Lords Sitting of 28 May 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Representative Peers for Scotland Act Amendment; Public Works.
2ª Differential Dues.
Reported.—Apprehension of Deserters from Foreign Ships; Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages.
3ª London (City) Small Debts Extension; Property of Lunatics; Stamp Duties (Ireland); Master in Chancery Abolition; Improvement of the Jurisdiction of Equity; Turnpike Roads (Ireland).
ROYAL ASSENT.—Property Tax Continuance; Copyright Amendment; Linen, &c. Manufactures (Ireland); Poor Relief Act Continuance; Loan Societies; Repayment of Advances (Ireland) Acts Amendment; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Stock in Trade; Highway Rates.

CASE OF MR. MATHER.
LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEYinquired whether the Correspondence which appeared in a morning paper of that day, between Mr. Addington and Mr. Mather, the father, respecting the compensation awarded to Mr. Mather, the son, by the Tuscan Government, was authentic; and, if authentic, whether there would be any objection to lay it on the table of the House?
The EARL of MALMESBURY: In answering the question just put to me by the noble Lord, I have to state that in reading the Times newspaper of this morning, I observed an omission which does not occur in any other of the four public morning papers which enjoy the greatest circulation. Not one single syllable of what I then stated in explanation of the case of Mr. Mather, appeared either in that part of that journal which is devoted to the report of the proceedings in Parliament, or in that part of it which contains the summary usually made of the debates of this House. But on the other side of the paper I observed that there is a correspondence purporting to have passed between Mr. Mather and Mr. Addington; a copy of a letter which I directed to be written to Mr. Mather, sen., from the Foreign Office, and a copy of a letter in answer to it written by Mr. Mather, the father, and apparently addressed to me. The first letter, which I ordered Mr. Addington to write to Mr. Mather, the father, when Mr. Scarlett, our Chargé d'Affaires at Florence, informed me of the compensation awarded by the Tuscan Government to his son, is perfectly authentic. It is exactly the same as the letter which I or-
1264
dered to be sent to Mr. Mather, the father. But as to the reply of Mr. Mather, alleged to have been sent to me, I cannot say whether it is authentic or not; for, up to this time, no such letter has reached me, either at the Foreign Office, or at my own house. Your Lordships will see that it is not desirable that I should say more on this subject at the present moment; except that as the case is now concluded, I am ready to lay all the correspondence regarding it on the table of the House; and it will be then for your Lordships to judge whether Her Majesty's Ministers have acted in this business as became them.
EARL FITZWILLIAM: There appears to be some discrepancy between the letter of Mr. Addington, as it appears in the Times, and the explanation given by the noble Earl—no doubt unintentional. As I understood the noble Earl yesterday, he said that the compensation given to Mr. Mather, the son, was equal to the remuneration which he would have obtained for such an outrage in an English court of justice. That, I think, was the purport of the noble Earl's statement. Now, the letter of Mr. Addington, to which reference has been made, does not bear out the view which the noble Earl has taken of the matter. I think that the noble Earl will have no difficulty in explaining the difference. As the letter of Mr. Addington is now admitted to be an authentic document, I will read a paragraph in that letter bearing on this point:—
"Although Her Majesty's Government do not consider that this sum is equivalent to the injury which Mr. Mather suffered, or to that which an English Court would have awarded him as damages for his sufferings, and although it is less than Mr. Scarlett was instructed to demand, Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that Mr. Scarlett acted to the best of his judgment in thus concluding the controversy. There is no doubt that the anxiety he has gone through in consequence of this and other disputes with the Tuscan Government, has brought upon him a most dangerous illness."
Here is a little difference between the statement of the noble Earl and the statement in this letter; but I doubt not that the noble Earl will be able to reconcile it. In fact, the discrepancy is not great, though, at first sight, there does appear to be a discrepancy.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: My Lords, I am not surprised at the view which the noble Earl has taken of this subject, for he has clearly misunderstood what I stated last night. I said that Mr.

1265
Scarlett, acting to the best of his discretion and judgment, had agreed to receive, on behalf of Mr. Mather, the amount of compensation offered—a sum equivalent to that which he conceived that Mr. Mather would receive for a similar injury from an English court of justice. I do not—I avow it on the part of Her Majesty's Government—think that sum was sufficient; but Mr. Scarlett thought otherwise, probably taking into account the difference in the value of the money there and in this country; for 240 l. in Tuscany is a larger sum than 240 l. in England. He, no doubt, acted from the best of his judgment, and took what he thought would be the damages awarded by a jury for a like injury in England. It is also fair to say that Mr. Scarlett at the same time obtained another boon from the Tuscan Government, which he thought he ought not to throw away his opportunity of obtaining. The Government of the Grand Duke stated to him, that if he and Mr. Mather were satisfied to receive the sum offered, which, I must say, is smaller than that which I instructed him to demand or to receive, the Government of the Grand Duke would consent to set at liberty two English gentlemen, who were then, and had been for some time, in prison in Florence for political offences. Mr. Scarlett, therefore, acting on his own judgment—perhaps not logically, but, at the same time, I cannot say unwisely—accepted that offer at once, and had these gentlemen conveyed on board one of Her Majesty's ships. I think it right, being at this distance from Mr. Scarlett, to say, I am informed he was dangerously ill, and at one time on the point of death, so that he was unable to do more than write a mere statement of the facts. I think it but right and fair to say that there is good ground for believing that, though Her Majesty's Government considered the amount of compensation awarded was not equivalent to the injury inflicted, nor exactly conformable to the instructions he had received, Mr. Scarlett had yet acted to the best of his ability in the matter, and made the best arrangement he could under the circumstances.
LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I wish to know whether the noble Earl has received information whether Mr. Mather, the father, thought the pecuniary compensation which the noble Earl demanded for the injury inflicted on Mr. Mather, the son, satisfactory, or whether they considered
1266
that such kind of compensation would be adequate, even though the amount proposed were much larger? An injury has been inflicted on Mr. Mather, the son, and an insult on his country, for which we are entitled to receive reparation. The conduct of the Tuscan Government with respect to the other gentlemen, can in no manner affect the case of Mr. Mather, upon whom a gross insult and grievous injury has been inflicted. Mr. Mather was entitled to demand redress, which redress had been most inadequately afforded.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: When I lay the papers on the table of the House, the noble Lord will find all that I have done both in the case of Mr. Mather and in that of the Messrs. Stratford.
LORD CAMPBELL: Being nearly connected with Mr. Scarlett, I may be excused for stating that I am confident he will be able to show that on this occasion, as on every occasion since he has been the representative of the English Government at Florence, he has conducted himself not only with honour, but with prudence and skill. Although only Secretary of Legation, it has happened that for the last seven years he has been the English Minister at the Court of Florence, and engaged in transactions of the most arduous description; and has acquitted himself, I am enabled to say, to the entire satisfaction of three successive Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs. Lord Palmerston, again and again, has intimated his high satisfaction at the manner in which Mr. Scarlett has discharged his duty. My noble Friend who succeeded Lord Palmerston (Earl Granville) has reiterated that praise; and since the noble Earl opposite has been in office, he has repeated his satisfaction at the manner in which Mr. Scarlett has performed his duty. I have no doubt that on this occasion Mr. Scarlett will be found to have entitled himself to the thanks of his country.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: Mr. Scarlett, since I have been in office, has shown the greatest zeal and activity in discharging his duty at Florence—a very difficult one to perform. When I say he has in this case deviated from his instructions, and acted upon his own judgment, I am not prepared to say that, on further investigation, he will not be found to have done the best.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: Having appointed Mr. Scarlett to the situation which he holds, and having had some ex-

1267
perience of his capacity, I most readily bear testimony to the accuracy of the statement of the noble Earl respecting him.

SANITARY CONFERENCE—LAW OF QUARANTINE.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSrose, in pursuance of his notice, to move an Address, praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to order that there he laid on the table of the House translated copies or translated extracts of the Minutes of the Proceedings of the International Sanitary Conference, held at Paris, 1851–52. The question, in reference to which he moved for this information, was of such importance that he should make no apology for calling to it the attention of their Lordships, and he was only sorry that the noble Earl the Chief Commissioner of the Board of Health (the Earl of Shaftesbury), had not himself undertaken the task of bringing it before their Lordships. Without going into any historical disquisition on the subject of the quarantine laws, he might observe that Venice was the first State which instituted them about the end of the thirteenth century, and that her example was followed shortly afterwards by other States bordering on the Mediterranean: it was not, however, till the year 1720 that any regulations for establishing quarantine were introduced into this country. The existing regulations were embodied in the 6 Geo. IV., c. 78, and in various orders of the Privy Council, subsequently issued under the authority of that statute. The quarantine laws were based upon two principles, the truth of which remained undisputed till very recently. The first principle was, that the epidemic diseases which at various times had desolated the world were communicable by contact with persons affected, or by contact with things touched by persons affected. On this first principle he believed that a great modification of opinion had of late years taken place, and that the majority of medical and scientific men were now convinced that these contagious diseases, as they were called, were not communicable by contact, but were produced by local and atmospheric causes, and that these diseases could only be prevented from spreading by sanitary measures, and not by quarantine regulations. The other principle was, that the spread of those epidemics could be prevented by the prevention of the contact to which he had alluded, and that was the
1268
question for Parliament to consider. That was a principle on which much light had been thrown by the information contained in the different Reports of the Board of Health, and it was to that information he was anxious to call the consideration of the House. Heretofore all the information on the subject of quarantine had been derived from interested sources, namely, the officers of the different quarantine establishments. He imputed no dishonesty to those officers, nor any wilful desire to pervert facts; but human nature was such that personal interest would bias men's minds, and lead honest men to see facts through a distorted medium. We now had an impartial and disinterested tribunal in the Board of Health; that tribunal devoted much labour and anxious attention to the subject, and had come to the conclusion that it was to sanitary measures alone that we ought to look for the prevention of epidemic disorders. It was impossible to read the reports without being struck with the array of facts and evidence in favour of the conclusion at which they had arrived, and with the numerous and weighty authorities brought forward in corroboration of it. He did not intend to fatigue their Lordships with any quotations from those reports, but he must advert to two important facts recorded in them. The first was, the unanimous judgment of the Academy of Medicine in Paris, as to the fallacy of the opinions regarding the contagious nature of those epidemics, and as to the impossibility of preventing them except by the adoption of sanitary measures. The second was, that the College of Physicians at New Orleans had decisively established the good effects of such measures, for they showed that a century ago the yellow fever extended to twelve degrees of latitude further north than it did at present, and that its retrogression was to be attributed to sanitary measures and atmospheric changes. The first of these two reports of the Board of Health related to cholera, and was made in 1849, and the latter to the yellow fever, and was made in the present year. The first of these reports had attracted more attention in foreign countries than it had in our own. It had been translated into several foreign languages, and had been extensively circulated on the Continent. Subsequently to this publication, the eyes of the French Government were opened to the uselessness of many of the precautions they had theretofore enforced, and they had modi-

1269
fied the quarantine laws as to France, and had abolished them so far as regarded the communications between France and Algeria. The French Government thought that it would be a desirable thing that foreign countries interested in the question should assemble by delegates at Paris, and should endeavour to modify upon system their quarantine restrictions. In the month of July last a conference took place at Paris, which was attended by delegates—scientific and medical men—appointed by twelve different States. Those twelve States were Austria, the Two Sicilies, Spain, Rome, France, England, Greece, Portugal, Russia, Sardinia, Tuscany, and Turkey. He believed that that conference unanimously recommended a considerable modification in the quarantine system; but he had reason to believe that nearly all, if not all, of those States, were prepared to carry their recommendations still further than they had done, if public opinion were ripe for the change. They recommended certain propositions to public attention, and, with the object of giving them greater notoriety, he now asked their Lordships to grant him the additional information referred to in his Motion. He must also ask his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any step had been taken by our Government to give effect to the recommendations of this Conference? Those recommendations were a great step taken in advance; and, as he thought that it would be the duty of Parliament to take this question into its consideration within a short time, all the information calculated to enlighten the mind of the public or of Parliament upon it ought to be instantly produced. Whatever might be the opinion of different individuals upon the question, no one could doubt that the intensity of these contagious diseases was greatly aggravated by bad air and vitiated atmosphere; and, on the contrary, was much mitigated by good air and healthy atmosphere. Now, by the present system of quarantine, you confined within a limited space diseased or suspected persons, under circumstances which peculiarly disposed them to receive infection. This was the case in all countries, but more particularly in our own. In the Mediterranean there were lazarettoes, with comparatively airy and commodious buildings in which some classification of persons might be obtained, and there was accommodation within their walls where cargoes could be stored.
1270
In England, however, there were no lazarettoes—no buildings for the accommodation of persons or goods coming from infected or suspected places. Vessels with their crews and cargoes were ordered to pass their quarantine in certain stations, where they were moored at a distance of several miles from the shore. By confining the parties within the confined space of a ship, they only led to the aggravation of the evil which they sought to check. Take, for instance, the case of that unfortunate vessel, the Eclair—he was sure that her sad story must still be fresh in the memory of their Lordships. The Eclair, a steam sloop of war, arrived at Portsmouth from the coast of Africa, having lost on the station and on her passage home half her crew, including her gallant commander, Captain Estcourt. She reached Portsmouth, however, and the principal medical officer at that port, Sir John Richardson, was eager to have the crew landed at once, and carried to an airy and well-ventilated ward of Haslar Hospital. His advice was unfortunately overruled, and the vessel was ordered to perform quarantine in the usual manner. The superintendent of quarantine would not allow her even to lie at the Motherbank, for fear of her doing injury to the ships in the neighbourhood, but insisted on her going with a pilot to Stangate Creek, which was said to be the most unhealthy station on the whole coast of Kent, and a pilot was sent to take her round. She was there kept ten days in quarantine. Several deaths took place in that interval, and among them that of the unfortunate pilot. At last, the Admiralty, on hearing of the mortality, interposed, and stated that if the vessel remained longer in quarantine there were no means or chance of saving the survivors of the crew. In consequence of the representations thus made to the Privy Council, the crew were landed; two of them subsequently died; but he had not heard that any contagion spread into the locality where they came on shore. Now, if that unfortunate ship had been a merchant vessel instead of a ship of war, she would not have been allowed to remove from quarantine, and, in all probability, her crew would have all died. Let this be contrasted with the case of the Arethusa. She arrived at Plymouth two months ago with the smallpox on board. Now, there were doubts as to the contagious nature of the yellow fever, but there were none as to the contagious nature of smallpox. The crew

1271
were, nevertheless, instantly landed and placed in hospital at Plymouth, but he had not heard that any contagion had spread into the neighbourhood. The interests of humanity were the first, but they were not the only consideration in this case. He would ask their Lordships to consider how the interests of commerce were affected by this question. He was informed that if a vessel were kept performing quarantine for twenty or thirty days, the loss caused by such detention would be equal to the whole expenses of the voyage. The depreciation in the value of cotton goods would be 15 per cent, while, if the cargo consisted of perishable goods, fruit, and the like, it was frequently totally lost. But were the quarantine regulations enforced? The fact was, the want of accommodation was such, that it appeared, from the evidence of the parties concerned, that at English quarantine stations, the cotton goods, which were supposed to be peculiarly capable of conveying the seeds of contagion, were very partially opened to the air, and that in the Irish stations they were not opened at all. Such was the case with regard to goods; nor were the regulations more effectually enforced with regard to persons. It was perfectly well known that to avoid the risk of undergoing quarantine, false returns were frequently made by the captains of vessels, and cases of death which had occurred during the voyage were attributed to causes very different from the real ones. He contended, therefore, that the quarantine regulations were both oppressive and inoperative; that they were extremely injurious to the interests of the community and of commerce; and were at the same time perfectly inefficacious. He could not read the reports to which he had already alluded without being struck by the facts and arguments which they contained. He thought that this subject should engage the attention of Her Majesty's Government and of Parliament at a very early period; and that it was, therefore, important that all the information bearing on it should be laid before their Lordships and the public, in order that they might be able to form a correct judgment upon the evil with which they had to deal. He would conclude by putting a question to his noble Friend the First Commissioner of the Board of Health. The first report which that Board made was on the cholera; the second on yellow fever; their third report was, he understood, to be on the plague. Might he ask
1272
his noble Friend when it would be ready for presentation?
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the Report to which his noble Friend had referred was in preparation, and would, he hoped, soon be ready for presentation. He rejoiced exceedingly that his noble Friend had taken up this question, and assured him that he would be amply rewarded for his exertions by the public benefits which would accrue from them. It was quite surprising to see the amount of prejudice which had been overcome by this Conference, the harmony with which the representatives of the various countries had met and discussed this difficult question, and the unanimity which they had displayed with respect to the evils of the present system, and the remedies which should be applied to it. It was most gratifying to peruse the conclusion to which they had unanimously arrived. He thought that we were very much indebted to the French Government for taking the initiative in this matter. The conference was proposed by them; they offered a place for its meeting; and it was to their energy and enterprise that we were indebted for its having been carried through. They had not indeed, attained all that was desirable, but a great deal had been done to remove the intolerable shackles which the quarantine system imposed upon commerce and social intercourse along the shores of the Mediterranean. There was a very great anxiety in this country as to the result of this conference. Was this surprising? For none but those who had practical experience on the subject, particularly commercial men, knew what a burden upon commerce these restrictions were, and what tremendous losses they entailed upon persons trading to the Mediterranean. The French Government had shown that the amount of loss entailed upon the Mediterranean trade by the quarantine established against the plague alone, at a time when there was no plague raging in any country upon or near the Mediterranean, was 100,000,000 of francs per annum. The practical inconvenience which it occasioned to travellers and merchants could only be known to those who had experienced them. He would now state to their Lordships the propositions in which the conference had resulted, and which only waited for confirmation, having already received the signatures of the greatest part of the deputies. They proposed, first, that there should be an equalisation of quarantine in every coun-

1273
try, and in every port. This was a point of great importance, for at present the periods of quarantine in different countries and ports varied from three to forty days. They also proposed the reduction of the period of quarantine; the total abolition of suspected hills of health; the issuing of foul bills of health by competent and responsible authority only; the immediate admission of clean bills of health to free pratique in every port; the restriction of quarantine to three diseases only; the total abolition of the former distinction (a distinction that filled volumes) between susceptible and non-susceptible articles; and the reduction of articles to three classes. For "yellow fever" three to seven days, if no cases have occurred on board during the passage; but if cases have occurred, the quarantine is to be from seven to fifteen days. For cholera, the period is to be five days, including the voyage. It is of importance to observe that these proposed quarantines are only operative when diseases actually exist in the countries from which the vessels have sailed. Five-tenths of the quarantines are thus virtually swept away at one blow, while the periods under foul bills, as now proposed, are, on an average, very much shorter. The House would thus see from what great burdens and restrictions commerce and social intercourse would be relieved. He was very happy to say that the conference took as its guide in these matters the principles laid down in reports of the Board of Health—that effective preventive measures were not to be sought for in a cordon sanitaire, or in the suspension of commercial or even of personal intercourse, but that the only-means of prevention which would be found to be effectual were the adoption of proper care with respect to the sanitary condition of seaports, to the ventilation of ships, and to the medical treatment and sanitary care of the crews. They advised that such measures should be carefully instituted by all countries which had ports on the Mediterranean, or had trading operations with such ports. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) believed that these recommendations were founded upon sound principles, and that we should by their adoption more effectually put down these various disorders, or prevent their extension, than by any known system of a forty days' quarantine, a cordon sanitaire, or any similar measures which were now in operation. He would suggest to his noble Friend to move for a Minute of the Board of Health in Febru-
1274
ary, 1852, on the Sanitary Conference, in conjunction with the other papers to which he had referred. He trusted that the Government would accede to the production of these papers, which would, he believed, throw much light on this subject, which was so interesting in a commercial and a social point of view.
The EARL of MALMESBURYdid not think that either of the noble Lords who had addressed the House had sufficiently impressed their Lordships with the great difficulties which stood in the way of any Government arranging with all the States of Europe a measure for amending the laws of quarantine, although he admitted the great necessity which existed for such a measure. Unless, however, such a measure met with the general consent of all the States, it would fall short in effecting any real improvement. With respect to the Motion of the noble Earl, he could only say that Her Majesty's Government had no objection to give the papers asked for; but he must remind the noble Earl that at this very moment the important object which the noble Earl wished to accomplish, namely, the amendment of the laws of quarantine, was proceeding so far favourably that a convention had been commenced between France and this country, and some other Powers of Europe, although the precise terms had not yet been agreed upon. It was unusual to present to Parliament papers relating to a convention of this nature until it had assumed a more solid appearance; but that was no reason why the noble Earl should be refused the information he desired. He thought, however, his noble Friend who had spoken last, had perhaps taken a more sanguine view of the result of this proceeding than would follow from its consummation. The noble Earl, in speaking of the losses suffered by French commerce in consequence of these regulations, had stated them to be 100,000,000 francs annually; but he (the Earl of Malmesbury) believed the gentleman who made the computation spread the loss over a certain number of years, and did not confine it to a single year. There were many difficulties in the way of bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. There was, he feared, a strong prejudice existing among the Italian States against improvement in this matter; and he (the Earl of Malmesbury) thought very great difficulty would be experienced in bringing those States into the convention. Owing to difficulties of a technical

1275
character, he was afraid that not so many Powers as could be desired, would be found to sign the convention. He had no doubt that it would eventually be agreed upon as between England and France; but their Lordships would deceive themselves if, taking the liberal view which was peculiar to that inhabitants of that country, they entertained hopes that the same feeling would be manifested by other countries. He left it entirely to the discretion of his noble Friend to say whether he would have these papers or not. He was quite willing to give them; but, of course, he was not prepared to submit the convention as now drawn up.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSwould not press for papers which it would be in-judicious to produce, and readily left it to his noble Friend to supply any that he could give with propriety.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, if the noble Earl would leave it to him, he would give such extracts as he thought, under the circumstances, should now be submitted.
Motion, with the addition of the Minute suggested by the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, agreed to.

THE LATE BARONESS VON BECK.
LORD BEAUMONTpresented a petition from Constant Derra de Meroda, of No. 21, Ryder's Court, Leicester Square, in the County of Middlesex, Gentleman, complaining of the Conduct of James James, Esquire, One of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the Borough of Birmingham, in having unjustly granted a Warrant for the Arrest of the Baroness Von Beck and himself in August last, and of Messrs. Lucy, Mayor, H. Smith, Martineau, and Welch, Justices, before whom the Petitioner appeared, in having allowed the Papers of the Baroness to be handed over to Mr. Toulmin Smith, her Prosecutor, by which Means Inquiries towards the Establishment of her Character have been partially frustrated, and praying for Inquiry into the Circumstances of his Case, with a view to granting him Redress, and preventing such harsh Exercise of Magisterial Authority for the future. The noble Lord said the circumstances under which the petition was offered justified him in calling their Lordships' attention to it, as they involved an important question with regard to the manner of administering justice in this country. The petitioner was a native of Pesth, and came to this country
1276
in April, 1851. A short time after he arrived, he became acquainted with a lady who bore the title of the Baroness von Beck, and who, under that name, had become known in this country as the author of a History of the War in Hungary. That work was very successful, and the publisher had prevailed upon her to undertake another work. She was occupied in that work, which was to have been entitled Personal Adventures during the Recent War in Hungary; and she engaged the petitioner, who was of a good family in Hungary, though in needy circumstances, as her secretary. The publisher, Mr. Gilpin, drew up a prospectus of the work, and gave the petitioner and Baroness von Beck letters to his friends in Birmingham and other places. The prospectus set forth the true character of the book, and promised nothing but what was certainly the intention of the writer to fulfil. It was also understood that the authoress and her secretary were to make a tour and procure subscribers to the work. They arrived at Birmingham and presented the letters. Amongst the rest was one to a gentleman of the name of Tindal. The Baroness and her secretary at first lodged at the Clarendon Hotel; but after a short time the lady became very ill, and her medical adviser recommended that she should have a change of air. Mr. Tindal invited her to his country house in the neighbourhood, and she accepted the invitation. She was residing there; and on the 29th August, while she was one of a party in the drawing-room of Mr. Tindal, she was called out of the room and apprehended by a police officer, and her secretary was called out and apprehended also on the charge of obtaining 1l. 4s. (the amount of the subscription of the forthcoming work) on false pretences from one Mr. George Dawson. They were apprehended on a warrant, but it was not produced or read to them; nor if it had been, could they have understood it. They were taken to the police station and locked up in separate cells all night, the lady being all that time in the evening dress which she was wearing at the time of her apprehension. In the morning the lady, who had suffered much from weak health, and from excitement, was taken dangerously ill, but the police officer dragged her upstairs in order to bring her before the magistrate. She was obliged to be assisted on her way to the court-house, and when she arrived in the antechamber she suddenly expired. The remaining prisoner

1277
was then taken before the magistrate. Mr. Toulmin Smith appeared for the prosecution, and he complained that these parties had got money under false pretences; that the lady styling herself the Baroness von Beck was not the Baroness von Beck, but that she was a spy employed by the Hungarian, or rather the Austrian, Government at the time of the Hungarian war, and that she had obtained money as the Baroness von Beck from Mr. George Dawson. The magistrates, having heard the case, discharged the prisoner; but it seemed that application was made for the papers of this woman, and that they were first impounded, and afterwards handed over to the prosecutor, and he believed were still in his hands. Since then a careful investigation had been gone into with regard to this lady; and he (Lord Beaumont) had now in his possession the depositions of twenty or thirty persons con-connected with Hungary, from which it seemed that this woman was really what she represented herself to be, and that although she might not be entitled to the honorary dignity of Baroness von Beck, she had been known under that name (and no doubt also under that of Racedula) in various places during the war in that country, and that she was, as she represented herself, acquainted with Kossuth and others. That, however, was not a point on which he wished to dwell. It mattered little whether her real name was Baroness von Beck or Racedula; she was known as both, and had published under the former. It might be an assumed name as "Boz," or "Little." It was her name as an authoress. He wished to call their Lordships' attention to the point whether the magistrate was justified in issuing a warrant for her apprehension. Now this, at most, was only a case of misdemeanour, and he believed that in such cases it was the invariable practice to issue a summons instead of a warrant, except in cases where there was any fear that the person would go away and evade justice. Now there could be no fear that these persons would abscond, for they were actually staying at the house of Mr. Tindal; and this said Mr. Tindal (with shame be it remembered) was privy and a party to the proceeding against them. He thought, therefore, that, if anything was required, Mr. James, the magistrate in question, should have issued a summons, and not a warrant. But he contended that there was no ground for any criminal proceedings whatever. The
1278
warrant stated that Wilhemina von Beck and Constant Derra de Meroda had obtained the sum of 24 s., the money of George Dawson, under false pretences, and with intent to defraud him. He (Lord Beaumont) contended that there was no false pretence in the case. This lady had undoubtedly published a book, and, as the prospectus stated, was about to publish another, to be entitled Personal Adventures during the Recent War in Hungary, and, in due course, Mr. Dawson would have received the book in return for his money. There was therefore no false pretence. Well, this was the history of the case; and what was the defence set up on the other side? Why, that, in the former book, written by the Baroness von Beck, there was something against the character of M. Pulszky. But was that a sufficient reason? If M. Pulszky was libelled, he could have proceeded by action or criminal information. The whole affair, from first to last, appeared to him to be so monstrous that he scarcely knew whether to condemn most the friends of M. Pulszky, who gave their authority to commence proceedings; or Mr. Toulmin Smith, for the manner in which he fulfilled the duty imposed on him; or the magistrate, Mr. James, who issued the warrant; or the police officer who executed it in the barbarous way which he had related. He thought the whole of the parties were to blame, and he hoped some means might be taken to let them know they were to blame. He should wish himself that something in the nature of a little further investigation should take place; but he did not at the present moment propose it, because there was an action against the parties for false imprisonment, and he hoped that would do justice to the case. His reason for bringing it before their Lordships was this, that if provincial magistrates were so ignorant of their duty, it was high time measures should be taken to restrain them. It was most dangerous that large discretionary powers should remain in the hands of men so ill qualified to exercise them. And if the course which had been pursued in this instance was usual, it was imperative on the Legislature to interpose, and, by Act of Parliament, limit and define the powers of magistrates in issuing warrants. The petitioner had taken legal proceedings against the parties, which were now pending; and into his case he (Lord Beaumont) did not propose further to enter than by stating that the petitioner set

1279
forth the proceedings at full length: the information on oath; the warrant; the depositions taken on the hearing; and the decision of the justices. The petition concluded by representing that the proceedings had been harsh, cruel, and unjustifiable by law, and prayed that an inquiry might be made into the circumstances, and into the conduct of the justices, especially as to their right to hand over the papers of the deceased lady to the prosecutors, after she was dead, and the petitioner had been acquitted. The letters and other documents thus given up to the prosecutor were not forthcoming. They were probably destroyed, and thus all evidence, which would have established her character, was suppressed. The petition particularly prayed that precautions might be taken to prevent other unprotected foreigners from being exposed to similar arbitrary arrests; and against the discretionary issue of warrants, or, at all events, against their being executed in such a manner as in the present instance—at the dead of night—even in the case of a lady in ill health, and deprived of all power of defending herself from the accusations brought against her, for the purpose of gratifying the malice of her enemies by obtaining her temporary arrest.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYsaid, the matter had been brought before him some weeks ago, and then, as now, he thought it a very lame story. The noble Baron had not stated the depositions on which the warrant had been issued, and on which everything depended so far as the magistrate was concerned, who might have acted quite properly, perceiving that the party making the information on oath had sworn positively to the charge of false pretences—in which supposition the proceeding, at least on the part of the magistrate, would have been regular and proper. He could not say how far this was or was not so; but as the matter at present stood, their Lordships hardly had materials for pronouncing any censure upon the magistrate, whatever might be the case as to other parties, and as to them an action was now pending; so that he submitted it would be improper for their Lordships to enter into the inquiry until the action was decided, the result of which would, he doubted not, be to show that in any case in which a wrong had been perpetrated, the law of this country was adequate to give ample reparation to the injured party.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, he
1280
really was astonished to hear the language of the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal, who called this "a lame story." A lame story! Why, he had never heard one more completely established, or more painful in its character. It was hardly credible that such a case should have occurred in this country. On a late occasion a noble Lord had observed of some case that it was only in Madagascar it could be conceived to have occurred; but the case before their Lordships seemed of such a character as could scarcely be credited of any country, however cruel or uncivilised. What were the facts so far as they were undenied, and related not to the petitioner, but to the deceased lady? That a female, a foreigner, in bad health, was arrested in a barbarous manner at night, and dragged to a prison on a charge of obtaining money under false pretences—a charge which turned out to be totally false, for the magistrates entirely acquitted her companion of the same charge. What false pretences could there have been? The lady had represented that she proposed to write a work. Well, she had written one already, and was no doubt about to write another, and the money was received as subscriptions for it, and the subscribers would have received the book when published—what false pretence was there in this representation? How could any person who had subscribed his money upon this representation, pretend that he had been defrauded of it under false pretences? As to the lady's title of baroness—if their Lordships were to decide whether all the barons or baronesses were entitled to bear such rank, many persons might have to relinquish them. But really this had nothing whatever to do with the question. Here was a poor lady in ill health, dragged out of the house at the dead of night, on such a false accusation as this, locked up in a prison all night, and then dragged before a police court—until, under excitement, she sank down dead! Surely no person of any human feeling could hear these plain facts without sensations of horror. It was shocking to see that such things as these could happen in a country such as this—which boasted its equal justice and its fair laws. And then, when the person who had gone down to prosecute this poor helpless woman—the real reason being some offence given to certain of her countrymen in her former publication—when this lawyer who prosecuted made the demand, the magistrates—while

1281
her corpse was lying before them—made an order for delivery of the papers to the prosecutors—to obtain which was possibly the main motive of the prosecution. It was a very good thing that such a monstrous case should have been brought forward to be stigmatised as it deserved; and he hoped an inquiry would be instituted into the conduct of the magistrates who had acted or allowed others to act with such illegality and inhumanity.
The LORD CHANCELLORregretted that so mistaken a course should have been pursued in this case. If the facts were fairly stated by the noble Lord who had laid them before their Lordships, there could not be a doubt that, representation made, the noble and learned Lord who at that time filled his office, would have granted a supersedeas. Had the case been brought, as it ought to have been, before that tribunal, justice would have been done to this magistrate; he would have been heard in his defence, but he would also have been held to give a strict account of his conduct. It seemed too plain that those who interested themselves in seeing justice done, had lost time; during all the time that had elapsed since the events related, the proper tribunal had not been addressed. He had not himself been aware of the facts of the case until he heard them stated that night; no communication ever was made to him on the subject. This was to be lamented; for, in common with all who had heard of the case, he had been very much shocked at it. He could not conceive it was true, it was so shocking. The question was, how far the proceedings were culpable. He thought, however, that the noble Lord who had presented the petition, had hardly taken the most judicious course; for he had impeached all parties concerned—the counsel, the magistrate, the officers, the prosecutors, while an action was actually pending on the part of the petitioner. Their Lordships could not at present proceed with the inquiry prayed for. On the face of the matter, undoubtedly, there had been unjustifiable proceedings. Even if the poor lady had in some way acted improperly, it was impossible to vindicate the course which had been adopted. The practical question was, who was the party responsible and culpable? Probably, not the magistrate, who perhaps acted on information given on oath—some person swearing positively to the lady's guilt. Unquestionably a magistrate ought not to grant a
1282
warrant without great consideration, and the magistrate ought to take care not to be imposed upon; especially ought he to be cautious how he allowed a warrant to be executed at night, as in this instance, in which (though the magistrate might not be responsible for the manner of executing the warrant) the poor lady had been dragged from the very hearthstone of a friend. With regard to the conduct of Mr. T. Smith, which had been so strongly censured, there was nothing to show that the gentleman in question was a party to the harsh manner in which the warrant had been executed, or that he was aware that the lady against whom it was issued was in bad health. He could not say that the case was not one which should have been brought before their Lordships, who were bound to protect the lowest of their fellow-subjects from the undue exercise of magisterial authority; but the moment chosen to ask their Lordships' interposition was inopportune, as there was an action pending, and this very discussion might have an effect on the verdict of the jury, though he was sure the noble Baron would be the last man to wish this.
The EARL of CARLISLEconcurred in a feeling of satisfaction that the case should have been brought forward; and he could not avoid expressing his indignation that such a case should have occurred. The remark of the noble and learned Lord, that an action was pending, applied only to the petitioner, and not to the poor lady whose life had been sacrificed, and who was now beyond the reach of human violence and inhumanity. As a female, as a foreigner, as an invalid, and as a guest, she had been treated with brutality and injustice; and not only with brutality as a female, but with treachery as a guest. He could not help alluding to the conduct of the magistrate, in ordering to be delivered up to the prosecutors on a charge dismissed as untenable the papers of one of the parties accused, who was actually dead—the poor woman, one of the parties, having expired before the case was heard, so that against her, of course, no charge could have been substantiated; and the other—the petitioner—having been acquitted. He could not but say—without going further into the case—that (with respect to the retention of the papers particularly) the ordinary course of justice had been culpably departed from.
The DUKE of NORTHUMBERLANDsaid, he was sure all of their Lordships

1283
had felt shocked at the case; hut he submitted that the fact of a suit being pending should prevent its being at present inquired into or discussed.
The EARL of ELLESMEREsaid, he felt indebted to the noble Baron who had brought this case before their Lordships. He felt not only pity for the fate of the poor lady who had lost her life, but commiseration for the simplicity of the magistrates who had allowed themselves to be made dupes and instruments for the perversion and prostitution of our law to the purposes of private malice. That was the real history of this case. Suppose the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had allowed a British subject in Austria or Tuscany to be treated as this poor lady had been, he would have been served up, for the daily morning's amusement of newspaper readers; he would have been baited with questions, and vestry agitators would have lived upon him for a week. It seemed to be suggested that the poor victim might be hunted down with impunity, because, as it was said, she was not a Baroness Von Beck: she said she was. If every body who assumed a title that did not actually belong to him, was to be hunted down in the same way, the result would be extremely disagreeable to a vast number of persons. The gentleman, for example, who made so much excitement with his itinerant oratory as being Governor General of Hungary, would have thought it very hard, if somebody or other who did not like him had got some magistrate to lock him up in a solitary cell, on the proposition that he was not Governor General of Hungary. He would not enter further into the subject, in deference to the appeal of his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, not with much respect for the opinion of the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal, who really seemed to think there was nothing irregular in the case.
LORD BEAUMONTbegged to say, with reference to the observations of the noble Marquess, that all the depositions were incorporated into the petition, and all the proceedings before the magistrates at the hearing of the case when they dismissed the charge, so that their Lordships had all the materials necessary to form a fair judgment on the case. The matter, indeed, had been decided by the magistrates, who had acquitted and discharged the petitioner. As respected the petitioner, he did not desire their Lordships at present to interpose, an action being pending; but as to the
1284
poor lady who was dead, and had been so ill treated, what remedy could be had at law? If, as the Lord Privy Seal seemed to think, all this was only the regular course of law, the sooner such law was altered the better for the country and its character.
LORD CAMPBELLprotested against this proceeding being drawn into a precedent. As far as the petitioner was concerned, it was acknowledged by the noble Lord (Lord Beaumont), that as an action had been brought, it would be improper for him to appear for that person, but he appeared for the shade of the departed woman. If all that had been stated was true, the magistrates were amenable to a criminal information, and liable to be dismissed; but even if a criminal information were granted against them, they would have been heard in their defence.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYexplained that he did not dispute that the case deserved inquiry; but only that at present it was impossible to pronounce upon the conduct of the magistrate.
The MARQUESS of CLANEICARDEsaid, he thought the House and the country were indebted to his noble Friend for bringing this matter forward; and he sincerely hoped that no such case of hardship would ever occur in this country, either to a British subject or to a foreigner, that would not be brought forward in some quarter or other; and, if proper redress could not be had out of that House, that some noble Lord in it would bring the subject under the consideration of their Lordships. It was fallacious to say that there was a legal remedy available to the parties, for an action could not afford reparation to the poor lady; and as to a criminal information, who was to run the risk of setting the law in motion? The very fact, however, that the Lord Chief Justice had pointed out that course of a criminal information, proved how serious the case was. What provision had been made to prevent a recurrence of such cases? The matter took place in August last, and since that time it did not appear that the authorities had acted. Was the case to be passed over without any attempt to apply a remedy, or to afford redress? Surely the magistrates must have seen it was only a case for a summons. And though the magistrates might not be responsible for the manner of executing the warrant, they were responsible for the character of the officers whom they retained in their employment to exe-

1285
cute these warrants. In such cases it was often not practicable to set in motion the processes of the law for the purpose of obtaining redress; and their Lordships should institute an inquiry, as the authorities had not thought proper to take the matter up at all.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, it was remarkable that two noble Lords should have expressed their opinion, in the strongest and most unreserved terms, that a gross act of hardship and oppression should have been perpetrated, and yet those two noble Lords were themselves Cabinet Ministers, and responsible for the business of the country for a period of several months after the events in question took place. It might suit them now to make very indignant and eloquent speeches with respect to the great injustice that had been suffered; but for months after this unhappy case occurred, those who were responsible for omission and neglect in reference to it were not his noble Friends near him, or the noble and learned Lord now on the woolsack, but the noble Lords opposite and their Friends. He was convinced that if the late Secretary of State for the Home Department had thought this a proper case for interference, the right hon. Gentleman's well-known humanity and respect for the laws would have led him to interpose; but whilst the case was pending in a court of justice, it was extraordinary that two noble Lords who had lately been Cabinet Ministers should get up and complain that it had been neglected, and that it was the fault of the superior authorities that such oppression should be permitted.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEdenied entirely that he had treated this as a party matter. If he were in office now, there was not one word he had uttered which he should not be prepared to repeat and adhere to. He made no accusation against any one; all he had said was that his noble Friend was justified in bringing this case before them. He adhered to his opinion that if such an occurrence had actually taken place, that House was the proper place in which to bring forward the complaint; and he hoped that the matter would be inquired into at the proper time.
The EARL of CARLISLEsaid, he must also offer a word in explanation. Not one single syllable had fallen from him imputing blame to any authority among the
1286
noble Lords opposite, nor indeed to any authority whatever. The blame he had alleged was confined to the conduct of the parties who took part in the transaction at Birmingham, of whom he believed that the magistrate was probably the least in fault. The case was only brought before his (the Earl of Carlisle's) notice within the last few weeks, and by a gentleman with whom he bad not the honour to be acquainted, but who dated from the Conservative Club.
LORD TRUROsaid, that he had the honour to hold the Great Seal at the time when this occurrence was stated to have taken place; but among the many matters which then engaged his attention, he had not much opportunity for reading the newspapers, and therefore he was not aware that this case had happened. If, however, it had been regularly brought under his notice, he should certainly have deserved the heavy censure of their Lordships if he had not immediately given it his serious consideration, and brought it before the attention of the Government. But it was not in the power of the Lord Chancellor, or of the Secretary of State, or, indeed, of the Minister who presided over any other department, to watch the reports in the newspapers—their duty was, whenever a matter was officially brought before them, to give it the best consideration it demanded. In this particular instance he had not yet heard any grounds for believing that the magistrate was open to the very severe censures that had been passed upon him; but he supposed the jury would hear of them when counsel stated the case in a court of law, and no doubt every sentence that had been pronounced in their Lordships' House would be found to add to the damages. He (Lord Truro) thought it singular that the petitioner, if he really wished to bring the transaction into notice, and to have the treatment which this unfortunate lady had received stamped with public reprobation, did not take steps to place the matter before the Home Secretary; if that had been done, no petition, like the present, would have been necessary. He (Lord Truro) could see nothing in this case that warranted the conclusion that the magistrate had not proper grounds for acting as he did; nor, on the other hand, could he see any evidence to show that Mr. Toulmin Smith was at all aware of the position in which the lady stood when the warrant was issued. With regard to the manner in which the warrant

1287
was executed, the officer was clearly responsible; but there was no certain knowledge before the House that any responsible party was cognisant of her state of health, or any other circumstance; and unless the matter was brought before the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary, it was not to be expected, nor would it be convenient, that they should volunteer to interfere. If the allegations against the magistrates had been proved, he should concur in their condemnation, but he objected to their being condemned before the proofs were stated. If, however, the petitioner had sought for redress in the proper quarter, and by the proper means, and had failed in obtaining it, he hoped that that House would be always open to receive applications for justice; but he trusted they would never open a door to any ex parte complaints against public authorities.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, he had a letter which explained why this case had not been brought before the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary. The occurrence took place on the last day in August, and very soon after the proceedings were first taken in the action that had been referred to, because early in November a summons was issued from the Court of Queen's Bench at the instance of the plaintiff. An application was afterwards made by the defendant to remove the venue to Warwickshire, and the action then stood for the spring assizes. Circumstances interposed to prevent the suit proceeding at that time, and it was again postponed to the Warwickshire Summer Assizes.
The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, that the most serious complaint against the magistrates was, that they had delivered up the papers of the unfortunate lady to the prosecutor, although no case had been made out against her; and it was extraordinary that Mr. Toulmin Smith should still have them in his possession.
LORD TRUROsaid, it was possible that the papers comprised a list of the subscriptions that had been obtained by these parties, and the prosecutor desired that they might be impounded, to have them produced before the grand jury.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that the papers were seized, and not impounded, and were handed over to the prosecutor. That was the information he had received. After this conversation, he would take the
1288
liberty of asking the noble Earl opposite whether it was his intention to recommend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make an inquiry into this case, with the view of ascertaining the grounds upon which the magistrate issued the warrant, how the warrant was executed, and what were the subsequent proceedings?
The EARL of DERBYreplied, that it was not his intention to interfere in any way; but he had no doubt that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if the case were properly brought before him, would take any steps that he ought to take in the discharge of his public duty.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that if the noble Earl, after what he had heard that night, did not intend to speak to the Home Secretary on the subject, he would now give notice that he meant to bring forward a specific Motion for inquiry in that House.
Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF EQUITY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"
LORD TRUROsaid, that this Session of Parliament was expected to be shorter than usual; but it would be more remarkable in the history of England in reference to the amendment of the law than almost any other Session. They had had a full inquiry made into the administration of the Common Law, such as had not taken place since the time of Edward III. The most deliberate examination had been made into matters affecting the administration of justice in every department, by the most competent persons; and measures had been prepared to carry into effect their recommendations. Parliament had therefore done the utmost that the public could expect of it. It was impossible that such measures could be framed in a perfect manner in the first instance, but every thing that was possible had been done in deliberately examining into matters affecting the administration of justice in every department. With respect to the present Bill, which had reference to the Court of Chancery, he hoped it would become law in the present Session. The Chancery Commission had been appointed in the latter part of 1850. They inquired and deliberated twelve months, and prepared a most ela-

1289
borate Report, which he would recommend those who objected to any part of the present Bill to read. He (Lord Truro) had come into office in July last, and had entered into communications with them as to the amendment of the proceedings in the Court of Chancery. On the 27th January last the Commission presented a most elaborate and learned Report, and on the 27th February he (Lord Truro) retired from office, so that the Report had only been in his hands for one month previous to his retirement, and Bills were then being prepared to carry the Report into effect. His noble and learned Friend had received the seals in February, and had laid this Bill upon the table during the present Parliament, which was much more than could have been expected from him. The Bill had also been approved of by a Select Committee. The progress of these measures had been most expeditious: it had marked an earnest desire to meet the wishes of the country on the subject, and he trusted they would pass into law during the present Session.
LORD CRANWORTHconcurred in believing that the Bill now before their Lordships would on the whole contribute most materially indeed to the improvement of the administration of justice. The Report of the Chancery Commissioners not having been presented, as his noble and learned Friend had stated, till just before the meeting of Parliament, unfortunately there had not been the same opportunity for considering their recommendations as was afforded in the case of the Report of the Common Law Commissioners. He was afraid therefore that it might turn out that the enactments proposed might not be found so complete and so free from cavil as those of the measure relating to the Common Law Procedure. For this, however, no one was to blame; and certainly the noble and learned Lord now on the woolsack had devoted the utmost attention that the limited opportunity he had had admitted of, to the improvement of our Equity practice and procedure, and he (Lord Cranworth) believed that the measures of the Government were as nearly perfect as, under the circumstances, they possibly could be. So long as no step was made in a wrong direction, the public need not complain, under the circumstances, that the measure did not go to the full extent to which it might go. He shared in the wish that the Bills now passing
1290
their Lordships' House would become law in the present Session. They would tend to dispel what he believed to be a vulgar prejudice, that persons connected with the administration of the law had a sort of feeling for resisting improvements in anything relating to their own particular profession.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative. Bill read 3a accordingly.
LORD CRANWORTHmoved the omission of the 50th Clause, which he said did not come within the scope of the Bill. This clause authorised the Court of Chancery to direct that certain books of account should be held to be primâ facie evidence, although these documents, according to the ordinary law of the land, were not evidence. It was clear that the clause enacted something for the Court of Chancery, which, if it was right to enact for that Court, it was right to enact for any other Court. He must say that he thought it a matter of the most dangerous precedent to enact that it should be lawful for a Court to order that to be evidence which was not evidence on general principles. He therefore would move that the clause be omitted.
LORD TRUROwas understood to say that he could not help thinking that this enactment of the Bill was of a dangerous character.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not understand his noble and learned Friends as wishing to divide the House, but as protesting against a certain clause in the Bill. He (the Lord Chancellor) admitted the clause in operation was a very doubtful one; but the opinions of the seven learned Judges who had gone into this Bill as a kind of Select Committee had been delivered in favour of the clause, and the clause was consequently retained. The Bill which he held in his hand was copied from the Report to which he had just referred, and, therefore, he was not at liberty to cut out that clause without the consent of those learned persons; but the Bill might be so amended in the other House. It did so happen that very often an executor to a will might for a very great number of years have filed all his bills, and a man might have kept his accounts regularly, but not expecting to be called on at the end of fifteen or sixteen or twenty years, had not kept all the vouchers. The object, therefore, of his (the Lord Chancellor's Bill) was to enable the Court to give effect

1291
to the evidence on both sides. That there were cases which required this, no one could deny; hut that there were cases also to which it ought not to be extended, he was perfectly ready to allow.
Amendment negatived: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned to Thursday next.