Lords Sitting of 25 June 1857

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Earl of Aylesford.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Adulterers Marriages; Insurance on Lives (Abatement of Income Tax) Continuance; Alehouse Licensing.
2a Sale of Obscene Books, &c. Prevention; County Cess (Ireland); Grand Juries (Ireland) Act (1836) Amendment.

THE PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION AND DIVORCE BILLS—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he wished to ask a question with reference to the Probate and Administration and the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bills, which had been lately passed by that House. Neither of them extended to Ireland; and as regarded the latter, he wished to ask his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack if the action for damages in cases of criminal conversation, and all the other proceedings which had hitherto been necessary for the procuring a divorce, were to continue in force in Ireland. He should very likely be told that it was the intention of Government to introduce similar measures for Ireland; but such intentions were often not carried out, and as an instance of it he might mention that some years ago an Act was passed making it lawful to issue licences for the sale of game in England. He asked if the principle was not to be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom, and he was told that there was a technical difficulty in passing a Bill for the two countries together, but that it was intended to bring in a Bill for Ireland. However, from that day to this no measure had been passed on the subject; and while in England it was lawful to sell game, it could not be done in Ireland without a violation of the law. He trusted, therefore, that his noble and learned Friend could assure him that steps had already been taken to extend to Ireland the operation of Bills having a similar object with those which had passed that House in relation to probates of wills and the granting of divorces.
THE LORD CHANCELLORcould only say, in reply, that it was not only the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce similar Bills for Ireland to those which had just passed their Lordships House, but a Bill for remodelling the Court of Probate had been prepared (he did not
326
say it was ready to be introduced), and the Attorney General for Ireland entertained a confident expectation of being able to pass it this Session. It was impossible to make the present Bills applicable to the two countries, because it would be necessary to create two new tribunals.

MINISTERS' MONEY.

  THE DEBATE. EXPLANTATION.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHclaimed their Lordships' attention in regard to a personal matter which had arisen out of the debate which took place the other night upon the Ministers' Money (Ireland) Bill. The noble Duke the Postmaster General had expressed himself to the effect that the Government had introduced the measure for the purpose of protecting, in some degree, the Established Church in Ireland. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) rose and said that if the noble Duke thought that the Bill would have that effect he was quite mistaken, because he stated that the Roman Catholic clergy would, he was confident, agitate the country so long as they were permitted to do so, and that they would seek every opportunity of striking at the very existence of that Church. Now, a highly-respectable newspaper, a journal of the greatest and the largest circulation in the kingdom, stated in the Report which it gave the following day, that he said the Roman Catholics were seeking to strike down the Established Church. If such had been his sentiments he should not be backward in avowing them. But he added this, which he believed no one listening to him could have mistaken or misapprehended, that he was certain the Roman Catholic laity were not of that way of thinking, and that they would live peaceably with their Protestant fellow-subjects if they were permitted to do so. On looking at the paper in question the next day, he observed the principal limbs of what he said had been cut off, and what were the most odious were retained. He wrote a letter to the editor of The Times requesting that a correction might take place; for he had always observed that the newspapers generally had shown a generosity and a desire to correct any misconception or misinterpretation that occurred in their reports. The newspaper in question, however, had not had the common courtesy to take notice of the statement on his part. He

  327
  had no vindictive feeling about the matter, but he did not wish to have it represented that he uttered sentiments the very opposite to those he had really expressed; or that opinions respecting the feelings of the Roman Catholic laity towards the Established Church should be put into his mouth which he never entertained, and that such opinions should be circulated there and in the sister country to his prejudice. While thanking their Lordships for their attention while he made that explanation, he would only repeat that he had never uttered the sentiments that had been attributed to him by the paper to which he referred.

SALE OF OBSCENE BOOKS, &c., PREVENTION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in moving the second reading of the Bill said, that the object of it was to prevent the spread of those obscene prints and publications which had become of late most alarming. Their Lordships could scarcely conceive the extent to which the trade in those infamous works was carried. From information which he had recently received, he was led to believe that a considerable capital was engaged in the trade; that there were warehouses where those abominations were stored; that there were persons actually employed to travel about the country for the purpose of distributing circulars of the most exciting description. These were also sent under a penny postage stamp, inviting the people to come, and see, and purchase. It was easy to imagine the great evils that must arise from this detestable traffic. He believed that there was no country in Europe in which the circulation of such articles was permitted with the same facilities as existed in this country; because, in every other country the police had a more summary power in respect to them than the police had here. The principle upon which the Bill was founded was a simple one. As the law now stood, the only remedy that existed was an indictment against the publisher of obscene publications, which must be set on foot by private information. But there was still great; difficulty in enforcing the law, because the publishers were generally on their guard. In order to obtain the required evidence, it was necessary to employ a class of men
  328
  that could not be looked on with much respect—that class known as spies and informers. The individual employed on this duty must enter the place where those prints or publications were supposed to be, under the pretence that he was an admirer of such productions, and that he wished to purchase some of them. Having succeeded in obtaining them, he comes into a court as a witness, for the purpose of giving evidence on the matter. In order to render his evidence acceptable, and free from all suspicion, the informer must be searched by a policeman immediately before he enters the house or shop in question, with a view of showing that he could not have had any of those infamous works about him at the time; and immediately after he leaves the premises, in order to prove that he could only have obtained them at the place he had just visited. And, after all, from the doubtful character of such witnesses, it was difficult to obtain a conviction. Well, then, when the conviction took place, the criminal himself was sent to prison; but that did not put a stop to the trade, for the business was carried on as briskly as ever, in the name of the wife or son of the convicted party, and the poison was circulated, probably, more industriously and effectually than before. Therefore he contended that at present they had no effectual remedy against the evil. Now, he proposed that they should do something similar to that which they they had done in respect to gaming-houses. There was a power given by a recent Act against gaming-houses, which, however, was greater than what he asked for the present measure. Upon applications founded on affidavit before a magistrate, stating that there was gaming going on in a certain place, contrary to law, a warrant was granted, under which the police might enter the house and use all reasonable force that was necessary to enable them to search every corner of the house, from the cellar to the garret, and to carry away all cards, balls, dice, and other instruments of gaming, and might also arrest all persons they found on the premises, and have them summarily convicted before the magistrates. That power had been found most beneficial, and as had been found in recent cases, was attended with the most satisfactory results. He, however, did not ask the House to go so far in regard to the present Bill. He merely asked their Lordships to treat those obscene prints and publications in the way they treated commercial goods that had

  329
  not paid the duty. He proposed that the magistrates should have the power of issuing their warrants upon affidavits being made of the existence of those indecent publications in certain places, and that the police should have the power of entering those places and seizing upon all such property as they found there. The noble Lord having recited the heads of the clauses of the Bill, moved that their Lordships now read it the second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was sure that no one was more competent to judge of the extent of the evil for which he proposed to legislate than the noble and learned Lord himself. It was astounding to read the accounts which had gone through the papers lately of one or two cases of an infamous character tried before his noble and learned Friend. He was sure that there was but one which pervaded the country generally upon this subject—that everything that could be safely and properly done should be done to suppress this great and crying evil. He was, however, of opinion, that his noble and learned Friend would find some difficulties in the details of his measure. For example, how did he propose to define what was an "obscene publication?" He did not wish to treat the measure with any kind of disrespect, but he thought that unless the details were greatly altered, the Bill would fail to remedy the evil complained of. He would remind his noble and learned Friend, that in the works of some of their most eminent poets there were some objectionable passages which, under this measure, might cause them to be considered obscene publications.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had not the most distant contemplation of including in the Bill the class of works to which the noble and learned Lord referred. The measure was intended to apply exclusively to works written for the single purpose of corrupting the morals of youth, and of a nature calculated to shock the common feelings of decency in any well regulated mind. Bales of publications of that description were manufactured in Paris, and imported into this country. He was ready to make what was indictable under the present law a test of obscenity.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he shared in that reluctance which every one must entertain in appearing for the moment to be opposed to a measure having the very laudable object which the noble
  330
  and learned Lord had in view; particularly when it would be admitted by all that the measure which was proposed as a remedy for the evil complained of came with peculiar fitness from his noble and learned Friend, not only on account of his position as a distinguished Member of that House, but also in regard to the elevated position he occupied in the highest court of law. But, however zealous his intentions might be to abolish a vile and immoral traffic, he (the Lord Chancellor) thought that he would find it impossible to frame any clause that might not enable a person inclined to be vexatious to interfere with what his noble and learned Friend himself believed should not be meddled with under the provisions of his Bill. Who could tell but that the superintendent of police or the magistrates before whom the application came would take a different view of what were obscene or indecent publications from the noble and learned Lord? It appeared to him (the Lord Chancellor) that the definition of the first clause would rest with the magistrate; and that of the second with the superintendent of police. But even supposing that the police had seized upon those publications, what were they to do with them?
  LORD CAMPBELL: There is no property in those publications. Let them do as they liked with them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he did not like to oppose the second reading of the Bill; but unless it could be very materially altered in its progress, he did not think the measure could fitly become the law of the land.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONaddressed a few observations to the House, which were inaudible.
  LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, while giving full credit to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice for the feelings which have prompted him to bring forward this Bill, I entirely agree with my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack that it will wholly fail in its object, and that it is unwise and imprudent to poke into these question and agitate the public mind in respect to them. My noble and learned Friend's aim is to put down the sale of obscene books and prints; but what is the interpretation which is to be put on the word "obscene?" I can easily conceive that two men will come to entirely different conclusions as to its meaning. I have looked into Johnson to see what definition he gives of the word, and I find

  331
  that he says it is something "immodest; not agreeable to chastity of mind; causing lewd ideas." These are the definitions which he gives of the word. Suppose now a man following the trade of an informer, or a policeman, sees in a window something which he conceives to be a licentious print. He goes to the magistrate, and describes, according to his ideas, what he saw; the magistrate thereupon issues his warrant for the seizure of the disgusting print. The officer then goes to the shop, and says to the shopkeeper, "Let me look at that picture of Jupiter and Antiope." "Jupiter and what?" says the shopkeeper. "Jupiter and Antiope," repeats the man. "Oh! Jupiter and Ant i ope, you mean," says the shopkeeper; and hands him down the print. He sees the picture of a woman stark naked, lying down, and a satyr standing by her with an expression on his face which shows most distinctly what his feelings are and what is his object. The informer tells the man he is going to seize the print, and to take him before a magistrate. "Under what authority?" he asks; and he is told—"Under the authority of Lord Campbell's Act." "But," says the man, "don't you know that it is a copy from a picture of one of the most celebrated masters in Europe?" That does not matter; the informer seizes it as an obscene print. He asks if the shopkeeper has got any more prints like it? "Oh, Yes, I have got several others," is the answer. Whereupon he searches the shop, and in so doing perhaps he stumbles upon a print of the story of Danae. There he sees a naked woman lifting her eyes to heaven, but standing in a very strange attitude, the shower of gold descending upon her, a little Cupid peeping over her shoulder pointing with his dart, and other circumstances which I will not describe. Well, is this print also to be brought before the magistrate? These prints come within the description in this Bill as much as any work you can conceive. And yet they are both celebrated pictures; the first is a copy of a famous Correggio which hangs in the large square room of the Louvre, right opposite an ottoman, on which are seated daily ladies of the first rank from all countries of Europe, who resort there for the purpose of studying the works of art in that great gallery. But this is not all. Our informant leaves the print shop and goes into the studio of a sculptor or some statuary and sees there figures of nymphs,
  332
  fauns, and satyrs, all perfectly naked, some of them in attitudes which I do not choose to describe. According to this Bill they may every one be seized,—
  "Nympharumque leves cum satyris chori."
  Well, I will now go to a third class—the poets—for the informant next proceeds to the circulating libraries. I do not know whether my noble and learned Friend's extensive reading has made him familiar with the poems of Rochester, but I think they would come under the description of this Bill. "The freedom of ancient satirists," says Hume, the historian, "no more resembles the licentiousness of Rochester than the nakedness of an Indian does that of a common prostitute." Suppose that book is in a certain library lent out for hire; under my noble and learned Friend's Bill it may be seized at once—in fact, under the Bill a circulating library may be searched from one end to the other. In the same way the dramatists of the Restoration, Wycherley, Congreve, and the rest of them,—there is not a page in any one of them which might not be seized under this Bill. One of the principal characters in one of Congreve's plays is Lady Wishfor't. Dryden, too, is as bad as any of them. He has translated the worst parts of Ovid—his Art of Love—works for which Ovid vas exiled, and died, I believe, on the shores of the Euxine. There is not a single volume of that great poet which would not come under the definition of my noble and learned Friend's Bill. I need scarcely recall to your Lordships' remembrance that poem—"Sigismonda and Guiscardo"—I think it is, beginning—
  "While Norman Tancred in Salerno reigned,"
  in which occurs the description of the secret wedding, the scenes that preceded it, and the scenes that were immediately consequent upon it. I will not repeat to your Lordships more of it than this passage:—
  "The holy man, amazed at what he saw,
  Made haste to sanctify the bliss by law;
  And muttered fast the matrimony o'cr,
  For fear committed sin should get before."
  But I think your Lordships will see from this specimen that Dryden's poems must be placed in my noble and learned Friend's Index Expurgatorius. Take, too, the whole flight of French novelists, from Crebillon, fils, down to Paul de Kock; nothing can be more unchaste, nothing more immodest, than they are; and when my noble and learned Friend's Bill is passed, every copy of them may be committed to the bonfire with as little mercy as Don Quixote's chivalry books were.

  333
  But, my Lords, I contend that this Bill will be entirely inoperative. The books and prints at which it is aimed are small in bulk, they may be kept in a retired part of the shop, and only be produced when a customer comes in for them, so that, in fact, you will not always be able to lay your hands upon them. I feel as strongly as any one can the infamy of the sale of these books, but, so far from agreeing with my noble and learned Friend that a Bill of this description is necessary to put it down, I am satisfied that the law as it stands is abundantly strong enough. All that is needed is additional vigour in the administration of the existing law. I am satisfied that nothing can be easier than to arrange means for detecting persons engaged in this trade; and when persons are found guilty of the offence of publishing and selling these books, instead of getting merely a nominal punishment, let them be sentenced to such a punishment as the infamy of their guilt merits, and as will effectually deter others from following in their steps. My Lords, I see such objections to the Bill of my noble and learned Friend that I move it be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this Day Six Months."
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that there was no analogy whatever between the cases mentioned by the noble and learned Lord and the publications aimed at by the Bill. On the principle laid down by the noble and learned Lord, not only could there be no new remedy for this evil provided, but the old remedy must be taken away also. The noble and learned Lord said there was no definition of obscenity.
  LORD LYNDHURST LORD LYNDHURST rose to order.
  LORD CAMPBELL: I have a right to be heard. ["Order!"]
  LORD LYNDHURSTspoke to order. His noble and learned Friend, having made a speech and concluded with a Motion, was not entitled to rise and make another speech till all the noble Lords who wished to address the House had expressed their sentiments. That was the rule of the House.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, an Amendment had been moved to the Motion which he had made, and he had a right to make another speech on that Amendment. His noble and learned Friend rose to order, but he was himself out of order. In his zeal for these filthy publications, his noble and learned Friend had gone entirely wrong
  334
  as to what was the rule of the House—an error which certainly surprised him in one who had so long held the office of Lord Chancellor. ["Order!"]
  LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS rose to order. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) had made a Motion; to that Motion an Amendment had been moved, but the Amendment had not yet been proposed to the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Motion before the House was, that this Bill be now read a second time; since which it had been moved as an Amendment that it be read a second time that day six months.
  LORD CAMPBELL: And on that Amendment I have an undoubted right to address the House. ["Order, order!"] With regard to what has been said by my noble and learned Friend—
  LORD REDESDALEagain rose to order. He thought his noble and learned Friend was under a mistake as to his right. The object of the Amendment was to meet the Question, that the Bill be "now" read a second time, and it was not competent for the Mover to speak to such an Amendment, so long as there were other noble Lords who wished to address the House.
  LORD CAMPBELLrepeated that he had the right which he claimed to address the House.
  LORD BROUGHAM, who said that, according to his experience of the rules of the other House, the noble and learned Lord had no right to address their Lordships. In the other House, they had in the Speaker an officer who kept order and controlled the proceedings; in their Lordships' House, however, the office of Speaker was as it were in commission, and the duty of preserving order devolved upon the whole House. Now, according to the rules of the other House—and he thought in this House also—the maker of a Motion had—he would not say a right, for there was none—but a privilege, through the courtesy of the House, to make a general reply; but it was a mere mockery to say that, upon such an occasion as the present, he was entitled to make a second speech.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWcontended that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) was entitled to speak to the Amendment. In point of fact, the debate did not begin till an Amendment was moved.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when his noble and learned Friend moved the Amendment, he (the Lord Chancellor) ought in strictness to have proposed it to the House, but to do so was not the practice of their Lordships' House. His idea of the rule distinctly was, that his noble and learned Friend had a right to speak to the Amendment that had been moved, and such, he believed, was the invariable rule in the other House of Parliament. In point of fact, a distinct question was raised by the Amendment.
  LORD CAMPBELL, claiming his right to address the House, was perfectly willing to waive that right till he had heard such of their Lordships as wished to speak upon the question.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON, having had the honour of a seat in the other House of Parliament, must declare against the right of the noble and learned Lord to make a second speech.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid that, after all, everything must depend upon the nature of the Amendment. It might be substantially a different Motion altogether, in which case the maker of the original Motion might have a right to be heard upon it; but in this instance, it was only another way of saying "no" to the original Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLEwished to speak with great diffidence on a question which had elicited so much difference of opinion. He believed that even in the case of a substantive Motion there was no right of reply, though the House generally allowed one to be made; but, if an Amendment, such as had been brought forward that evening was made, then, he believed, the rule of the House was that a right to reply existed.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had the misfortune to be a very old Member of their Lordships' House; he had also been a Member of the other House of Parliament; he was ready to maintain, therefore, that, according to the rules of Parliament, every Member who made a Motion had a right to reply; but it did not necessarily follow that he should have the last word in the debate. If he chose to make his reply immediately after the Amendment moved, he had no right to speak again last in the debate.
  LORD BELPERsaid, according to the practice of the other House, any Member who had spoken on the original Motion had a right to speak on an Amendment.
  336
  The strict rule was, that there was no right to speak twice on a Motion; but if an Amendment was moved, that Amendment was substantially a new Motion, and on that Motion, though a Member had already spoken, he would have a right to speak again. If their Lordships, however, were about to make a distinction, and to say that on a second Motion of a particular kind there should not be a right of reply, they would introduce eternal confusion into their debates.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he understood the rule to be, that no one had a right to speak twice upon the same subject; but that if an Amendment was moved which was substantially another Motion, the person who made the original Motion was entitled to speak again.
  LORD CAMPBELL, still maintaining his right, repeated that he was willing upon this occasion to forego it.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, there was no doubt but that the noble and learned Lord was animated by a very proper desire to put an end to the nefarious traffic in indecent publications; but, at the same time, he (Lord Wensleydale) was of opinion with his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Lyndhurst) that the common law, as it stood, was quite strong enough to deal with such offences. Any person exposing indecent prints was liable to be indicted for a misdemeanour. The extensive powers sought to be conferred upon the police by the Bill required grave consideration, and the definition of what was obscene was very uncertain. There was not a library in which books could not be found containing passages which a strict-dealing magistrate might consider to bring them within the operation of this Bill. The classic authors might be held to be obscene, and the possession of Lucian, Lucullus, or Juvenal, might expose the owners to the penalties which the Bill prescribed.
  LORD WYNFORDadmitted that in works of merit to which reference had been made, there might be found some objectionable passages; but it would be absurd to suppose, that the possession of such books would render the possessors liable to punishment. Those works, including those of the immortal Shakspeare, were preserved, not on account of the exceptional passages which were objectionable, but for the noble and elevating sentiments which they inculcated.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he thought that the particular street to which he had

  337
  referred, but not named, would rejoice greatly upon learning that the cause of free trade in obscene publications had been upheld by such distinguished authorities. Notwithstanding the arguments of his noble and learned Friends opposite, he trusted their Lordships would not reject the Bill. He could not see why there should be any objection to allow the same means to be used to repress the abominable traffic in obscenity as were allowed to put down gaming-houses and for the seizure of smuggled goods. The noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment had objected that the Bill, if passed, could permit interference with private picture-galleries. When the law was made stricter in order to put down gambling-houses, there might as well have been an outcry, "What will become of St. James's-street, of Brookes's, of White's, of Boodle's—there may be gambling in those respectable establishments, they may be complained of by the police, and Members of either House of Parliament may be taken before a magistrate and sent to the House of Correction." Another argument of the noble and learned Lord would, if correct, prevent any indictment being laid, for he said, "Who was to define what was obscene?" The language of the indictment was for selling or exposing obscene prints or books, and the question whether the pictures or books impugned were obscene or not was left to the jury to decide. The noble and learned Lord appeared to think that under the Bill private collections might be interfered with, but that was not so. The pictures in such collections were not intended for sale, but were kept for the owners' contemplation. There was a broad and marked distinction between such pictures as the noble and learned Lord had so graphically described, and the abominable prints which could only disgust him, which possessed no artistic merits, and which could only be regarded with aversion by every right-minded person. It was not against the masterpieces of Correggio that the Bill was levelled, but against the mass of impure publications which was poured forth on London, to the great injury of the youth of this country. If their Lordships would read the Bill a second time, he thought there could be no difficulty in introducing words in Committee to guard against any abuse which might be apprehended; but he cautioned their Lordships against a proceeding which
  338
  could not fail to shock the public feeling of the country.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had no doubt that the evil of which the noble and learned Lord had complained was a very serious one, and that steps ought to be taken to put an end to it; but it was no less clear, after the statements made by other noble and learned Lords, that the Bill in its present shape would not effect the object in view—at least not without producing considerable inconvenience. The noble and learned Lord, however, had just stated that words might be introduced in Committee to put down the evil, but at the same time to obviate the difficulties which had been pointed out. Under those circumstances, he, for one, was inclined to vote for the second reading, reserving his right to consider the Amendments which might be proposed in Committee.
  LORD BROUGHAMsuggested the propriety, after the statement of the Lord Chief Justice, whose opinion upon such a subject was entitled to great weight, of withdrawing the Amendment and allowing the Bill to go to the second reading.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn, and Bill read 2a.

VEXATIOUS LITIGATION PREVENTION BILL.

  SECOND READING. BILL POSTPONED.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he did not at present propose to press this Bill to a second reading, but, as he had given a notice of his intention to call the notice of their Lordships to the subject of vexatious suits, he would take this opportunity of making his statement; but he would not detain their Lordships long. This was a Bill which he had twice before presented to their Lordships, for preventing vexatious litigation by the establishment of courts of reconcilement. He had the misfortune to differ from the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack and from other noble and learned Friends upon that subject; they were, at least, not so sanguine as he was of the benefits to be derived from the establishment of courts of reconcilement. His own opinion was a very strong one, and was founded upon what took place in other countries. In France more than two-thirds of all the causes brought into court were stopped by the court of reconcilement, including one-third of the greater causes. In Denmark the result was still

  339
  more striking; for there, out of 30,000 causes brought into court, no more than 3,000, or one-tenth of the whole, ever came to be tried, nine-tenths being stopped by the court of reconcilement. In Germany and Switzerland the experience was precisely the same. In all these countries the system had been found to answer better than in France, because it was under better regulation. Of the value of the principle there could be no doubt; but knowing the great indisposition of his noble and learned Friends to adopt this plan, he could hope for no more than that they might be induced to approve those parts of the Bill for preventing vexatious litigation. Since the Bill was last before their Lordships, he had made one material change in it. It originally stood that the parties were to go before the Judge without their counsel or their attorneys; but he had been induced to alter it, and to enable them to go there, if they were so minded, with their professional advisers. He now begged to call the attention of their Lordships to the experience of the Examiners' Office of the Court of Chancery since the recent change in its constitution and practice. The present Examiners had had before them somewhere about 600 causes, and they had found the intermediary process of examination most successful. One-seventh of the whole had been stopped in the office through their kindly intervention, and allowed to go no further. No doubt, as the Master of the Rolls, the head of that office, suggested, much of this was owing to the parties becoming aware of each other's feelings. One advantage of the plan, indeed, was that the parties at an early stage, before any expense had been incurred, were brought together, and, discussing their several cases, each knew what chance he had of meeting a formidable array of evidence against him, the result being that many hopeless actions and defences—hopeless suits for one party or the other, which would have been attended to one of the parties with great—perhaps ruinous—expense were stopped. But in what he proposed there was also the great benefit of the parties coming before a respected individual of sagacity and experience, wholly uninterested, and giving his advice from no possible motive except that of kindness towards the intending litigants. The effect of that with respect to the Examiners had been, that in almost all cases in which they had recommended the plaintiff
  340
  to give up his suit because he had no chance of success, or advised the defendant to abandon his defence because he was sure to be defeated, their advice had been Followed. The Examiners had told him that attorney's actions, either in inception, or what became attorney's actions during the suit, formed a very large proportion of all actions. The defect in the Examiners' Office, valuable as it had proved, was this, that when the parties got there, a good deal of expense had been already incurred. Were there a court of reconcilement in the first instance, those expenses might not be incurred. It was a melancholy fact, known to all who had lived as long in the profession as he had, that great suffering occurred to poor and deserving persons through unhappy litigations. How many instances had he known of the ruin of men's fortunes?—cases which were distinctly traceable to their having engaged in suits, for the success of which there was no reasonable hope. Were there courts of reconcilement to which they might apply in the first instance, their ruin might have been prevented. He proposed that, in order to prevent vexatious suits, the litigation of claims for which there was no just foundation, by persons in insolvent circumstances, he would give power to a Judge to require security for the costs to be incurred in such action. Actions the most desperate and untenable were brought; subscriptions were obtained for carrying them on, at the instigation of some pettifogging practitioner of the law; and, when they failed, the plaintiff was found to be utterly incapable of paying a farthing. There was the well-known case of Smyth (Provis) v, Smith, in which a man utterly reckless, wholly unprincipled, as dishonest as any man who ever entered a court of justice, brought an action of ejectment against the proprietor of an hereditary estate, and put that proprietor not only to great expense but to great anxiety for months and years. The claim on his property was defeated. Smyth himself was examined, and a person seeing in the London papers an account of the examination was enabled to send down a telegraphic message which convicted him of the fabrication of a ring and of the forgery of a document. He was tried for forgery. He might also have been tried for perjury, but he was tried and convicted of forgery and sentenced to transportation for life. The defendant in the action

  341
  brought by that man had to pay between £7,000 and £8,000. It might be asked how were the funds for carrying on the proceedings provided? He grieved to say they were provided by the subscriptions of persons in London and Bristol, who, on the promise of 150 per cent, were ready to speculate on the chance of success; but those persons would not have been willing to run the risk of having to pay the whole costs in the suit. He would answer for it that if there had existed such a provision as he proposed, Provis would never have found any person to give security for costs. Provis broke down under his own examination under the admirable operation of the new law of evidence: but this was but one remarkable case. He might cite to their Lordships hundreds of cases of smaller amount in which the defendants were put to an expense of £400 or £500 by these vexations proceedings. The only other provision of this Bill was to cure a defect in the insolvency law. The Insolvency Court did not possess the power of visiting parties to vexatious suits with punishment, unless they happened to be defendants. He proposed to make the power of punishment apply equally to the plaintiffs. He would not at present trouble their Lordships further, but would move the second reading of the Bill, in order that further proceedings might be adjourned.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was, to a certain extent, opposed to courts of reconcilement, because he believed they would be only sinks for adding to the expense of ordinary litigation. When it was said that the Examiners in the Court of Chancery found they could often put an end to suits, it was no doubt perfectly true, because it should be remembered that the parties had been in violent hostility to each other for some time, and, the truth having all come out, they had the means of knowing what the chances of success or failure were. It seemed to him that to force persons to appear before a tribunal amicably to settle their differences, would only lead, ultimately, to further litigation. With respect to the proposal to call upon the plaintiff to give security before entering upon a suit, he could only say that it was one which, in his opinion, was open to grave objection, because the Judge who was to fix the amount of security could know nothing about the merits of
  342
  the case without having the whole matter investigated before him. The object which his noble and learned Friend sought to accomplish was no doubt one of great importance, and its attainment would be productive of considerable advantage if it could only be made consistent with a due regard to the interest of the poorer class of plaintiffs. He must confess that he entertained great doubts upon that point, but he should abstain—as his noble Friend proposed to move the adjournment of the debate—from offering any further comment upon the subject on that occasion.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had not the slightest doubt that a court such as his noble and learned Friend sought to establish had been productive of great benefit in Denmark and other continental countries; but he must at the same time contend that it would be found to be totally irreconcilable with the form of procedure in England; that it would add to the amount of vexatious litigation, and would increase the costs of particular suits. Out of the causes which came on for trial in this country eighty per cent were of a nature in which the question involved admitted of no doubt, in which the defendant had not a shadow of a chance of succeeding, and in which his only object was to seek some means by which a good defence might be got up. In ten out of the remaining twenty per cent, to bring the parties face to face before entering upon a suit would, instead of leading to a reconcilement between them, be, in his opinion, productive only of exasperation. He was quite as much alive as his noble and learned Friend could be to the evils resulting from the prosecution of vexatious claims to estates, but the inconvenience was one which he despaired of seeing removed by the operation of any general Law.
  Further debate on the said Motion adjourned sine die.
  House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.