Lords Sitting of 25 July 1861

MINUTES.
Public Bills.—1a Durham University; Trustees (Scotland); Conjugal Rights (Scotland); Metropolitan Building Act Amendment.
2a Dealers in Old Metals; Parochial and Burgh Schools (Scotland); Probates and Letters of Administration Act (Ireland) Amendment; Copyright of Designs; Crown Suits Limitation; Criminal Proceedings Oath Relief.
3a Public Works (Ireland) (Advances and Repayment of Monies); White Herring Fishery (Scotland); Drunkenness (Ireland); Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment (Ireland) Act Proceedings; County Surveyors, &c. (Ireland); Locomotives.

EAST INDIA (HIGH COURTS OF JUDICATURE) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee upon the East India (High Courts of Judicature) Bill read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: —My Lords, I will, with your Lordships' permission, take this opportunity of ex-

1453
plaining the objects of the several Amendments of which I have given notice, and the reasons which have induced me to submit them to your Lordships' consideration. Your Lordships have agreed to the second reading of this Bill as passed by the House of Commons. I shall not offer any further opposition to the principle of the measure. I understand that principle to be the amalgamation of the Sudder Court and the Supreme Court. I must observe that I cannot by any means agree in the reasoning on which that amalgamation is proposed. It appears to me that those two Courts are incongruous; that they have not what I believe, in chymical language, is called "affinity;"—that they have no liking for each other, but rather the contrary. It is not impossible that on that account, if not on any other, there may be considerable differences among the Members. No one looking at the present constitution of these two Courts can say with confidence what the result of an amalgamation will be. The Judges of the one bring with them the knowledge of the laws prevailing in the provinces; those of the Supreme Court the knowledge of the general law. I agree very much with the opinion given by one of the witnesses examined before the Committee, that probably the Judges of the Supreme Court will prove much too strong for the Judges of the Sudder, and will have everything their own way. I do not believe that that will be a desirable result. It will have an effect injurious to the administration of the law in the Provinces, and to the character of our courts generally. But if we are to establish this amalgamation, at least let us see how it will work before we introduce the system into the small courts throughout India. Let us see what will be the result as regards appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If it shall be a well-constituted Court—if it shall administer justice well—there will be none, or very few appeals, and their decisions will be generally upheld. If that shall be the case, there may perhaps be no objection to the plan: but it is desirable to see what will be the practical working of the experiment before we determine to extend it over the whole of the Provinces. We should make the Bill of a tentative and not of an ambitious character; we should see our way clearly before we finally decide on a matter of such great importance. There is one point on which I agree with the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for India. When the
1454
Supreme Court was first established it was established to protect the Natives of India against the Europeans, and the Natives and Europeans against the Company's Government. One of these objects is no longer necessary, because the Government from which the Supreme Court emanates and that which rules the country are one: but the other reason for the existence of the Supreme Court—that of protecting the Natives against the Europeans—exists, and exists in still greater force than formerly, in consequence of the great increase in the number of Europeans in India. More than this, since they were established there has been a great extension of our dominion. I am willing to remedy any grievance that may really exist, but I would not go further than the necessity of the case, and the object of one of my Amendments is to provide that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to appoint to the High Court at Fort William, in Bengal, two additional Judges, and to each of the High Courts at Madras and Bombay one. I think this provision, with an arrangement of a similar character for the Court in the North-West Provinces, if one should be established there, would be amply sufficient for the purpose of trying by experience how the system will work. Your Lordships must recollect that if an English Judge has not a knowledge of the Native language as well as a knowledge of the law he is utterly helpless in the Indian provinces without the assistance of a Judge speaking the language of and acquainted with the country in which he has to perform judicial functions. The advantage of an English Judge is this, that he comes with his mind fresh from this country. On his arrival—though not, perhaps, after he has lived for some time in India—he may be supposed to be free from local prejudices. But, my Lords, there is a most important and novel principle in this Bill which I hope your Lordships will reject. By this Bill the Crown has the absolute power of appointing all the Judges of those Courts—not only the lawyers sent from England, but also those members of the Civil Service who may have belonged to the judicial staff of India. That is a principle which I think your Lordships ought not to introduce in this Bill. It is entirely contrary to every pledge given in Parliament when the Act under which India is now governed was introduced. It is contrary to the practice which has hitherto prevailed, and I believe it is inconsistent with the in-

1455
terests of this country in India; and I am sure it is altogether inconsistent with the interests of India. It is inconsistent with the maintenance of the proper position of the Governor General. It is for him who sees the working of the law and the manner in which it is administered, to reward good conduct, ability, and honour. Those engaged in the courts of India should look up to him, the head of the Government there, and not look to some party in this country as the authority who was enabled to raise them to the highest positions in their profession—they should own no "foreign allegiance." As the Bill stands now, the Crown has an indefinite power of appointing barristers from this country to judgeships in those High Courts; so that a barrister who gets into Parliament, and who, for no matter what purpose, makes himself troublesome to the Government, may have an Indian Judgeship thrust down his throat. The office seems to have been created for the express purpose of buying the silence of the Bar. The Bill creates sixty Judges to administer the law in India —yet we are about to commence a contest with the other House in respect to the appointment of a single Judge. He is to have £5,000 a year; yet both Houses seem to agree to the passing of a measure which will inflict upon India thirty-five Judges, each of whom is to have a salary of £5,000 a year. We have suffered the Natives of India to eat of the tree of knowledge, and they now know the reason of all that is done here. I entreat your Lordships not to think only of our own position in legislating for India; do not expose the more deformed parts of our practical Government, and show the Natives of India that where we are not to suffer ourselves it matters not what burdens we impose on others. To do right, and to make them feel that we do so, is now absolutely essential to the carrying on of the Government. This Bill asks more than is necessary for the object which it contemplates. The universal practice of Parliament is to refuse to give more than is absolutely necessary, reserving the power of increasing the supplies when necessary. Government may, if it can, reduce expenditure; but Parliament will never give a margin or an elasticity, as it was called by the noble Lord, to any establishment within the discretion of the Governor General to extend. No doubt pecuniary Votes of Credit are often given in the face of dangers threatening from abroad, but I never heard of a Vote of
1456
Credit for Judges to meet some possible demand for increased judicial expenditure. Of all qualities of the mind, perhaps the most rare is the judicial. The Bill proposes that thirty-five barristers shall be appointed to act as Judges in India. My Lords, there are not thirty-five, nor, perhaps, five men at the whole Bar, of whom any one could with safety predicate that they would make good Judges. Success at the Bar is no proof that a man will make a good Judge. Within my recollection, I have known more than one gentleman most successful at the Bar—good, able men, and sound lawyers—who yet made extremely indifferent Judges. The fact is that the very qualities which enable a man to attain distinction at the Bar are the very qualities which unfit him for the duties of the Bench. Do you suppose that because thirty-five barristers of five years' standing each may be represented to you as so many Lord Mansfields, you will find ten—ay, or five of that number, possessing judicial minds? A judicial mind is a gift of Providence, and most rare. These, my Lords, are the objects and reasons of the Amendments I am about to propose. I assure your Lordships that it has been very irksome to me to press myself so often during the last two or three weeks upon your attention; but, connected as I have been with India for so many years, I felt that I could not absolve myself from the performance of that duty, especially where I held a strong opinion. I deeply regret the loss which the country sustained by the deaths of Lord Dalhousie and Lord Elphinstone. Had they been living, and in your Lordships' House, they would have spoken on this question with much more recent knowledge and greater experience than I am able to do. Had they agreed with me in opinion I should have been greatly strengthened in the views which I have advanced to your Lordships, and had they disagreed with me I should at least have had the consolation of thinking that my apprehensions must of necessity be exaggerated. As it is I must only express my own sentiments; and, feeling as I do on this subject, I have opposed the Bill, and now propose these Amendments, because, as the measure now stands, I believe it to be inconsistent with the good government of India on old English constitutional principles, and incompatible with the fair administration of justice.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, it was unnecessary for the noble Earl to offer the slightest apology to the House for con-

1457
tributing, as he always did upon questions of this nature, much valuable information. But, for his own part, he had never felt clearer as to the principle which should guide their Lordships in reference to the Amendments to be proposed by the noble Earl. When the noble Earl spoke of the peculiar aptitudes requisite for the administration of the law in India, it appeared to him that the very fact that two Courts, possessing different qualifications, were already in existence, afforded the strongest reason for bringing them together, and combining the judicial knowledge and the acquaintance with the habits of the people which formed their distinguishing characteristics. With regard to the question of the appointment of Judges, he thought it most objectionable that legal dignitaries should sit side by side upon the bench holding their commissions from different authorities. Such a system would not only prolong, but, in his opinion, would aggravate the evils to which the noble Earl objected. The large number of Judges for whose appointment power was taken under the Bill had, likewise, been objected to. The noble Earl was mistaken if he thought it was intended to fill up all these offices. He could assure their Lordships the Government had no intention of appointing any additional Judges; the only object which they had in view was to establish one High Court, by combining the two separate jurisdictions existing at each of the Presidencies. The question raised by the Amendments of which the noble Earl had given notice was whether it was, in the opinion of their Lordships, desirable to establish for India a High Court of judicature, upon the bench of which were to sit Judges deriving their authority from different sources and under different circumstances. Now Her Majesty's Government thought it very undesirable that these high judicial officers should exercise an authority derived as to some directly of the Crown, and as to others from an unequal and inferior power. If, therefore, the noble Earl moved his Amendments he should feel it his duty to oppose them.
LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, he did not mean to oppose the Bill which was founded on the recommendation of Commissioners of the very highest authority and introduced a principle which he did not dispute might be of use in India. But it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of this measure. By it the system of judicature now applied to 150,000,000 of Her
1458
Majesty's subjects was at once to be subverted and changed. The judicature of India at present consisted of a Supreme Court which exercised no appellate, and a Sudder Court which exercised little or no original jurisdiction. With respect to the application of law to the enormous population of India it would be a great mistake to suppose we had to deal with only two classes of people—Europeans or British-born subjects on the one hand and Native Indians on the other. What were called Native Indians, and the laws applicable to them, were divided into innumerable classes. There were Hindoos, Mahommedans, Parsees, Armenians, each class subdivided into many others. He believed that there were in India more than thirty different languages, and as many different sets of laws, religions, and customs, to the people who had become attached to each of which it was now proposed to apply one general measure for the administration of justice. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was quite justified in his statement that if this Bill proved effectual for its objects it would mark this Session with an importance beyond any other within his recollection. But how the objects were to be effected he could not discern from the Bill. It proposed to introduce changes of the most surprizing character. The distinctive clauses were sufficiently clear. From the moment when it came into operation the Supreme and the Sudder Courts would be abolished, but the Bill contained no distinct provision with respect to the Courts or what was to be substituted for them. All that he found in the Bill was that they were to be composed of a certain number of that class which Sidney Smith called the primum mobile of all human affairs, barristers of six years' standing, a certain number of covenanted servants of the East India Company, and a certain number of Native Judges. He was far from saying that it might not be possible from these materials to constitute efficient Courts, and to provide for the administration of justice throughout India; but he did say that to do so would be a task of the greatest difficulty, and one which might well task the utmost powers of the ablest administrators. The Courts to be established under this Bill were to administer civil, criminal, Admiralty, and testamentary and matrimonial law—all different branches of law, which in this country were distributed among a number of different tribunals. Now, he did think that before their Lordships abo-

1459
lished what existed they ought to have some intimation of what was to be substituted for it. It might be very useful to introduce into the Sudder Courts that knowledge of law and of the principles of general jurisprudence which belonged to regularly educated lawyers, but would it be equally advantageous to introduce into the Supreme Courts persons who were not lawyers, and who, it was admitted, could know nothing of the system the important duties of which they were called on to perform? The Supreme Courts of the different provinces discharged their duties, as far as he had heard or had learned by his experience on the Judicial Committee, with efficiency, and with the confidence of those whose affairs they had to administer. Was it quite certain that the dignity, the weight, and the confidence which now attached to those Courts would be preserved by the new ones? He entertained doubts whether such would be the case. He entirely agreed with the observations which were made by his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) when the Council of India Bill was introduced, as to the extreme objection which existed to altering the state of things which was established in India, and with which the Natives were satisfied. As regarded the constitution of the Supreme Courts and their mode of administering their original jurisdiction, he doubted whether any alteration was required. The extent of their jurisdiction might probably be usefully increased, and there could be no doubt that the Sudder Courts might be greatly improved by combining the legal knowledge of the Judges of the Supreme Courts with the acquaintance with the local laws, and customs, and habits and language of the Natives, which might be found amongst the Judges of the Sudder Courts. He thought that out of those materials a satisfactory Court of Appeal might be constituted, and the enormous evil of appeals to England be greatly diminished. At present an immediate appeal to Her Majesty in Council lay from decrees both of the Supreme and Sudder Courts in all cases above a certain amount in value. If their Lordships could feel compassion for lawyers of any class, he was sure that they would pity those who had to decide these appeal cases, and they must at least commiserate the unfortunate persons who were the subject of such litigations. The whole of the proceedings were in writing of great length, extending sometimes to many hundred close printed folio
1460
pages. It was necessary to translate the whole of the record-pleadings, documents, and examination of witnesses, and judgments into English, and then to print them; and when the Judges in England came to the consideration of the case they did so with the firm assurance that in all probability nearly all the instruments produced by the Natives were forgeries, and nearly all the depositions of the witnesses were falsehoods. There was no exaggeration. The very nature of truth seemed not to be understood amongst Hindoos. He had been informed by a gentleman now holding a distinguished situation in this country that he was once engaged as counsel for an Indian of good position to maintain the validity of a will, which was beyond all doubt perfectly genuine. In support of the will witnesses were called to the number of a dozen, each of whom swore that he saw the testator affix the seal to the will and that he was of perfectly sound mind at the time. The truth was that not one of the witnesses had been present on the occasion; but the client justified the course he had taken in calling them on the ground that although the evidence was false, it was in support of a genuine instrument. That was the general feeling in India on the subject. These appeals were attended with great expense and delay, and involved the utter ruin of the parties interested, unless their means were very large; and after all the expense was incurred, and the best attention of the Judicial Commissioners had been given to the subject, it was often impossible from the nature of the case that the Judges could feel confidence in their judgment. He thought that by improving the Appeal Courts in India it might be possible to raise with advantage the sum below which no appeal was now allowed to this country, and by that means, and by the greater confidence which the Court would command, greatly to diminish the number of appeals to England. There was, however, one class of appeal cases in which he did not wish any change, and that was where the Government or their officers were concerned. There were a number of cases in which the Judges of the inferior courts were suspected of partiality in their decisions towards the Government or its officers. The cases in which that was more likely to occur than any other were those connected with the collector's courts. He did not know whether the Commission which used to be the court of appeal in such cases had been abolished;

1461
but if not, he thought it would be necessary that some provision should be made on that point in the Bill. The appellate jurisdiction in Indian cases was exercised at present by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, with the assistance of two gentlemen of the highest character, ability, and weight, who had been Indian Judges, and who acted as assessors to the Committee. No one could desire to speak with greater respect than himself of the assessors, but he had never concealed his opinion that it was not right that such men as the present Vice-Chancellors, Sir William Page Wood, Sir Richard Kindersley, and Sir John Stuart, should be denied the rank of Privy Councillor, while it was conferred on the assessors. Those gentlemen were entitled to receive for their attendance some few hundred pounds a year in addition to their rank. They had no vote, but favoured the members of the Committee with their advice. The Court itself could not be formed by less than three members of the Committee who were sufficient for the decision of all other cases. There was often difficulty in procuring the attendance of sufficient numbers to constitute a Court, and this difficulty might be removed; or, at all events, diminished, if the assessors were made members of the Committee for the purpose of hearing appeals on which they now sat as assessors. He was afraid that, unless the Bill came out of Committee in a different shape from that in which it was at present it would not do any great credit to the Government, or be of any great advantage to the country. There seemed to be some difficulty of detail. One of the provisions enacted that the lawyers should not be less than one-third, and the covenanted servants not less than one-third, of the Judges constituting the Courts. Possibly they might want one or two additional covenanted or uncovenanted servants; and yet, as the Bill stood, they must appoint an equal additional number of lawyers, because the number of lawyers must not be less than one-third. In his opinion the House had a right to expect that a fuller outline of what was intended to be done under the provisions of the Bill should be contained in the Bill itself.
THE LORD CHANCELLORregretted that the noble and learned Lord, to whom he had for years been accustomed to listen with pleasure and instruction should not have applied his great knowledge and experience to embodying in Amendments the
1462
points to which he had adverted. He should have been very glad to have had some propositions, the result of the noble and learned Lord's knowledge and experience, with regard to the appellate jurisdiction. But the noble and learned Lord contented himself with general criticism, without condescending to tell their Lordships in what particular manner the evils of which he complained ought to be remedied. It was, undoubtedly, true that there was a great deal of difficulty attending the appellate jurisdiction, arising partly from the want of moral and religious principle among the Natives. The noble and learned Lord had told them that the Natives acted on the principle that the end sanctified any description of means, and, therefore, if once a man persuaded himself that he had a good cause, he would adopt any iniquitous or nefarious mode for gaining that cause in a court of justice. Her Majesty's Government had not been inattentive to that consideration; and in the first place they hoped that by the union of the Supreme with the Sudder Courts a more sifting, searching, and satisfactory tribunal would be created; and they also hoped that when a single Court was established a better mode of procedure and more correct and accurate rules would be laid down, which, to a great extent, would have the effect probably of preventing appeals, but, at all events, of sending them up in a shapeless and expensive manner, and less likely to produce further litigation. But they did not stop there. That was the intention of the Bill, and the result of the constitution of the Court would be that certain Judges under a Commission would go into the provinces, and, for the most part, act as Judges in the first instance, and there decide cases which would afterwards probably be reviewed by the Court sitting as it were in Banco—a phrase used to denote the Judges in Westminster Hall sitting to examine the decisions of the Judges on circuit—and by that mode the Government hoped the number of appeals would be greatly diminished. They were asked how could they provide one system for the administration of justice for so many distinct races as existed in India? His noble and learned Friend knew, but probably it was not generally known to their Lordships, that at present throughout all India there was a very well organized local administration of justice. There were several courts, subordinating one to another, and terminating in the Sudder Adawlut as the Su-

1463
preme Court of Appeal in civil causes. But they were confined to the administration of justice among the Natives, and European subjects scattered throughout the provinces were not amenable to their jurisdiction. In no possible way could they create a system of administration of justice applicable throughout all India except by amalgamating the two tribunals, Native and British, and sending Judges to try important cases in the first instance, which would afterwards be reviewed by the full Court, and such cases as required further review reserved for the Judicial Committee. That was the system proposed by the Bill, and with great submission he ventured to say it would not be wise to define it more explicitly. Defined it was already; but if they laid down rules in an Act of Parliament as to the particular manner in which a great jurisdiction was to be exercised, they would be bound in iron fetters, and if a mistake were made they could not meet the difficulty, for which otherwise it would be easy to provide. Therefore, he thought that with great wisdom, while the outline of the procedure and the Court was traced and the constitution of the Court accurately defined, the made of procedure was left to be filled up by particular powers, under letters patent issued by the Crown, which would be perfectly consistent with the ordinary rules which governed the administration of justice. As to the Amendments proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough), he must say, speaking with diffidence, and not presuming to set his knowledge and experience against the knowledge and experience of the noble Earl, that he could not for a moment concur in them. They had, happily, made India part of what he might call the proper dominions of Her Majesty. They had brought India under the direct rule of the Crown. Now, it was the first prerogative of the Crown, and a prerogative always assuredly to be preserved, that the Crown was the source of justice, and from the Crown proceeded the appointment of Judges to administer justice. The preservation of that great prerogative, as of right due to the Crown, was accompanied with equal right and benefit to the subject; because, if the Crown was the great source from which proceeded justice, the Ministers of the Crown were responsible for the selection and appointment of Judges. That great principle, however, would be lost if the Amendment of the noble Earl to take away one-third
1464
part of the appointments from the Crown were adopted. If the noble Earl's Amendment were agreed to there would be two sets of Judges in India — the Queen's Judges, who would be looked on as Judges of the "first chop," and the Governor General's Judges, who would be regarded as Judges of an inferior class. If one of the Queen's Judges were sent down to any part of the country, his administration of justice would be regarded as of a higher order, while that of the Governor General's Judges would be looked upon as of secondary quality. It would also tend to destroy all uniformity and unanimity among the Judges. In fact, the noble Earl wished to introduce into the administration of justice that feeling which had prevailed in the army as to the distinction between Queen's troops and Company's troops. There could not be a greater mistake, both as to the principle and expediency, and he trusted their Lordships would not assent to it. With regard to the general observations of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Kingsdown), as far as he was able to follow them they did not at all appear to impeach the principle of the Bill, and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would now go into Committee.
LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, that his experience in the Judical Committee of the Privy Council enabled him fully to confirm the statement of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Kingsdown) as to the character of the cases frequently brought from India. He approved of a system which would simplify the proceedings in the Indian Courts, and enable Judges more thoroughly to sift cases than they could at present.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly. (In the Committee.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Constitution of High Courts),
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHmoved to omit the clause, on the ground that it would place the whole of the patronage involved in the appointment of Judges in the hands of the Crown, contrary to pledges which had been formerly given. In fact, the principle asserted by the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) would place the appointment, not only of the Superior Courts, but of the Judges of the Small Courts, the Zillah Courts, and the Sudder Courts—that was about one-half the patronage of India—in the hands of the Crown. The noble and learned Lord had said that the Judges of the Supreme

1465
Court sent out from England would have a great deal more authority than those who were appointed by the Governor General. He must confess that he had some doubts upon that subject. The Natives of India were extremely clever in discovering the character of the individuals placed over them; and no person in India, be his rank or official position what it might, would have any other real weight than what he derived from his own personal qualities. It was the great advantage of that country that men stood or fell by their own personal abilities, and not in consequence of adventitious circumstances similar to those which existed in this country.
Moved, To omit Clause 2.
LORD LYVEDENsaid, that nothing was more certain than that the Supreme Court Judges viewed the Sudder Court Judges with great contempt, on account of their ignorance of English law, while the Sudder Court Judges felt an equal contempt for the Judges of the Supreme Court on account of their ignorance of Indian law and custom. To combine those two Courts in harmony seemed, therefore, a great experiment; and he must confess that, rather than see it made all at once, he should prefer that they proceeded more gradually. The alteration proposed by the noble Earl seemed to him to be one which they ought to assent to. He knew very well that the Minister for India was often overwhelmed with applications from young barristers for Judgeships, which applications were accompanied by such testimonials of fitness, so recklessly given by the leaders of the Bar, that it was a very difficult matter to resist them. The greatest caution ought to be exercised in selecting those who displayed a judicial mind, because he fully agreed that it very often happened that able advocates made indifferent Judges.
LORD CRANWORTHfelt the objection which had been pointed out by his noble and learned Friend as to the inconvenience of some of the Judges of the Courts of India deriving their authority from the Supreme power, while others derived theirs from a power which, however high it might be, was less than the highest. He thought it would be far better that all the Judges should be appointed by the Crown upon the recommendation of the Governor General. He saw no reason why the appointment of Indian Judges should be taken out of the category of other appointments, the principle of which was that some one should be responsible for them.
On Question, Whether the said clause shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 48; Not-Contents 42: Majority 6.

CONTENTS.

Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Cranworth, L.

Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

Newcastle, D.

De Mauley, L.

Somerset, D.

De Tabley, L.

Ebury, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Airlie, E.

Foley, L. [Teller.]

Chichester, E.

Fortescue, L. (V. Ebrington.)

Clarendon, E.

DeGrey, E. [Teller.)

Hamilton, L. (L. Belhaven and Stenton.)

Devon, E. Ducie, E.

Harris, L.

Granville, E.

Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)Harrowby, E.

Minto, E.

Manners, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Methuen, L.

Spencer, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Falmouth, V.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)Stratford de Redeliffe. V.

Sydney, V.

Portman, L.

Torrington, V.

Rivers, L.

Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

Carlisle, Bp.

London, Bp.

Sandys, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Belper, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Taunton, L.

Wensleydale, L.

Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

Wodehouse, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beaufort, D.

Melville, V.

Cleveland, D.

Strathallan, V.

Bath, M. [Teller.]

Abinger, L.

Winchester, M.

Berners, L.

Chelmsford, L.

Amherst, E.

Colchester, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Colville of Culross, L,

Carnarvon, E.

[Teller.]

Coventry, E.

Denman, L.

Derby, E.

Dinevor, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. of Buccleuch & Queensberry.)

Grantley, L.

Kingsdown, L.

Lovel and Holland, L.

Ellenborough, E.

(E. Egmont.)

Harrington, E.

Lyveden, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Polwarth, L.

Lucan, E.

Raglan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Ravensworth, L.

Nelson, E.

Redesdale, L.

Powis, E.

Silehester, L. (E. Longford.)Shrewsbury, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Sondes, L.

Walsingham, L.

Dungannon, V.

Wynford, L. Hardinge, V.

Resolved in the Affirmative.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHintimated that after that division it was not

1467
his intention to propose any other of his Amendments.
Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

PAROCHIAL AND BURGH SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL—SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in moving the second reading of the Parochial and Burgh Schools (Scotland) Bill, said, it was a measure of considerable importance, the subject of which was keenly debated by their Lordships three or four years ago. But, as the measure was then strongly opposed by the majority of the Scotch Peers, it was rejected. It was felt that without some compromise no measure had much chance of passing, and he was happy to say that now, by the exertions of the Lord Advocate and others, an agreement had been come to, and he believed no objections would be made to the provisions of the Bill. The chief provisions of the measure were to provide an increased salary to the parochial schoolmasters of Scotland; and, instead of the test now required from them by which they declared themselves to be members of the Established Church of Scotland, it was enacted they should give a pledge that they would not do anything contrary to the interests of that Church. This was a settlement of the question that was, perhaps, open to some objections; but it was necessary to consider what was the present state of public opinion. There were other provisions in the Bill, among them one for the removal of inefficient or superannuated schoolmasters, which was a matter of considerable importance in Scotland.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2.a
LORD KINNAIRDsaid, he should not oppose the second reading; but contended that the Bill totally sacrificed the principle that was successfully maintained in a former discussion. It was a revolutionary measure. By one clause it severed that connection between the parochial schools and the Church of Scotland which for nearly 300 years had been a blessing to the country, by securing a religious education to the people. The only party favourable to the Bill was a religious body in Scotland opposed to the Established Church. He should be glad to assent to any proposal for increasing the salaries of the schoolmasters—a most deserving body of
1468
men; but to do so it was not necessary to sever the connection between them and the Church. He should explain that the salaries of the parochial schoolmasters were fixed periodically, every twenty years. In 1853 one of these periods expired, and the new average, based on the price of grain, reduced the salaries by £3 or £4 a year. This was very hard on the schoolmasters. The majority of the heritors were willing to make up the deficiency. The Lord Advocate, however, who was a distinguished member of the Free Church, would not consent to do anything in the matter unless the connection of the schools with the Church were given up. It was only to please one section of religious Dissenters that this iniquitous proceeding was to be carried out. The measure was, moreover, in direct contradiction to the Report of the Commission presided over by the noble Duke below him (the Duke of Newcastle).
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, that the Ministers of the Church felt that this measure was a reflection upon their respectability and efficiency; and it was to be regretted that the matter had not been fairly and fully brought before the parties who were chiefly interested. He apprehended the greatest danger from the withdrawal of the religious test, and if anybody moved the rejection of the Bill he should vote for the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, it was very remarkable that this Bill was not brought forward till after the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland had ceased to sit. During the 300 years which the old system had existed the Ministers had always felt the greatest pride in the connection of their Church with the religious education of the people, and no objections had been raised either by the children or their parents to the mode in which the schoolmasters were appointed. There was a great deal in the measure which he thought very beneficial; but he did object to the severance between the Church of Scotland and the parochial schools.
THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, that whilst this Bill repealed one test it in fact enacted another, though the new one would no doubt not exclude so many as the old one. He felt he should be neglecting his duty if he did not strenuously protest against the new test.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE, without asserting that this Bill was perfect in all its

1469
details, supported its second reading, on the ground that it would secure most desirable objects, and expressed his opinion that the Government deserved great credit for introducing it.
LORD POLWARTHwas most anxious that the condition of schoolmasters in Scotland should be improved, but he disapproved the provisions of this Bill, because it would, to a great extent, dissolve the connection which had so long existed between the parochial and burgh schools and the Church of Scotland.
On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on To-morrow.
LORD KINNAIRDgave notice that in Committee he should move the omission of Clauses 12 and 22, together with a portion of the preamble.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the adoption of this Amendment would be tantamount to the rejection of the Bill, and he, therefore, hoped that noble Lords who were anxious that a measure upon this subject should pass this year would vote against it.

UNIVERSITIES ELECTIONS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on the University Elections Bill, read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, their Lordships ought not hastily to make so great a change in the mode of voting in this country as was proposed in this Bill. He did not deny that there were advantages in the proposal, but, on the whole, it appeared to him that the disadvantages predominated. At first sight it might seem that a University was especially the constituency in which such an alteration of the law might most favourably be made; but, on reflection, it would be found that there were many other constituencies in which it might be done with more real benefit. One great objection to the Bill was that the Member for a University was intended to represent the University itself. Now, the special life of a University was embodied in the resident members rather than in those who, living at a distance, were subject probably to alien influences, and might exercise their franchise at variance with the interests and sympathies of the institution to represent which their Members were intended. Some check was imposed on these persons by the
  1470
  present system; which was also useful in bringing those who did vote into personal contact with residents. By that means the views of persons living in remove places, who had little intercourse with others and formed their opinions chiefly from the single newspaper which they read, might be remodelled in accordance with the feelings of the University. It was not right that a numerical majority of languid voters sending up their papers by post should be allowed to overpower the resident members, who represented the true mind of the body. He would not say that the Bill introduced the principle of proxy voting, but it certainly had a tendency to throw into the hands of certain resident members of the University a great number of non-resident votes, which they would have the power of presenting or withholding, just as they chose to sway the election. Such a practice would be very objectionable. The great University with which he was especially connected had never been consulted on the matter, and had petitioned against the Bill. It appeared to him most inexpedient at that late period of the Session to go into Committee on the Bill. He feared that many noble Lords who were in favour of the Bill would oppose Amendments intended to render it less objectionable merely in order to prevent delay by having it sent back to the other House.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he presumed the right rev. Prelate was not present at the second reading of this Bill, as he did not then oppose it, and had not given any notice suggesting opposition to it. So far from no notice of the Bill having been given to the Universities, it had been under the consideration of Parliament during the greater part of the present Session, and no petition had been presented from any one of the three Universities which were affected by the Bill against its provisions. In the House of Commons it had passed by a very large majority; and the President of the Council had been good enough to inform him that Her Majesty's Government would not offer any opposition to its passing in this House. From first to last he had never heard any objection to the principle which was involved in the measure, and he thought the objections of the right rev. Prelate not as conclusive as the arguments which they were accustomed to hear from him; but, on the contrary, somewhat contradictory. In the first place, the right rev. Prelate said that the Member ought to represent the mind of

  1471
  the University. But he would remind their Lorships that the University itself was more or less a representative body, and that one of the great interests which it mainly represented was the interest of the Established Church. The residents were, no doubt, a most useful and important body, but they were not the whole University body. An important component part of the members consisted of non-resident members, a large portion of whom were clergy of the Established Church resident in their particular parishes, and unable without great inconvenience to give their votes at a University election. The right rev. Prelate said the Bill would give undue power to the non-residents, and his next objection was entirely in opposition to that, because he said the residents would have an opportunity of exercising undue influence by collecting in their hands such an amount of voting papers as would turn the election. The right rev. Prelate said—First, that it gave too much power to the nonresidents; and, next, that it gave too much power to the residents. The right rev. Prelate said there were many other constituencies to which it could be more advantageously applied. For his part, if he thought that the plan of voting papers would give a chance of doing away with undue influence and corruption, he should be very glad to see the principle applied to every constituency in the kingdom. When he had the opportunity of bringing before Parliament the great question of Parliamentary Reform one of the provisions which he introduced was a power of voting by papers, because he believed that a great number of electors would be enabled by that means to give their votes who were deprived of the power of giving them now. But, if a general option of voting by papers was not to be given, it was quite clear that there was a much stronger case for giving that power to the Universities than for any other constituency, because the constituencies of the Universities consisted of a greater proportion of nonresident voters and those who lived at a distance from the place of election. It was desirable that those of the electors for the Universities who wished to vote should have every facility for voting. There were at present only two alternatives for the poor country clergy. One was coming up to the poll at their own expense, which few of them could afford; the other was coming up at the expense of the candidate, which made a contest enormously expensive.
  1472
  Therefore, if there were any constituencies to which the principle of voting papers ought to be applied, they were the constituencies included in this Bill. Moreover, such was the character of these constituencies, that there was not the least reason to apprehend abuse, fraud, or corruption in the manner of dealing with the votes. The right rev. Prelate said that great advantage was obtained by the fact that members of the Universities who were resident in their quiet parsonages, reading only one paper a week, and taking their political views and opinions from that one paper, had the opportunity of coming to the University and partaking of the more enlarged views which prevailed there. But he confessed that he thought the time of a contested election an unfavourable moment for influence to be brought to bear upon the nonresidents, and the right rev. Prelate must, therefore, forgive him if he did not attach much weight to that argument. It must also be remembered that there was nothing in the Bill to compel them to send up voting papers if they were not inclined to do so, and that the power was only given in case it was inconvenient either for the voters or the candidates to incur the expense of their coming to the poll. The right rev. Prelate admitted that the Bill did not sanction votes by proxy. That was the great argument which had been used against the Bill; but there was nothing of the tendency in its provisions. The person who handed in the vote was no more the proxy of the person who voted than the Postmaster General was the proxy of the person whose letter passed through his department; and he did not think that the right rev. Prelate would have said the person who was intrusted with the votes might abstain from giving in the papers if he had looked at the last clause, which declared withholding votes a misdemeanour. He did not mean to say that the machinery of the Bill might not be better adapted for the purpose, but he thought it better not to run the risk of losing a valuable measure by proposing Amendments at this period of the Session. In his opinion it was expedient to agree to the Bill in its present shape, and leave the task of amending minor details for a future occasion. He admitted that it was an experiment, and an experiment upon an important subject. The principle was more easily applied to the Universities than to any other constituencies, and, if successful, he should wish it to be further extended.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he should be guilty of a dereliction of duty if he did not say that he thought the Bill would inflict great evils upon the University of Oxford. One of the objects of the reforms recommended by the University Commission of which he was a member was to increase the cumber of residents, and to make them a more important body than they were in former times. He had the deepest respect for the country clergy, but he did not feel that the Member for the University was in his proper place when he simply represented that body. He believed that the reason why many distinguished members for the University had held so high a position was because they wore supposed to speak with the authority of the residents. It was now impossible for the country clergy to come up in such great numbers as entirely to annihilate the votes of the residents; but under this new system he believed that the Member for the University would simply be the representative of the country clergy. He could well understand the consternation which, if this Bill passed, would be caused in Oxford by the arrival at the poll of some rural dignitary who coming, perhaps, at the last moment with some hundred proxies (if he might so call them) in his pocket, would turn the scale and nullify the decision of the resident Masters of Arts. He thought, also, that there was a great deal in the observation of his right rev. Brother that it was beneficial to the country clergy to be brought into local communication with the residents of the University, and he did not believe that the country clergy themselves desired to be put in such a position that they would never have occasion to visit the University during the rest of their natural lives.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he was astonished at the alarm expressed by the two right rev. Prelates at a measure which would really confer a great benefit on the non-resident members of Convocation, and would be no detriment to the character of the constituency. He had often heard clergymen express their regret that they had no means of recording their votes except either by going to an expense which they could ill-afford, or else by augmenting the expenses of the candidates to an unfair degree. The measure would give proper facilities to the non-resident members without unfairly affecting the due influence of the resident members, and he should, therefore, give it his support.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONthought the right rev. Prelate's arguments required the legal disfranchisement of the nonresident University electors, rather than the maintenance of the present almost prohibitory tax of trouble and expense upon the exercise of their legal franchise. He, however, supported the Bill, not so much for the sake of the particular constituencies to which it applied, as in the hope that it was the precursor of sounder legislation with regard to the rights of electors generally. The Legislature, it was clear, had never intended the vote of an elector to be looked upon as his property, otherwise he would have been entitled to dispose of it to his own advantage. If it were not a property, it must he a trust; and it was a contradiction in terms that the Legislature should impose a trust upon a certain number of persons, and then put unnecessary difficulties in the way of their exercising it. He (Viscount Ebrington) had, like many of their Lordships, had a good deal of experience in contested elections both in large and small constituencies. He did not, however, speak from that alone, but from public notoriety when he said that, whereas, in small constituencies nearly the whole, or, at least, considerably more than three-fourths, of the electors generally voted; in large constituencies for the most part very little more than half did so; and it was generally the most educated and wealthiest portion of the constituency which refrained from voting. In the borough of Marylebone, for instance, something like three-fourths of the electors in Cromer Street and that poor neighbourhood voted, while fully an equal proportion of the electors in the rich squares and terraces of Tyburnia refrained from voting. It was the opinion of a gentleman who had been engaged in a great number of large elections since 1843 that a system of voting papers was indispensable to a true representation of such constituencies. The difficulty of organizing the wealthier and more educated classes, he said, was immense; but the obedience of the ignorant masses to their leaders was implicit: and he followed up this opinion by a warning that the blind obedience shown by the Trades Unions in their strikes would one day bo applied to political contests; and then it would be found how powerless was an unorganized, undisciplined, numerical majority, in presence of a well-organized and disciplined minority. He hoped that

  1475
  this Bill would lead the way to a better system of taking votes, and he should, therefore, support its committal.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) was quite correct in saying that it was not the intention of the Government to oppose the Bill, but at the same time they had not changed their opinions with regard to it. He quite concurred with the right rev. Prelate as to its practical effect.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that, so far from swamping the opinions of the University, it appeared to him that this Bill would ascertain the opinions of the University. If his right rev. Brother meant that it would swamp the opinions of the resident members, possibly that might be so; but it should be recollected that recent legislation had given a preponderating power to the resident members, and he trusted that those who resided at a distance would be allowed an opportunity of recording their votes at University elections. He had been strongly urged by his clergy to support this measure, and if a division took place he should certainly do so.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEthought that most of the speakers had allowed themselves to be diverted from the interests of the University, and had argued the case on collateral points, some advocating the Bill on the ground that it would pave the way for a larger measure, and would in time be applied to other constituencies; others upon the ground that it consulted the interests of the clergy who resided at a distance. Now, he should be glad to relieve the clergy from any trouble to which they were put in voting at University elections, nor did he object to the adoption of the adoption of the system of voting papers in other constituencies, if means could be found for preventing fraud. Of this, however, he was not very hopeful, and until such a plan could be suggested the door would be opened to frauds which would more than counteract any advantages which could result from the use of voting papers. He could not help feeling, however, that the principle, whether it was good or bad, was a somewhat dangerous experiment as regarded this particular constituency. Some dangers would arise here which would not affect other constituencies, although the risk of fraud was not so great as it might be elsewhere. This measure would materially alter the character of the University representation. It would introduce a system of canvassing and electioneering among
  1476
  the members which would certainly be very undesirable. He doubted whether men of such high calibre as had hitherto been chosen would be elected as representatives of the University. But there was another evil as regarded the electors. If the Bill passed the country clergy in various districts would resolve themselves into a caucus, the influence of election clubs would be brought to bear, and much the same process would take place in the University itself, where influential members of the colleges would exert themselves to secure the return of a particular candidate, and there would be a Clubbing of colleges separately against one another, instead of voting as one body, to be represented on the interests common to all. For these reasons he looked with some apprehension on this measure. At the same time, the House seemed disposed to try the experiment, and, no doubt, the matter was one which, though of much interest to their Lordships and the country, mainly affected the constitution of the House of Commons. The noble Earl opposite admitted that this was an experiment, and that, had the Bill been discussed at an earlier period of the Session, the machinery provided in the Bill might in some respects have been improved. The noble Earl also suggested that in a future Session this machinery might, if necessary, be amended. Now, with a view to insure this result, would it not be desirable to limit the operation of the Bill, say, to three years? He was sure that their Lordships had the interests of the Universities alone at heart, and did not look upon this as any party question. For his part, he did not know how the Bill could affect the return of Members of one party or another. Now, if they made the Bill a temporary one, so that a general election might take place within the period it was in operation, their Lordships would see how it worked, and would thus effectually reserve to themselves the power of revision.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid a few words in reply.
  On Question, agreed to;
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEmoved an additional clause, that this Act should continue in force for a period of three years or the end of the then Session of Parliament. ["Five, five."] He had no objection to substitute five years for three, if the House wished it.
  Moved to insert the following Clause,

  1477
  "That this Act shall continue until the First Day of August one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and no longer."
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he felt no objection to the Amendment, but he ventured to suggest that at this period of the Session it would be very undesirable to send any Amendment down to the House of Commons which could possibly be avoided. By all means let five years be substituted for three; but he would rather the noble Duke did not press the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and to read 3a To-morrow.

SALMON FISHERIES BILL. COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order),
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Commencement of Act),
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsuggested an inconvenience which would arise from fixing the 1st of September for the Act coming into operation. In Scotland the "close time" did not commence until the 14th September. Considering that there was no chance of the Scotch Salmon Fisheries Bill becoming law this Session, it was, in his opinion, the more necessary to alter the date. He, therefore, proposed that the Act should come into operation on the 1st October instead of the 1st September.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Definitions),
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, the extraordinary list of names of species of fish he had read on a former evening was perfectly useless. The Bill was for the protection of the salmon fishery only. and all that they required was to make this clear. He moved, as an Amendment, that the definition should be, "all migratory fish of the genus salmon."
LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, he thought that the noble Earl should have employed the word "species" instead of "genus."
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYcontended that his definition would include all species of the genus salmon.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 20 agreed to, with Amendments.
Clause 21 (Weekly Close Time),
LORD RAVENSWORTHmoved an Amendment, providing that the weekly close time should extend, instead of, as proposed by the Bill, from eight o'clock on Friday night to six o'clock on Monday morning, only from noon on Saturday to six o'clock on Monday.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 27 agreed to, with Amendments.
Clause 28 (Enforcing Free Gaps in Fishing Weirs),
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYmoved the omission of the words forbidding the fishing with nets within fifty yards of the free gap of a mill dam or fishing weir.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 (General Superintendence of Fisheries by Home Office),
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYcomplained that this clause gave the Home Office the power of materially interfering with the rights of property, by the appointment of inspectors and water bailiffs, who would have the power, without the leave of the landowner, to pass along the banks of any water frequented by salmon and trout; and he proposed to insert this proviso, "provided that nothing herein contained shall enable the Home Office to authorize any person to enter the land of any proprietor contiguous to the river without his permission."
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, no power would be given under the Bill to authorize trespassing in any way, and the Amendment was, therefore, unnecessary.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYinquired whether, if one of these officials trespassed upon his land, under instructions issued by the Home Office, he could bring an action of trespass against him?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the instructions of the Home Secretary could give no more authority than those of anybody else, and any trespasser would be liable unless there was statutory authority to trespass.
LORD CHELMSFORD: But the question is whether statutory authority is not given.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Further Amendments made. Report of the Amendments to be recoived on Monday next.

IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on this Bill read.
  Moved, that the House do go into Committee upon this Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEappealed to the Government to give further time to prepare Amendments. He admitted that there were grievances to be remedied, and that it was desirable to make some change; but this change was extremely violent, and would, he believed, work injustice. He wished particularly to direct attention to the great alteration in the value of property which would result from the new principle of rating provided by the Bill. In one union with which he was acquainted the rating of one parish would be reduced from £940 to £530, and that of another would be raised from £68 to £204. Such an alteration ought to be carefully considered, and there had been no time to consider it. The principle of the measure had been affirmed, and he had no desire to offer any factious opposition.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought there was no reason whatever why they should not proceed with the Bill to-night.
  On Question, agreed to.
  House in Committee.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that he had offered several suggestions, of none of which the Government had thought it necessary to take any notice, though they involved what he considered to be very important questions. He begged to give notice that on the third reading of the Bill he should move that the Bill have an effect which should be only temporary.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he should not be prepared to agree to any such Amendment on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
  Bill reported without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Monday next.

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OATH RELIEF BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DENMANmoved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which he explained to be to enable persons who entertained a conscientious objection to take an oath to make a declaration instead.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsupported the Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he had no
  1480
  intention of opposing the Bill but feared that the change which it effected might have serious consequences. A vulgar notion prevailed among certain persons that if they could only escape from taking an oath they were under no obligation to tell the truth, and with this view various modes were adopted in order to evade the law, such as kissing the thumb instead of the Testament. It would be easy for such persons to allege a conscientious objection, and thus avoid taking any oath; and who was to decide as to the validity of such a plea?
  Lord CRANWORTHagreed that such difficulties might by possibility arise out of this Bill; but, on the other hand, under the existing practice, there were frequent failures of justice from persons refusing to take the oath from conscientious scruples. He concurred entirely in the necessity of the measure.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORadded his opinion in favour of the Bill, which he believed to be essential for the proper administration of the criminal law. Many cases had occurred in which justice had been altogether defeated from the want of such an enactment, and many such cases would occur again if this Bill were not passed into law.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.