Lords Sitting of 18 March 1858

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Turnpike Road Offences; Law of Evidence further Amendment.
CASE OF THE CAGLIARI.

  OBSERVATION'S.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid: My Lords, I am anxious to call the attention of Her Ma-
  306
  jesty's Government to a publication of the Neapolitan Government which has lately appeared, relating to the case of the Cagliari. and therefore, of course, to our poor unfortunate countrymen at present upon their trial in the Neapolitan dominions. The law upon this subject was very precisely stated a short time back by the noble Lord at the head of the late Government. The noble Lord stated that if the Cagliari had been placed in jeopardy by any voluntary act of her captain in conducting her into the waters of Naples, and they had been there seized, then he should not be justified in attempting to interfere with regard to our unfortunate countrymen; but upon the other hand, if the vessel was taken possession of by a superior force and subsequently captured and carried within the jurisdiction of Naples, in that case we should be entitled to claim the liberation of our countrymen. Now, I have no doubt that the opinion expressed by the noble Lord was the opinion which had been communicated to him by the law officers of the Crown; and I now beg leave to direct your attention to the publication to which I have referred. In that publication it is stated in distinct terms that the vessel was captured by two Neapolitan frigates and carried from the place where the capture took place into the jurisdiction of Naples, and it goes on to say that the capture being a good capture, the vessel was afterwards condemned. Upon that statement, therefore, and referring to the opinion expressed by the noble Lord at the head of the late Government, we have a perfect right to insist upon the liberation of our unhappy countrymen. That right existed at the time the question was first discussed and exists now. I do not for a moment pretend to say what should be the policy to be pursued by Her Majesty's Government. I leave that entirely to their own discretion, and that more particularly after the long period of seeming acquiescence in the course adopted by the Neapolitan Government. I put no question, even to Her Majesty's Government; but I merely make this statement in order to draw their attention to the subject.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, before I make any remark on what has been stated by my noble and learned Friend, I beg the House distinctly to understand that up to the 26th of last month Her Majesty's present Government are in no degree responsible for any act taken either by Her Majesty's late Government

  307
  or by the Sardinian Government with respect to the capture of the Cagliari. That being, as I have no doubt it will be, admitted by both sides of the House, I think it will be as well to state in a few words the circumstances attending the capture of the Cagliari as they really occurred. That vessel started in January from Genoa bound for Tunis. She bad, among her crew, two Englishmen, as engineers. It appears that a certain number of men had conspired against the Government of Naples, and, if I may use the terms, disguised themselves has passengers, having took their passage on board of her. Then, after she had proceeded to sea some distance, those men rose, mastered the crew and the captain by force, and directed the ship's course to a certain island, called Ponza, where some Neapolitan convicts were in prison. There they landed, liberated those convicts, and then, accompanied by them, proceeded to make a descent upon the territory of Naples, for the purpose of raising the country against the Neapolitan Government. Having done this, they permitted the captain and the regular crew of the Cagliari to depart. It is said by one party that the captain intended to go to Naples, and that he steered his course for that his original and lawful destination. There is no positive proof of this, but I believe this to have been the case. Whilst on his way he was met by the two Neapolitan frigates, which, no doubt, were on the look-out for the ship that had been the means of this attack; the Cagliari was captured, and, with the crow, was taken to Naples. The Neapolitan Government instituted a claim of jurisdiction over the captain and crew, in order to ascertain whether they were parties to the violent attack made upon the island of Ponza and on the territory of Naples, or whether they were entirely innocent. It Was at this point that the Government interference took place. Her Majesty's late Government were for some time—for four or five months—under the false impression that the ship was captured in Neapolitan waters. But, on the 17th December, the exact truth was ascertained, 'namely, that she was captured on the high seas. On the 24th December they consulted the law officers of the Crown. Upon that day, and twice since then—indeed, three times before the end of February — they consulted the law officers, and three times the law officers declared their opinion that the capture of the Cagliari was a legal capture. Under those circumstances, if appears clear,
  308
  as far as the papers can show—and we have perused them with great care and interest, that Her Majesty's Government did not intend any further to dispute the legality of the capture. But it has been stated by the noble Viscount who was at the head of Her Majesty's late Government (Viscount Palmerston), in another place, that Her Majesty's Government had not made up their minds on that point. I cannot, of course, answer for that statement; but I wish the House distinctly to understand that at that point, and that point only, our responsibility begins. Now, my Lords, that being the state of facts, and the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on those facts, being as I have stated, some new facts have come to light since I have hold office—which I did not find mentioned in the papers—which I think will justify Her Majesty's Government—considering the great interest which this case excites in the country, and that upon our decision the protracted imprisonment of our countrymen may depend—I think that Her Majesty's Government are fully justified, before adopting any measures which they may propose to follow—in referring the case again to the present law officers of the Crown, and then in laying before Parliament the papers respecting it. They are very voluminous, and cannot be collected and arranged in a very short time. But I shall take care that they shall be collected and arranged, and presented to your Lordships and to the other House as speedily as possible. I have heard that the late Prime Minister has expressed his wish that they should be so produced. I have nothing now to add except the statement which I make with all respect to the opinion of one so eminent as my noble and learned Friend, that his view of the legal part of the question is not in accordance with that of the law officers of the Crown, as at present given. Her Majesty's Government feel as deeply as any of Her Majesty's subjects with respect to the sufferings and protracted imprisonment of these two poor engineers. Her Majesty's Government feel that not a moment should be lost in the progress of the case, and in the meantime they will take every means of alleviating the cruelty of their confinement.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEwished to point out that there was another means of obtaining a legal opinion upon this question of international law, and he believed it would be a more competent opinion than that of the law officers of the

  309
  Crown—he referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The opinion of the Judicial Committee might under the Act be taken, and he for one believed it would he a better course to adopt than to rely upon the opinion of the two persons who might happen to be the law officers of the Crown.
  LORD LYNDHURST: I must not he understood as having given any opinion on this question. I was mistaken in the statement I made in consequence of the manner in which the law was stated by the noble Viscount to whom I have referred. He put two cases distinctly in these terms— first, he said if the captain of the vessel by his own voluntary act conducted the vessel within the waters of Naples we had no right to interfere. I say nothing with respect to the law on that point. But he went further, and stated that if by superior force the vessel was seized and conducted into the waters of Naples, in that case the act was illegal, and we had a right to interfere. I was induced to bring this point before your Lordships' attention in consequence of the Neapolitan Government having, by a late publication, made it perfectly clear that the vessel was captured by two Neapolitan frigates, not within the waters of Naples, but beyond them. If, then, the law is as stated by the noble Viscount, it is impossible to say that we are not entitled to insist on the liberation of our countrymen. That force was used is admitted by the Neapolitan Government itself in the very document to which I have referred.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think it is but fair to Her Majesty's late Government that when questions involving declarations made by them are intended to be put to the present Government some notice should be given, as we should then be prepared to answer any such questions. In any case I, being a non-legal Member of your Lordships' House, should think it better to refrain from entering into the details of the law, I believe that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has correctly stated the facts, except as to the place of destination of the vessel, which I believe was Tunis and not Naples. Her Majesty's late Government thought it better to see what effect the application of the Sardinian Government to the Neapolitan Government would have before any further steps were taken on behalf of the English prisoners.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I quite agree with my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) as to the inconvenience of raising questions of such importance without notice; and I can only say that I was as much taken by surprise as my noble Friend by my noble and learned Friend's statement. With regard to what has just fallen from my noble and learned Friend, I will only say that I believe there is in existence such a document as he has referred to from the Neapolitan Government in answer to the Sardinian Government, but up to this moment that document has not been received at the Foreign Office. Nothing has been received from Sardinia except the bare statement of our Minister at Turin that the Neapolitan Government had refused to comply with the demand made upon it by the Sardinian Government to deliver up the vessel. I will only venture to say, with great respect to what fell from the noble and learned Lord (Lord Wensleydale) on the other side, that, however satisfactory it may be on all questions to obtain the judgment of so important a tribunal as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, I do not believe there is any precedent for referring to their judgment any question which does not come before it by way of appeal in a legal transaction. The ordinary course in cases of this kind is undoubtedly that the Government should refer the question to the law Officers of the Crown and the Queen's Advocate, and be guided by the advice which they may give.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, he had merely suggested that questions of this nature might be properly brought before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if there were any difference in the opinion of the law officers upon such an important matter—indeed, in that case, it would be better to take the advice of the Privy Council.
  LORD REDESDALE: It appears to me that in considering the case we ought to ask ourselves how we should have acted under similar circumstances. In all matters we ought to do as we would be done by. Now, I freely confess that I believe if any vessel of any sort or from any quarter were to land men upon our shores, who then proceeded to break open our prisons and release the convicts, in order to obtain their assistance in committing acts of violence against the Government and the constituted authorities, the captain

  311
  of any of Her Majesty's vessels that might happen to be near the point of embarcation would act in a very extraordinary manner if he did not get possession of that ship and bring it into one of our harbours, in order that it might be ascertained whether the parties who had the management of that vessel were responsible for the acts of those who had been on board. I think that we should very carefully inquire into the manner in which that vessel came into the possession of those parties who had committed acts of violence against the Government and the constituted authorities, I think, therefore, that the Neapolitan Government were justified, at all events to a certain extent, in what they have done. Whether they have carried the matter further than they ought to have done certainly remains to be proved; but I do think that a very unjust amount of blame has been cast upon that Government with respect to the seizure of the Cagliari. Whether those persons who were on board had been treated by the Neapolitan authorities in a proper manner is another matter; but I do not think that they ought to be blamed for the seizure. When such an insult was offered to their territory as was offered by those who were in that vessel, it would be extremely unreasonable to expect that they should have taken no cognizance of it.
  EARL GREYsaid, that the brief discussion which had taken place showed how important it was that they should express no positive opinion upon the question until they were thoroughly acquainted with the facts, and were in possession of all the papers on the subject. He thought that there was much value in the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Wensleydale) with respect to referring the matter to the judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When the Act constituting the Judicial Committee was passed, one of the duties committed to it was to give assistance in those cases in which it was necessary that the Crown should be advised upon important questions of law. It must not be forgotten that if, upon the advice of the ordinary law officers of the Crown, the Government took certain steps they might commit the nation and bring it into a situation of very great difficulty. The measures to be adopted in cases of this description required to be considered very carefully; otherwise rights might be waived, on the opinion of all the law officers, which
  312
  it would he highly important to maintain, and which perhaps would not be surrendered if the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could be taken upon them. The opinion of the law officers amounted to nothing less than a judicial decision in these cases, and therefore he thought there was much value in the suggestion thrown out by the noble and learned Lord below him (Lord Wensleydale). He trusted, when the papers upon this important subject should be laid before the House, that they would include any communication which might have taken place between the British and Sardinian Governments, in order to show how far the British Government had given assistance to Sardinia in her efforts to obtain justice.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that every paper relating to the subject should be laid upon the table.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, the Act constituting the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was framed in the largest manner possible, so that questions like the present might be brought within its scope and laid before the Committee. But in doing this great discretion would be required, because the Government might place questions before the Committee which would afterwards come before them for decision in their capacity as a Court of Appeal — questions which might involve points relating to the law of nations, on which they had themselves before given an opinion. It was not intended that the Judicial Committee should become the general Council of the Queen, but was a court of appeal, before which questions came for decision.
  LORD CRANWORTHagreed with the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken that there might be difficulties in referring a ease of this description to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When he had the honour of holding the Great Seal it was proposed on several occasions to refer cases to this tribunal, but it had only been adopted in one instance—when a question arose between the Government and a colonial Legislature respecting the right of colonial Bishops— because it was felt that unless both parties were present to argue the case the real advantage of a judicial decision would not be obtained. Although the power existed, therefore, it was difficult to exercise it, because the Judicial Committee might give a decision, upon a case not argued judici-

  313
  ally before them, which might hamper them in their capacity of a court of appeal, if any case involving the same point should happen to come before them,

COUNTY COURT RETURNS.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  LORD BROUGHAM LORD BROUGHAM, in rising to move for certain Returns connected with the County Courts, said that while doing so, he wished once more, and with practical views, to call their Lordships' attention to this very important subject. He had so often dwelt upon the great services of these courts, and the vast mass of business transacted in them, that he had now little more to do than to state the amount of that business from their establishment in 1847 to the present time. He might, however, remind their Lordships, that during the first ten years of their establishment there were 4,660,000 plaints heard in those courts, and the stuns claimed amounted to £14,250,000. The amount recovered under judgments was £7,300,000, and the sums paid into court amounted to £1,000,000; making altogether in the ten years above 4½ millions of suits for 14¼ millions of persons, and 8¼ millions recovered by the plaintiffs. The business had steadily increased since that period, and if the Returns were granted for which he intended to move, he believed it would be shown that in the year 1857 upwards of 700,000 plaints had been brought into those courts, being about double the business transacted ten years ago. He need scarcely remind their Lordships that the inevitable consequences of such a system of local judicature was that a vast number of claims were settled out of court; for when the parties knew that there was no chance of resisting a just demand, they settled the matter without delay, trouble, or expense to the suitors. If, therefore, the number of suits had realized £9,000,000 sterling, and there were above 6,000,000 plaints, it was but reasonable to suppose that there were many hundreds of thousands of cases in which it had not been found necessary for the parties to obtain the judgment of the Court. The beneficial effect of the establishment of those courts upon the comfort and peace of the community was incalculable, for nothing was more likely to create wide-spread and deep-rooted discontent among men, especially of the humbler classes, than the denial of justice which he feared bad occurred too frequently previous to the establish-
  314
  ment of these local tribunals. When they were first established their jurisdiction was limited to £20, but it was afterwards extended to £50. The influx of business in 1847 and its increase in 1851 was enormous, because previously to those periods there was no remedy for the unhappy plaintiff but an appeal to one of the superior courts in Westminster Hall, which, in the great majority of cases, he was unable or unwilling to carry on. The great objection made to the Act for the examination of parties in civil suits, which he had proposed without success in 1845, and which, owing to the expense of the County Courts, he had been fortunate enough to pass in 1851 (and which he had no hesitation in saying had produced the greatest and most beneficial change of the law in our times (he spoke of it thus freely because he was willing to give the credit to his dear and revered friend, the late Lord Denman, whose Bill of 1842 laid the foundation) was, that if leave were given to the parties immediately interested to be examined, there would be endless perjury. That however, he (Lord Brougham) denied at the time, and subsequent experience had proved that he was well warranted in that denial. The fact was, that the crime of perjury had diminished instead of increasing since the Act passed. The amount of perjury depended to some extent on the number of witnesses examined, and as by that Act the number of witnesses was reduced, the effect was to diminish perjury pro tanto; but the parties were not found to forswear themselves, as bad been predicted. The experience of all the Judges showed that the tendency of the Act was not to increase the crime, as the number of commitments for perjury had been considerably less than before the passing of the Act. The number of commitments for perjury in the years 1851 and 1852, immediately before the Act came into operation, was 136, whereas, in the two years 1853 and 1854, immediately after it came into operation, the number was only 107. Now, the commitments for all description of crime in the year 1851–52 were 27,000, and in the year 1853–54, 28,000; therefore it was clear that the reduction in the number of commitments for perjury was not to be attributed to a general decrease of crime. Such being the satisfactory operation of the Act heretofore in relation to civil suits, he now proposed that this great improvement in our law should be carried to its full and

  315
  natural extent, so as to render it complete; he proposed that the principle of examining the parties should no longer be confined to civil suits only, but extended to criminal cases also. He did not lay this down as a proposition to which it was impossible to make any objection, but still he thought that the expediency of the extension was such as to overbalance all objections. By the law, as it stood at present, no person charged with felony or misdemeanour could give evidence on their own behalf; neither could a wife give evidence in favour of her husband, or a husband in favour of a wife. The late Recorder of the City of London, his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Stuart Wortley) had, in the debate on his (Lord Brougham's) Bill stated the hardships and injustice which he had seen occasioned by excluding the evidence of the accused person, or of those immediately related to him; and he mentioned the particulars of a case tried before him, in which, if the man's wife could have been examined, there would have been no doubt in the minds of the judge or jury of his entire innocence of the offence imputed to him. The learned Recorder hesitated as to the examination in civil cases, but if that were carried, he held that it should not stop there. Now, suppose a person were charged with an offence, for accusing him of which he felt there was not a shadow of ground, could there be anything that he would more court than to have the opportunity of being examined and cross-examined by the counsel for the prosecution, after stating the facts in his own defence? The statement which a man was now allowed to make, being without the sanction of an oath, and not being subject to cross-examination, went for no more than the speech of his counsel or his plea of "not guilty." What he (Lord Brougham) therefore proposed was that if a defendant in a criminal suit chose to offer himself as a witness to be examined on the circumstances relating to the charge, and to be cross-examined by the prosecutor, he should be allowed to do so upon oath, subject to that cross-examination; see the gross inconsistency of our procedure as it now exists. Under the present practice all the parties to criminal proceedings were not excluded from giving evidence. On the contrary, one party—the prosecutor—was heard. Let it not be said that, technically, the prosecutor was not admitted, because the Crown was the prose-
  316
  cutor. In reality, in all cases except ex-officio prosecutions—that is, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred—there was a private prosecutor, and he was examined and cross-examined on oath. But the defendant could not be examined. And what was the consequence? It often happened that the prosecutor having been heard, and the defendant either acquitted or convicted, he subsequently turned out, and dragged the prosecutor into court to defend himself against a charge of perjury, or some other charge; and then his mouth was shut in turn. But it was not confined to that. Were there no criminal matters in which the defendant was examined on oath? Since the Act of 1851, in cases of various kind—it might be of foul conspiracy, of scandalous fraud, even of fearful violence, provided the case assumed the form of a civil action instead of an indictment or information — the defendant was examined as well as the plaintiff. Then how did the matter stand in bankruptcy and insolvency? A party not only might be examined if he pleased, but he was examined whether he would or not; and that, too, without the protection of not being bound to answer questions tending to criminate him; and on his answers he might be criminally tried. He was aware of the objection, that by allowing a defendant to be examined, a great advantage would be given to the crafty and skilful malefactor over a simpler and less experienced man, that the one would be much more likely than the others to persuade a jury to acquit him. That might be so; but he was not afraid of the guilty escaping on that account. He trusted so confidently to the power of cross-examination by the counsel for the prosecution, that he had no fear of the march of justice being impeded by the talents of the criminal—that talent of interrogation of which the great Roman rhetorician had said, Non disciplinâ in scholis traditâ, sed naturali acumine et usu contingit. It might be said that allowing the accused to make an election whether they would be examined or not would lead to the inference that all who declined to tender themselves were guilty: but in the majority of cases the ground of declining to take advantage of the law would be the conciousness of inability to stand the test of cross-examination, and he could see no very great hardship in such persons being supposed to be guilty. He considered that the

  317
  measure which he contemplated introducing would be imperfect, if it did not embrace the provision which his Evidence and Procedure Bill of 1854 contained, to deprive witnesses of the protection now given them against self-crimination, requiring them to answer, though they might allege the risk they ran of affording help to a prosecutor, but preventing their deposition from being used in evidence against them, except in a prosecution for perjury. How utterly inconsistent the existing rule is with the nature of a witness's functions, with common sense, and with itself, as well as with the whole of our process in bankruptcy, and of our occasional acts for inquiring into the conduct of public bodies, especially of boroughs, I have, on former occasions, had the opportunity of explaining and of illustrating by numerous instances. As the law has of late been laid down, after some fluctuation of opinion among Judges, although on several points a discrepancy still exists among the judicial authorities, it may be taken that a witness is entitled at any period of his examination, and after he has gone voluntarily a certain length in his testimony, to stop short and refuse to go further, upon the simple allegation without any specification whatever, that in his belief the answer to the question proposed might have a tendency towards his own crimination, that so absurd a power of refusing his testimony should be much longer continued to a witness seems wholly impossible. When on this subject, he would refer to a most pernicious practice which had grown up in modem times on the part of some magistrates, and even in persons of higher position, fostering the attempts of criminals to escape by warning them against answering any questions that might by possibility criminate them. It was not only said, "remember what you say will be taken down, and may be used against you at your trial," but they were further told, "You had better reserve your defence, for all you say may be used against you elsewhere." He was far from approving of the French system of the Judge himself at their trial examining and cross-examining prisoners; but he thought that a change in our present system would be advantageous. The prisoner would be entirely at liberty to present himself for examination as the consequences of his own statement being received in evidence, or to refuse being examined, and in that case lose the benefit of his own testimony. To return to the subject of the County
  318
  Courts—he had stated the great benefits which had been derived from them, including the improvement of our law of evidence which they had enabled us to accomplish. The amount of business transacted in them was equal to ail that was transacted in the supreme courts of Westminster Hall. The business in the latter had, on the institution of the County Courts, considerably fallen off, although it had lately somewhat increased. In the County Courts the increase had been regular from the first until now; and he ventured to say that more money was now recovered in the County Courts than in all the superior courts put together. Of the suits brought in the superior courts, only 2 per cent ever were tried; of the County Court plaints one half. He stated these circumstances in support of his earnest prayer that the Government would reconsider the resolution come to by the late Government of equalising the salaries of the County Court Judges, by cutting them down, instead of giving what the wise liberality of Parliament had originally decided for them. They were all to be reduced to £1,200 a year, including the successors of those who now had £1,500. His Lordship concluded by moving for—
  Account of the Salaries received by the Judges of the County Courts, and of the Salaries, Fees, and Emoluments received by the Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Bailiffs, and other Officers thereof, during the Year from 1st January to 31st December, 1857; Also,
  Account of all Fees levied and taken in the County Courts during the year from 1st January to 31st December, 1857, and paid over to the Consolidated Fund: And also,
  Account of all Sums paid out of the Consolidated Fund during the Year from 1st January to 31st December, 1857, to the Judges, Treasurers, and other Officers of the County Courts for Salaries, Travelling Expenses, or otherwise; distinguishing the respective amounts under distinct heads.
  LORD CRANWORTHbegged to correct a mistake into which the noble and learned Lord had fallen in reference to the salaries of the County Court Judges. The late Government did not oppose "the wise liberality of Parliament" in that respect. The fact was, the Mouse of Commons would not give more. He would not say that the late Government thought the House of Commons wrong.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, the House of Commons voted a larger sum, but it was the late Government who reduced it.
  LORD CRANWORTHassured the noble and learned Lord it was a mistake on his part:—the Resolution relative to the sala-

  319
  ries of the County Court Judges was the act of the House of Commons, and not of the Government. With reference to the question of examining criminals vivâ voce, he did not expect to have heard his noble and learned Friend introduce so important a question on a Motion for certain County Court returns, and he ventured to state that their Lordships were not then in a position to give an opinion on it. He quite agreed with his noble and learned Friend that they were a little prudish in such matters, and no doubt often shut out the truth, when by a little relaxation of our rules it might be let in. It was an important question, which he was not prepared to discuss on the notice they had had. With regard to Magistrates, and the caution they give to prisoners, he reminded his noble and. learned Friend they were compelled by Act of Parliament to caution prisoners before asking them what they had to say to the charge. He had never yet heard that when a prisoner stated a plain, probable story, either before committing Magistrates at Sessions, or before the Judges, it was not received with all the weight and consideration it deserved: —he thought, indeed, it carried very great weight with the jury.
  LORD BROUGHAMexplained, that his object in mentioning examination of criminals in connection with County Court returns, was to save time and trouble, and to make one statement serve two purposes; because, as soon as their Lordships granted him the returns, he should ask permission to lay on their Lordships' table a Bill on the other subject. The Commons had first granted £1,500 a year to all County Court Judges, when the late Government equalized the salaries by reducing the whole to £1,200; it was perfectly true that a Motion was rejected by the Commons to render all equal by taking the sum allowed in the former Session.
  Motion agreed to.

MEDICAL REFORM—SALE OF POISONS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDEasked the First Lord of the Treasury what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to Medical Reform and the Sale of Poisons. The question was one of vast social importance, and in which not only large classes of professional men, but the public itself were concerned. In his own opinion, acting from the information he had received, the medical profes-
  320
  sion were better prepared for legislation on the subject at the present moment than they had been for many years past. There were several important questions of medical reform which they generally thought ought to be taken up by the Government, especially those which had reference to giving greater security for testing the capacity of Members of the different branches of the profession, and putting all those who possessed the necessary attainments in an equally favourable position, while they removed all artificial difficulties in the way of the most talented and experienced men obtaining the highest possible status to which they could attain in the profession. It was also desirable to provide, as far as possible, against the evil arising from incompetent men, such as quacks and impostors, carrying on their practices under the shelter of the profession. No doubt there would be great difficulty in legislating upon this subject; but he thought some attempt should at least be made to obtain these objects, though the medical profession itself were not quite agreed as to what should be done. He would take the liberty of asking what were the intentions of the Government upon the subject. Their Lordships were aware that two Bills were introduced last Session, but neither of them under the direct sanction of the Government; and he thought it was obvious that unless the Bills, notice of the introduction of which had been given this Session, had the concurrence and assistance of Government, there was little chance of their passing. With reference to the sale of poisons, their Lordships were aware that a Committee of their Lordships' House inquired into that question last Session, at which many witnesses were examined; and, although there was some division of opinion upon the subject, he thought that evidence enough had been given to show, that the question deserved the immediate attention of the Government.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the noble Lord had very properly brought under their Lordships' attention two subjects of importance, to which the noble Lord had, he knew, given much attention. At the same time, he must remind him that there was a certain class of cases with regard to which every one was agreed that something ought to be done; but when they came to consider the details of a measure, very few agreed upon what ought to be done. There was no stronger exemplification of the truth of this remark than

  321
  was afforded by the question of medical reform; for the members of the medical profession were not altogether agreed upon what was wanted, and their disagreement rendered it almost impossible to pass any satisfactory measure. He might mention, as an analogous case, that, when he was a Member of the House of Commons, he hardly recollected one year in which some Member—generally a young and enthusiastic Member—did not bring in a Will for the reform of the laws regulating the salmon fishery. They were always told that there was a necessity for immediate legislation on the subject, and Parliament was induced to interfere; but, as surely as a Bill was passed in one Session, another had to be passed in the next to amend it. He would not say that the same fate which had attended all attempts to improve the salmon fishery laws would necessarily await any effort to deal with the question of medical reform; but the latter subject, as well as the former, appeared unquestionably to be involved in considerable difficulty as regarded its permanent settlement. The law as it stood was certainly not creditable to the country, and therefore he thought something ought to be done. The noble Lord had not, however, done justice to the efforts which had been made in the House of Commons to amend the law. It was true that, last year, two Bills were introduced; but this year, so great was the excitement on the subject, that no fewer than three Bills had been brought into the other House by three different Members. Amid such a conflict of opinion, he was not prepared to say that the Government were ready to enter into the lists, and bring forward a fourth Bill on their own responsibility; but, considering the intimate acquaintance with the Subject possessed by those three Gentlemen, it was the intention of his colleagues in the other House to give their best attention to the Bills which had been introduced, and to endeavour, by some amicable arrangement with the different parties, to frame such a measure as would be most generally approved, and as would meet the views of the profession at large and of the public. As to the sale of poisons, the noble Lord was aware that a Bill was introduced on that subject last year by his noble Friend the late President of the Council (Earl Granville). That Bill was sent to a Committee, which suggested several Amendments, and he (the Karl of Derby) had lately communicated with his right hon.
  322
  Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, calling his attention to the Bill so amended, and requesting him to communicate with professional men and professional bodies, more especially with the Pharmaceutical Society, on the subject. If it was found that there was any chance of a Bill being so framed as to receive the approbation of Parliament, it would be introduced into the other House.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.