill would be costs connected with the Court of Chancery, and not with the County Courts.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEconcurred with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) in thinking that if doubts had arisen as to the original intention of Parliament with respect to the County Courts Act, it was now the proper occasion for correcting the ambiguity in the language of the statute.
LORD CRANWORTHthought the noble and learned Lord did not do justice to his own Bill in saying the present subject was not germane to it. It was a most appropriate place for introducing any provision which the Legislature might think fit with regard to costs. At the same time this was one of the most difficult subjects that they could have to deal with; for all-important though it was to limit costs to a minimum, on the other hand, unless such a remuneration was allowed as would secure the assistance of a respectable professional man, they would cause suitors to lose more than they would gain. It was a scandal to justice that the fair and reasonable costs incurred by the plaintiff, through the wrongful resistance of his debtor, should have to be borne by the former. At the same time, if heavy costs arose through the suitor not being prepared, and not having his materials ready for the trial as he ought to do, the defendant ought not to be made to pay them. It would be impossible to judge how far the costs of 11 l. in the case cited by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) were justly payable by the plaintiff, without first examining and analysing the different items of which they were composed. It might, for instance, be that the suitor did not know his own case, and his solicitor had to perform journeys to a distance to get up information; and in that case, as the defendant would not be blameable for the carelessness of his creditor, it would not be fair to throw upon him the burden of such costs.
LORD BROUGHAMexplained that his reason for saying that this question of costs was not germane to the purpose of the Bill, was because the extension which it proposed was confined exclusively to the equitable business, the costs attending which would belong to the Court of Chancery, and not to the County Courts.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, surely the object of this Bill was not merely for the extension, but for the improvement, of the jurisdiction, and he considered it would be such an improvement to insert some provision for the regulation of costs.
LORD LYNDHURST,in reference to the j remarks of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth), observed that the information he had received was obtained from the very best possible authority in a matter of that kind, because it was from the person whose duty it was to tax the costs; and that gentleman had informed him that the costs in this case taxed were precisely the costs which would have been allowed if the action had been brought by an attorney in the Superior Courts.
The EARL of DERBYrenewed his application to the noble and learned Lord to allow a clause to be introduced for the purpose of removing all doubts as to the intention and meaning of Parliament on the subject of these costs. They professed to limit their amount, and yet the plaintiff, who obtained a judgment in his favour, was not allowed the expenses to which he had been put to make good his claim. He hoped this deception would not be suffered to continue.
EARL FITZWILLIAMthought if they refused to make this Amendment, that the public out of doors would consider that their Lordships had not a very sincere desire to deal with the subject of lessening-costs.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had no objection to insert a clause of the nature suggested; but he thought it better to defer it till the third reading, in order to afford time for proper consideration.
EARL GREYconsidered it highly irregular and inconvenient to introduce any clause of importance on the third reading, where such a step could possibly be avoided; because if any mistake was made, there was no opportunity of correcting it. He therefore earnestly hoped that the noble Lord, if he wished to make this addition, would postpone not merely the third reading, but the report.
LORD BROUGHAMacknowledged the force of the objection to introducing material alterations into Bills on the third reading, and therefore thought the best course would be to postpone the present stage of the measure, namely, the consideration of the report, until he had had an opportunity of further examining, not only the present objection with regard to costs, but also the
762
complaints of Judges of County Courts themselves, who felt as well as the merely professional parties that hardship and injustice occurred in many instances from the present state of the law on this subject.
Report of the Amendments put off to Tuesday next.

PATENT LAWS.
LORD LYNDHURSTpresented Petitions on the subject of the Patent Laws, complaining of the great expense attending the taking out of Patents for the United Kingdom, and suggesting certain alterations; and said that by an Act of last Session parties sending their inventions to the Great Exhibition had protection granted to them for a limited period (Designs Act Extension, 14 Vict., c. 8). That Act was about to expire very shortly, and if a measure was not speedily passed for the purpose of placing the law of Patents on a better footing, these parties would be put to very heavy expense in protecting their rights under the law as it at present existed. No time, therefore, should be lost in introducing a measure to amend the present law. He understood that the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley, of Alderley) intended to bring forward a Bill on the subject similar to a measure which dropped last Session; and he also understood that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) was desirous of introducing a Bill containing several of the alterations which were made in the Bill of last Session after it had passed through their Lordships' Honse. Now he had heard that one of those alterations went to the extent of abolishing patent rights altogether; but he earnestly hoped his noble and learned Friend would not adopt that principle, because it would involve the infringement of the prerogative of the Crown, and restrict the use of the Great Seal with respect to patents. He wished that his noble and learned Friend would endeavour to come to some arrangement with the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, in order that their Lordships might have only one Bill brought before them; because, if they were to have two distinct Bills with conflicting clauses, he was afraid they would be compelled to adopt the same course as was pursued last year, and refer them both to a Select Committee. That would entail a very considerable waste of time before it could be decided which Bill should be proceeded with. He was sorry

763
the noble Lord the Vice-President of the Board of Trade was not now in his place, because he wished to press upon him also the desirability of coming to some understanding with his noble and learned Friend.
The EARL of MINTOsaid, he had had an opportunity that evening of conferring with his noble Friend (Lord Stanley, of Alderley), and he had inquired of him what progress had been made in the preparation of the Bill he had promised to introduce for the amendment of the Patent Law. His noble Friend had assured him that the Bill was all but prepared; and he therefore trusted that there would be little delay in laying it on their Lordships' table.
House adjourned till To-morrow.