Lords Sitting of 7 August 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Bills of Exchange (No. 2); Public Health; Russian Government Securities.
2a Militia (No. 2); Militia (Scotland); Militia (Ireland); Militia Ballots Suspension; Militia Pay.
Reported.—Duchy of Cornwall Office.
3a Literary and Scientific Institutions; Real Estate Charges; Bribery, &c.; Stamp Duties.
ROYAL ASSENT.—Acknowledgment of Deeds by Married Women; Convict Prisons (Ireland); Indian Appointments, &c. Admiralty Court; Registration of Births, &c. (Scotland); Sale of Beer; Reformatory Schools (Scotland); Court of Chancery; County Palatine of Lancaster; Oxford University.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE (No. 2) BILL— PETITION.
LORD BROUGHAM presented a petition, to which he begged the attention of their Lordships, praying their Lordships to take up the consideration of the Bills of Exchange Bill in the early part of next Session. It was from the London Committee of the Merchants associated for the Assimilation and Improvement of the Mercantile Law of England, Scotland, and Ireland. It comprised many of the most eminent houses in the City—men of great ability, varied experience, high honour, and—what they themselves would not place in front of their claims to respect, but which, he must add, of ample wealth. They had attended the great Conference held in November, 1852, of delegates from all the trading towns of the three kingdoms. He had the honour of presiding on the first day; his noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) took the chair the day after; and a Commission was afterwards issued, at the desire of the Conference, by his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen), his
1362
predecessor (the Earl of Derby) having, at the time of the meeting, expressed his approval of that course.
The first object of the great assemblage referred to, had been the assimilation of the bankrupt and insolvent law; but he believed he might state that there was a general opinion in favour of adopting, from the Scotch law and practice, the process of summary diligence on bills of exchange and promissory notes, the measure for which the present petitioners were so anxious. As their organ, he had presented to their Lordships a Bill to give summary execution on protested bills, and their Lordships had received it most favourably. It passed through all its stages, without a dissentient voice, including that of the Select Committee on the Common Law Procedure Bill, to which it was referred. It had the warm support of his noble and learned Friends the law lords; and, having been introduced before Easter, it was finally passed, and sent down to the other House on the 2nd June; it was read a second time on the 9th, but being delayed from time to time until last Friday, it was then most unfortunately withdrawn, in consequence of sonic opposition which it encountered. The withdrawing it, he regarded as a great mistake; for, from all he had heard on the subject, he felt confident that the opposition to it would have entirely failed, as it had a few days before, when a great majority voted for this important measure.
The ground on which the opposition first rested was this. Their Lordships were told, "You have adopted a rule that no Bill shall be read after July 25; here is a Bill of ours—of the Commons—which we cannot send up before the 4th of August, and which, therefore, falls within the scope of the prohibitory order. Our Bill cannot pass this year; and, therefore, we will not pass your Bill. That is to say, because the Lords will not pass an important Bill sent up on the 4th of August, and which there is no time whatever given for considering, therefore the Commons will not pass a Bill sent down two months ago, and for considering which ample time had been given. He was very sorry the Commons Bill had come up so late, because he believed it contained a vcry beneficial change in the criminal law. This he said from a regard to its own merits; but he also greatly respected the authority by which it was sanctioned—his learned and much-esteemed Friend Mr. Baron Alderson

1363
was understood to have suggested it. Nevertheless, to pass it without any the least consideration was out of the question; and the print had only been delivered that morning, insomuch that his noble and learned Friend the Chief Justice was not aware, he believed, of its existence till he told him of it half an hour ago, and certainly had not even seen it. To pass suddenly, and without the least deliberation, a Bill creating some half-dozen new misdemeanors—he might say, felonies, for the punishment was imprisonment with hard labour—was manifestly impossible. Yet, because we refused to do this, the Commons, influenced by sticklers for their privileges, refused to pass a Bill which they had been discussing for two months and more.
It was further opposed by another class of persons, who had found champions in that House—persons who, having signed their names as acceptors, or drawers, or indorsers, having thus made themselves debtors under their own hands, and received value in consequence, had rather not pay the debt contracted—preferred escaping from the liability which they had incurred. On behalf of this very honest and respectable class it was said, "How cruel to compel them to pay. When a man has signed a promise to pay in three months, and has received the value of his promise, how hard that he should be obliged to pay at the day. Why should not the poor man be allowed three or four months longer, with all the chances of the law? Why not let him, instead of paying his creditor, defy him in a court of law, and delay payment till the suit is ended? "This is the law which the advocates of these worthy persons conceive to be just. It is neither the law of justice, nor of common honesty; and it is the law of England alone.
In all other trading countries the law of honesty prevails—the law which compels men to pay at the day they have voluntarily, and under their own bands bound themselves to pay, and not at some uncertain time which may suit their own convenience. That law of common honesty has been established in Scotland for one hundred and seventy years, during which period the growth of its commercial towns, of Glasgow especially, has been rapid beyond all example.
The same law of summary execution prevails in France, in the Netherlands, in Holland, where, indeed, it is more stringent
1364
still—in all trading countries except those subject to English law—and even in this country it was the law of old. The process, six centuries ago, under statutes merchant and statutes staple, was exactly the summary diligence now desired, by which the debtor's person, land, and goods were answerable, without any action; and this, in all cases of debt acknowledged. Had bills of exchange, therefore, existed in Edward the First's time, to them this summary execution would of course have been applied.
Another class of objectors had also joined these advocates of the dishonest debtors—he meant those worthy but somewhat speculative reasoners who laboured under what might be termed a delusion on the subject of currency. He referred to what was termed the "Birmingham school," whose doctrines were, that what ever tends to restrict the amount of the currency, is an unmixed evil. Those doctors hold that the greater the bulk of the currency, so much the better; and, so the quantity be unrestricted, the quality is not material. Hence, as the summary execution—the making all paper really payable at the day—might lessen the amount in circulation, though it would greatly increase its value—these doctors abhor the proposed assimilation of our mercantile law. "What signifies," say they, "these bills being only made payable by means of an action at law, and being, therefore, of so much the less value? That is nothing; their number—the mass of them—is the great object; and so that this be large, their inferior value signifies little."
These currency men, however, have found out a new and somewhat unexpected objection to the measure. It did not originate, we are told, in any desire to improve our jurisprudence—any wish to assimilate the law of England to that of all other countries. No such thing. It is all a mere job. One of them, a most excellent person, wholly incapable of deceit, but practised upon by some dishonest party quite capable of such things, has not scrupled to denounce the whole as originating in corrupt design—"There can be but one reason for bringing it forward; somebody or other wanted to appoint a registrar. Who wants the Bill? Who asked for it?"
I have shown your Lordships (said Lord Brougham) who it is that asks for the Bill. These petitioners representing the 309 leading firms in the City, of perhaps

1365
1,000 partners, whose petition for the Bill was a few days ago presented to the other House by my noble Friend and kinsman their representative—they ask for the Bill—they anxiously pray that this important measure may be sanctioned by Parliament. But, say the currency doctors, "it is one of the grossest jobs ever attempted to be palmed upon the public." That is, the Bill was contrived and presented, and carried through this House, with the design and for the purpose not of amending the mercantile law, and giving honest creditors an effectual remedy against dishonest debtors, but merely to create the office of registrar, that some favoured person might be appointed to hold it.
What if all this ingenious notion is a mere fancy? What if it is as unreal as it is far-fetched? What if it has not even the shadow of foundation? What if it be a pure fiction, a mere imagination? What if it is utterly, and from beginning to end, false! What if it be not only untrue, but utterly and absolutely impossible—to have not only no foundation, not the shadow of foundation, but to be perfectly impossible to have any? The Bill was presented without one single word about a registrar in it, from beginning to end, or of any office whatever to be created. The registration of protests was given to the masters of the three Courts—Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, to be named by the Judges of these Courts. In this shape it was presented to your Lordships, in this shape it was proposed by me, with a statement that the masters and no other officer were to register the protests. In this shape, you gave it a second reading, and referred it to the Select Committee; and it was only there that the registrar was ever thought of, and was inserted on the suggestion which had been made by mercantile men in the City, and approved by the society of notaries, and accorded with the practice in Scotland—a most fit, and, indeed, absolutely necessary suggestion, because it was found that the masters of the courts never could do the business, a separate office being required which should be open at all hours, from early in the day to late in the evening, and under the direction of some one wholly devoted to the duty. It was, moreover, essential that this office should be in the City; and the experience of Scotland, which was cited to us, amply proved that nothing could be more erroneous than the plan orignally adopted of the masters, the only plan that
1366
ever had entered into the head of those who framed the Bill. Those considerations were decisive with the Select Committee, which at once struck out the provision giving the registration to the officers of the courts, and substituted the appointment of a registrar.
It has been my fortune at different times to propound various measures for the improvement of our jurisprudence: I grieve to say that I have had to encounter opposition in many powerful quarters—to conflict with adversaries, and sustain attacks of very different kinds, in common with my able and learned colleagues in the labour of law amendment. Sometimes we have been charged with doing too little, and proceeding too slowly—sometimes with moving too rapidly, and attempting too much. Now we are complained of, as wanting in zeal, or in firmness, or in boldness—we are termed moderate, and temporising, and even mock reformers. Now we are held up as objects rather of alarm than of contempt—as rash innovators—as holding no existing institution sacred—as carrying devastation over the established law, like some eruption sweeping and laying waste its whole domain—or the volcano may at times be imagined to slumber, and only give out noise and smoke. To all such obloquy we have long been accustomed and inured; and we can only meet it by gratefully avowing that having, through the Divine blessing, been permitted to render such service as we could—given such furtherance as we might to the great cause of improvement—we shall persevere in the same course while the same Providence shall allow us, steadily refusing either to slacken or to quicken our pace, and firmly resolved neither to leave untried what is safe and right, nor to attempt what is in doubt and exposed to hazard.
But among all the charges we have had to meet, among all the imputations that have been launched against us, till now we never had conceived that any adversaries could be so misguided as to question the purity of our motives—so wild as to suspect the great mercantile community of London, as well as the lawyers their coadjutors, of being engaged in a conspiracy to perpetrate a disgraceful job. It seems hardly possible to believe that such a foul calumny could he uttered in a place where, less than a week before, the prayer had been preferred by

1367
all the first merchants and bankers of the country in behalf of this great measure, this true amendment of the law, grounded on the most approved principles, and recommended by the universal experience of the commercial world. For such base imputations we cannot possibly feel anything but the most sovereign contempt. Nor will they either cause us to abate our speed or to quicken it, or make us deviate by a hair's breadth front our course—our course appointed and selected—selected under Providence for our labours. Why should we be for an instant affected by such charges? Why, above all, should those whom on tins occasion I represent, care for the calumnies vented against them? Falsus honor juvat—I crave pardon for addressing its authors in unknown tongues; let them hear it in literal though less poetical words—
False honour charms, and lying slander scares Whom but the false and faulty?
These petitioners belong to neither class, end may well afford to disregard it.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he should content himself with deploring the fate of the measure in question, and considered it hardly necessary for the noble and learned Lord to have referred to the charges he had mentioned, wherever they were made, for, in his opinion, they might have been treated very safely with silent contempt. The fate of this Bill, however, was very disheartening to Members of their Lordships' House, who were continually striving to improve the law in a rational manner. He would not allude to the class which had been termed "currency doctors," or to any other class of the community who stood in the way of improvement; but experience had taught them that the obstacles thrown in the way were really appalling. There could be no doubt that it was of immense importance that the commercial law of the three portions of the United Kingdom should be assimilated, and such an assimilation would introduce reforms which might lead to the most important commercial advantages. He was, perhaps, as competent to speak on this point as any of their Lordships, as he had the honour of presiding in Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench, where a great many causes were tried, and he assured the House that in very many the money of the creditor was wasted by the fraudulent debtor in litigation. Frequently the acceptor of a bill of exchange, who, having had value received, and having failed to
1368
pay at the end of the period, had an action brought against him, set up a number of fraudulent and unfounded defences, and when the day of trial came no real justification was attempted. At one single sitting of his court, at Guildhall, within the last four weeks, there were no less than sixteen actions on hills of exchange, in which the defendants did not attempt to set up the shadow of a shade of defence. He saw no reason, therefore, why they should not do as they did in Scotland, and in every other commercial country, and, indeed, in the time of Edward I. in this country, and give a power of execution on every overdue Bill. He trusted that another Session of Parliament would be more auspicious than the present, which, however, he trusted would witness the passing of that very important measure of legal reform—the Common Law Procedure Bill, although he could not think it safe until he saw it back again in their Lordships' House.
THE LORD CHANCELLORentirely concurred with his noble and leagued Friend in deploring the fate of this Bill. He could assure the noble and learned Lord who introduced it that Her Majesty's Government had given it all the support in their power, and he hoped it would be reintroduced and become law in the early part of next Session. With respect to the Common Law Procedure Bill, he trusted it would come up from the other House to-morrow, after the third reading, so that it might become law this present year.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that nothing could give greater comfort, both to himself and the petitioners whom he represented, than what had fallen from both his noble and learned Friends. He should now present the Bill with such amendments as lied been suggested and approved by the authors of it since it left their Lordships' House, that it might be circulated during the recess. It had been said elsewhere that the measure was not sufficiently known in the country. This assertion was extremely incorrect. It had been the subject of great discussion in all the trading towns, in several of which meetings had been held and resolutions adopted in its favour. But it would be advisable to have it circulated again with the changes which had been introduced both in this House and since it went to the Commons. And he moved to have it read a first time.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.
LORD BROUGHAMthen presented a

1369
Bill to permit the Registration of dishonoured Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes in England, and to allow Execution thereon.
Bill real 1a.

THE COMMON LAW PROCEDURE BILL— QUESTION.
LORD CAMPBELLinquired what course it was intended to take in reference to the Common Law Procedure Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Common Law Procedure Bill, which was now before the House of Commons, contained clauses which gave to the courts of common law the power to deal with and decide the whole dispute between parties, so that it might not, as was the case at present, be requisite to apply to Courts of Equity with respect to some parts which might not come under the jurisdiction of the courts of law. After that Bill had passed the House of Lords, the Commission now occupied with the reform of Chancery Procedure suggested that there ought to be a converse measure, and that clauses should be introduced into it for the purpose of giving the Courts of Chancery also the power of deciding on the whole of every question brought before them. It was thought desirable that they should have the power to summon juries to decide questions of fact and to assess damages without calling in the assistance of a court of law. He (the Lord Chancellor), however, thought that it would not be germane to the subject-matter of the Common Law Procedure Bill to introduce such clauses as these into it; and, accordingly, the Solicitor General introduced the Chancery Amendment Bill to carry out this object, which, however, must contain many more provisions to enable it to work. Without professing to be too much enamoured of the system of juries, yet when there was an issue which required damages to be assessed, he did not feel persuaded that a Judge of a court of equity was the most competent person to assess the damages. To manage this matter well it seemed that they must leave the trial by jury where it now was, and let issues be directed, or they must provide means to enable the Court of Equity to summon juries, and try issues there. As, however, the matter could not be proceeded with this Session, he wished not to commit himself by saying whether it was the fittest that the Court of Chancery should have the power to summon juries, or that matters should be left
1370
to be decided, as at present, by issues directed to the Common Law Courts. He did not say that he might not come to be of opinion that it was right to give power to the Court of Chancery to summon juries, but he wished at present to leave the matter Open. In answer to the question of his noble and learned Friend, he must say that he had no power to bring forward the Bill unless their Lordships suspended their Resolution upon the ground that the matter of this Bill was of recent occurrence and urgency, within the exception of the Resolution. But to propose this would net be acting in fairness to the Resolution which their Lordships had come to in the month of May last. He trusted, however, that in a new Session of Parliament some measure would be introduced, either the same Bill as had been already introduced, or some more general measure, as to inquiring into matters of fact in the Court of Chancery.

BRIBERY, &c., BILL.
Bill Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment, the effect of which was to disallow the payment of travelling expenses to voters. He felt that it was desirable to make this Bill as perfect as possible, for if the measures which it contemplated failed, we should have to come to the ballot, since, to whatever objections that method of voting might be liable, there was reason to believe that it would be in some degree effectual in putting down undue influence, if not bribery. He objected to this clause, because it was evident that so long as any payments were allowed to be made to voters, a door was left open to corrupt practices; nor was there any way in which such an opening could be more effectually left than by permitting the payment of travelling expenses, which frequently amounted to an enormous sum at contested elections, and usually figured as the greatest part of the expenses of a contested election. It was a kind of expenditure over which no check could be exercised, because there was obviously nothing to prevent a voter's representing himself to have come from a much greater distance than he actually did, or representing himself to have adopted a much more expensive mode of travelling than was in fact the case, and thus obtaining an additional sum beyond his actual expenditure, which

1371
was, in fact, a bribe. Since he had give notice of his Amendment, he had indee been told that it had been considered by the House of Commons, and rejected by majority of two to one. He thought, however, that they had already shown sufficient deference to the other House by entertaining this Bill, notwithstanding their Resolution of the 2nd of May, and that they need not, therefore, feel any delicacy in adopting this Amendment. Then it was said that they must either open a door to corruption by adopting this Amendment, or disfranchise voters by rejecting it. Well, if that was so, he did not hesitate to say that he thought the latter the preferable alternative. The argument against the disallowance of travelling expenses, founded upon its anticipated effect of disfranchising voters, could indeed have no force except against the supporters of universal suffrage. For it was once said that a man must have a certain property qualification in order to have a vote; he did not see how any difficulty could he felt in saving that he must also have sufficient property to come to the poll. He meant, of course, from a reasonable distance; because if there were not sufficient polling places in the county, so that every voter might be within a moderate distance of some one of them, more must be provided; and, in fact, there could be no doubt if this Amendment were agreed to, it would be necessary to do this in many counties in Ireland. The Legislature could never put down bribery so long as the payment of the travelling expenses of voters was allowed. They had been told the other evening by a noble and learned Lord that the law was decidedly against the payment of any such expenses, and he had no doubt whatever that that was the law. The House of Commons, however, who were bound to administer the law, did not in practice interpret it in that light; and as Parliament seemed to be sincerely desirous of putting down bribery, it was only fitting that what constituted bribery should be placed beyond doubt. He begged to move an Amendment on the 23rd clause, which would make the clause run as follows—
"That after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for any candidate or other person to pay, or cause to be paid, the expenses of bringing any voter to the poll."
LORD REDESDALEobjected upon several grounds to the Amendment proposed by the noble Marquess. He thought their Lordships ought to object as strongly
1372
to the introduction of important Amendments into questions deliberately decided by the House of Commons as they ought to undertaking the consideration of such important Amendments at that period of the Session. In fairness and justice to the other House, it was impossible not to refer to the fact, that in Committee, upon the report, and upon the third reading of the Bill, this clause had been affirmed by majorities exceeding two to one, and upon each occasion it had been supported by the Government. Even a proposition to allow travelling expenses only to such voters as came from a greater distance than a mile and a half from the poll was rejected without a division. With regard to the payment of travelling expenses itself, he was of opinion that if no more than the travelling expenses were paid, then it was not bribery, inasmuch as the voter gained nothing by having his travelling expenses paid. The objection which had been urged by the noble Marquess, that more than the expenses of travelling would be paid, would be removed by the provision made in the Bill for the appointment of an election auditor, through whose hands the expenses would be paid. If it had been asserted that a proposal was to be made to set aside a decision of the House of Commons, several times affirmed by large majorities, and to send down the Bill, as amended, to be considered in the other House in the last days of the Session, he did not believe that their Lordships would have thought it reasonable or courteous to the House of Commons to have suspended the Standing Orders in order to enable them to take the Bill into consideration. He was certainly of opinion that, if this clause were omitted, an undue advantage would be given to voters in towns over those residing some distance from the place of polling, and, under the circumstances, he thought it expedient to adhere to the decision come to by the House of Commons.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that he was glad his noble Friend had become a convert to the opinions which he (the Duke of Newcastle) had expressed the other night. As to the Amendment of the noble Marquess, he entirely concurred in the opinion, that when they were dealing with bribery and every other kind of illegitimate expense, it was most desirable that they should put an end to that very heavy item in election expenses which had hitherto gone under the name of "travel-

1373
ling expenses;" and if he were obliged to give a vote, "aye" or "no," on the question that had been raised by the noble Marquess, be would unquestionably vote with him that travelling expenses should be made, like the expenses for refreshments, illegal for the future. At the same time he readily admitted that there was a good deal to be said in regard to the particular moment at which they were debating this question as affecting the decisions of the House of Commons; and consistently with the views which he had advocated on Monday last, although individually he approved of the Amendment of the noble Marquess, he did not think it would be expedient to adopt it on the present occasion. He came to that conclusion—he would not say the more readily—but with the less reluctance—on account of the temporary nature of the Act as it now stood. He had already said he approved of the spirit of the Amendment, but he could not approve undoubtedly of the exact form of the Amendment of his noble Friend, even if he felt at liberty to vote with him; for this reason, he did not think his noble Friend had proceeded in the best way to accomplish his own object. He doubted if the adoption of the Amendment; as it was now worded, would not create greater difficulties than exist at the present moment, and render it exceedingly uncertain what they meant; for instance, he thought the insertion of the word "not" would render it uncertain, whether if a man residing in a village, and being obliged to hire a fly to go to the poll, should ask a neighbour to take a seat in the fly with him, he would not come under the terms of the Act, and be indictable for a breach of the law for taking his neighbour in the fly he had hired, though he would be at liberty to take him in his own gig if he had one. The noble Marquess seemed hardly to have looked at his Amendment in this point of view, and the difficulty which suggested itself showed that the question was one which required more consideration than had been given to it. Undoubtedly, as his noble Friend opposite had stated, the clause had been affirmed on two or three occasions in the other House by large majorities; and looking to the advanced period of the Session, and to the certainty that when the Bill should be sent back to the other House there would be only a portion of those Members present who had voted "aye" or "no" on the question, it was undesirable, within a few
1374
days of the close of the Session, to add any new provision, or to alter any provision of the House of Commons, and completely, as was proposed, to reverse the decision deliberately adopted by the other House. He should, he repeated, adopt the course he thought it necessary to take with greater reluctance, were it not that the temporary nature of the Bill ensured its revision at an early day, when he hoped a clause would be introduced in future specifically making travelling expenses illegal. Nevertheless, he was not prepared to show unlimited deference to the House of Commons, by accepting the clause in its present shape, because he considered there was a wide difference between reversing a decision of the House of Commons, and leaving the law as it was at present. One of the good features of the Bill was, that it defined what hitherto had been left undefined in many respects, and had settled by an Act of the Legislature those questions which had been so much disputed before Committees of the House of Commons, and had led to such expensive and unnecessary litigation. As the least evil of three courses, the course he was about to propose he thought ought to be acceptable to their Lordships, and ought not to be objected to by the House of Commons. If his noble Friend's Amendment should be negatived or withdrawn, he (the Duke of Newcastle) would propose that this clause should be omitted, that they should leave the law as it at present stands, and leave this question to be decided, when the subject, in the course of two years, should be brought forward for the reinvestigation of the Legislature. He should like to have met the Amendment of his noble Friend with another form of words, but looking to the circumstances under which the measure came from the other House, and the way in which the clause had been introduced after three divisions in the House of Commons, he hoped their Lordships would agree with him that the course he proposed was the preferable course, and that the clause should be omitted altogether.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he should not have agreed to the suspension of the Standing Orders if he had thought that they were not to be at liberty to examine and consider the different clauses of the Bill. It would be most injurious to pass this clause in its present condition, and, though he would not give any opinion himself as to whether the payment of travel-

1375
ling expenses was bribery or not, he might observe that it had been decided to be bribery by no less an authority than Lord Mansfield, and that that decision had never been reversed by any court of law. If the clause were agreed to, it might admit of universal bribery, and those enormous evils would be called into existence which were experienced before the passing of the Reform Bill—namely, of bringing up to the poll non-resident voters from distant parts of the kingdom, and even from distant parts of Europe. For his own part, he doubted whether, under the construction of this Bill, travelling expenses would come at all under the cognisance of the election officer, and he was quite at a loss to imagine how, if their Lordships agreed to this clause, they could separate from the travelling expenses the refreshments provided upon the journey. He would, however, suggest to the noble Marquess the propriety of withdrawing his Amendment, and agreeing to that of the noble Duke.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKEobserved that, though he would not interpose to prevent the passing of a measure which had been maturely considered by the House of Commons, he certainly thought there were some parts of it which required amendment.
LORD REDESDALEbegged again to call attention to the fact that this clause had been supported by the Cabinet Ministers in the House of Commons, though it was now proposed by another Cabinet Minister that it should be omitted. He desired to know whether he would receive on a division the support of the other Cabinet Ministers in their Lordships' House, and whether it was their intention to support the decision of their colleagues in the House of Commons.
LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his concurrence in the observations of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), and for the reasons stated by him. He wished the Bill to pass, but he should be alarmed at sending it down with any considerable alterations to another place, where, it should be recollected, it had been carried by a narrow majority on the third reading.
Amendment negatived.
On Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," their Lordships divided:—Content 4; Not Content 30: Majority 26.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned till To-morrow.