Lords Sitting of 9 July 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Appellate Jurisdiction.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2)* (201); Pier and Harbor Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (202).
Second Reading—Local Courts of Record* (185); Registration of Births and Deaths (179); Chain Cables and Anchors Act (1871) Suspension* (163).
Third Reading— Infant Life Protection* (187), and passed.
Withdrawn—Limited Owners Improvements (154).

LIMITED OWNERS' IMPROVEMENT BILL. (No. 154.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

COMMITTEE. ORDER DISCHARGED.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that in consequence of the state of Public Business, there was very little chance of a Bill coming to a successful issue during the present Session if it were opposed, and he believed that this Bill would be opposed by the House of Commons: it was in the power even of a few Members to prevent the passing of a Bill in so short a time as remained from the present date till the end of the Session. Under those circumstances, he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of going into Committee on this Bill; but acting on his own judgment and that of a noble Friend, whose knowledge of the laws of land tenure was very well known, he would re-introduce the Bill early next Session, with the object of having it read with as little delay as possible, and then referred to a Select Committee, who might go into the whole question. In reference to some comments which had been made on the Bill since it was last before their Lordships, he might observe that he could hardly expect the Land Society to be in its favour, as that Society would, no doubt, regret to find that its dividends were no longer to be paid by landed proprietors. It had been said that the Act of 1864 was sufficient to effect all the objects of the Bill. But he found that since the passing of that Act the amount spent under it on farm buildings was £71,000, and for labourers' cottages no more than £8,000—which he supposed would give an average of three farm buildings and eight labourers' cottages a-year. He did not think those results could be regarded as satisfactory. The only danger for the Laws of Settlement was the imputation that under them nothing was done for the improvement of the land. If that imputation were removed, the foundation which the Laws of Settlement had in the affections of the English people were too deep that they should ever be swept away. He would only move that the Order for the Committee be discharged.
Order discharged; and Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.—(No. 179.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was one to render the registration of births and deaths compulsory in England instead of permissive as at present. The Act regulating the present system of registration was the 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 86; but since the passing of that enactment compulsory Registration Acts had been passed for Scotland and Ireland. In England and Wales there was no penalty whatever attached to the omission to register a birth. In the case of deaths there was a penalty of £10 on the official who buried any person without obtaining from the undertaker a certificate of death signed by the registrar, or, in case no certificate was produced, without giving notice to the registrar of the district immediately after the burial. Under the present law, neither in the case of births or deaths was it compulsory on the relatives, or any other person, to give the information to the registrar in the first instance. This Bill proposed to render the notice compulsory, and threw the duty upon the relatives or some other "qualified informant." In the case of births the obligation was thrown primarily on the parents; but where there were no parents, on the occupier of the house—which included the resident officer of any public institution—in which the birth took place, and some relative of the child or other person present. It provided, also, that notice should be given to the registrar of any living new-born child found exposed. As regarded deaths, the Bill provided that the death of every person dying in England should be registered. It threw the duty of giving notice to the registrar, in the case of a person dying in a dwelling-house, upon the relatives present, or, in the absence of any relative, upon some person present at the death, and the "occupier." Then followed a provision for notice in case the death did not take place in a dwelling-house or the body was found exposed. It was provided that no death should be registered without the production of the certificate of the medical

859
attendant, or, where there had been none, on the joint statement of two informants. There was also an amendment of the provisions for the registration of births and deaths at sea.
Bill read 2a (according to Order) and commuted to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE KEOGH—LETTER OF THE EARL OF GRANARD.—OBSERVATIONS.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I rise to call the attention of the House to a letter in the Freeman's Journal of 25th June, purporting to be addressed by the Earl of Granard, the Lieutenant of the county of Leitrim, to a meeting held in Dublin on the 24th of June, in the following terms:—
"Mullingar, 10th June 1872.
"Gentlemen—It would have afforded me the greatest pleasure to have acceded to your invitation, conveyed in such complimentary terms, to preside at the meeting of the inhabitants of Dublin to protest against the scurrilous invective and the insulting accusations which Mr. Justice Keogh has thought fit, in reference to the clergy, to embody in his judgment in Galway. But I have decided for the present to take part in no public meetings, for reasons which I am certain will plead for me a valid excuse for not making an exception in favour of your proposed meeting. It is, however, I am sure, unnecessary for me to say how fully I enter into the objects of the meeting, or to express my hope that it will be a great success, as an additional proof, if any were required, of the indignation with which the catholic laity of Ireland have ever repelled the offensive charges which the malignity of their enemies have from time to time endeavoured to fasten upon the honour and reputation of their devoted clergy. I have the honour to be, gentlemen, your most obedient servant,
"GRANARD.
"The Hon. Sees. Galway Judgment Protest."
I beg to assure your Lordships at the outset that it is not my intention on this occasion to enter in any way into the merits or demerits of Mr. Justice Keogh's Judgment, or to discuss that memorable decision on a case the evidence in which is not yet before your Lordships' House. My painful duty is to bring a grave charge against a Member of your Lordships' House—a charge so grave and so serious that I am glad to see the noble Earl, the subject of it, present in his place—because if he were absent it would have been most unpleasant to me
860
to bring such a charge forward. It will be within the knowledge of your Lordships that the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh excited much interest and gave rise to much comment in many parts of the kingdom, and especially in Ireland. It appears that certain persons came to a determination to hold what is called an "indignation meeting" in Dublin at the end of last month; the object being a constitutional one, whatever we may think of its prudence—namely, to petition Parliament to address the Crown for the removal of Mr. Justice Keogh from the Bench. The right to hold such a meeting I do not deny—but it would seem that this meeting, being in want of a chairman, applied to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Granard) to do it the honour of presiding over it; and, in reply to the application made to him, the noble Earl wrote the letter which I have brought under the notice of your Lordships. Another individual was also asked to preside over that meeting—Sir Dominic Corrigan, one of the Members for the City of Dublin, who is no milk-and-water politician. In a letter which did him infinite credit he assumed a decided position, and at once declined to take any part in the meeting. He stated in his letter that if a Member of Parliament meant to impugn such a judgment as that of Mr. Justice Keogh, he ought to do so in his place in the House of Commons when the evidence was before that House. But the noble Earl, I regret to say, adopted a different course. The noble Earl commenced his letter by saying that it would have given him the greatest pleasure, under other circumstances, to take the chair. My Lords, if a Peer of Parliament has any complaint against one of the Judges the only place in which that complaint should be made is in the midst of your Lordships and on the floor of this House. Had such a Motion been brought forward I feel persuaded that it would have been received by your Lordships with the attention which the House always bestows upon any such subject; but up to this moment no Notice stands in the name of the noble Earl on the Paper of this House that he has any intention to impugn the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh. The noble Earl was in his place last evening, but I do not find that he has given any such Notice. Well, my Lords, the noble Earl, having com-

861
menced his letter in the terms I have stated, goes on to describe the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh as replete with "scurrilous invective and insulting accusations." This letter was written on June 10, before any Papers in the case had been laid before Parliament; so that the noble Earl must have taken his information as to the trial and judgment from sources which we all know to be untrustworthy—namely, the reports in the newspapers. When giving evidence before a Committee on the Irish Land Amendment Act, the other day, Chief Justice Monahan said that so inaccurate were the reports of law cases in the Irish newspapers that he made it a point of duty never to read them.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I rise to Order. It is not in Order to refer to evidence given to a Committee before that evidence has been presented to your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Well, I withdraw what I have said as to the statement made to the Committee; but I can appeal to the experience of those Members of your Lordships' House who are learned in the law, when I say that law reports in newspapers cannot be depended on unless they have been corrected by an authorized reporter, and that a Judgment cannot be accepted as accurate unless it has been corrected by the Judge who delivered it; I say, therefore, that the course taken by the noble Earl would have been wrong on the part of any ordinary Peer. But the noble Earl is no ordinary Peer. Her Majesty, or at least successive Governments, have bestowed an accumulation of honours upon him, until he is a Knight of St. Patrick, Lieutenant Colonel and Commandant of the Westmeath Militia——
THE EARL OF GRANARD: No, not Commandant.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: And Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of the county of Leitrim. Your Lordships have no doubt heard that the Tipperary Militia burnt Mr. Justice Keogh in effigy. After such an occurrence one may well feel some dismay at what may occur in Westmeath, since the Militia there know that they have a sympathizing colonel who has expressed his feelings so graphically and energetically as Lieutenant of a county. It was in reference to that latter capacity that he wished to
862
call their Lordships' attention to this matter. Mr. Gladstone stated the other day that the Lieutenant of a County was an officer of such high authority that any accusation brought against him was not a matter which could be disposed of by a simple Question and Answer. That is my reason for bringing the matter forward in your Lordships' House, and charging the noble Earl to his face with a grave dereliction of his duty. Your Lordships know how strong party feeling rises in Ireland and how easily it is excited. I turn then to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and I ask him whether such language as that contained in the noble Earl's letter is language which should have been used by the Lord Lieutenant of an Irish county, who had not read the evidence in the case nor the authorized notes of the Judgment, in reference to one of Her Majesty's Judges? I turn to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and I ask him whether such conduct as that of the noble Earl strengthens or weakens the hands of the Government, when the writer of that letter is one of its ardent supporters? I ask your Lordships whether it is to the honour and credit of your Lordships' House that such should have been the conduct of one of its Members? I take leave to say that no more evil example could possibly have been set than that which has been set by the noble Earl; and, unfortunately, this is not the noble Earl's first offence. It was my misfortune, when a Member of the House of Commons, to hear a lame apology made for him by Mr. Chichester Fortescue, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, about two years since, in reference to what the noble Earl himself explained to be "an historical allusion." The imprudent speech of the noble Earl at that time under discussion was one which Mr. Chichester Fortescue justly described as replete with the most serious evils. I can assure the noble Earl that in bringing this matter forward it is far from my intention to say one word which would unnecessarily wound his feelings—but I feel that great principles underly it. There are cases on record in which the Government of the day visited with severe penalties magistrates whom they held to have acted indiscreetly, and the present is a time when, in Ireland especially, the law must be no respecter of persons. There ought

863
to be no spasmodic action on the part of the authorities, but an equal application of the law to high and low—so that the law should predominate over violence, whether of speech or action. If I am asked why I did not bring this charge forward before, I answer because I felt it right to give the noble Earl notice in order that he might be present in his place. If I am asked why I did not postpone it, I have no difficulty in stating my reason. It is because Mr. Justice Keogh is going Circuit on Thursday with his life in his hand, and that, with a chivalry which your Lordships will appreciate, his wife has been threatened; and I believe even his learned colleague has been warned not to go Circuit with him. The time has come for Her Majesty's Government to speak out in earnest. As I said at the outset, I do not intend to give one single opinion upon the propriety of Mr. Justice Keogh's Judgment. What I do venture to submit to them, is the propriety of the noble Earl's language in the position of trust and responsibility which the noble Earl holds. I venture to ask them whether they conceive that language towards one of Her Majesty's Judges befits the head of the magistrates of a county, and should their answer be—as I trust for their own sake and for that of the country it will be, in the negative—I wish to know, further, what steps they intend to take with regard to the lieutenancy of the county of Leitrim, in which county any idea of the noble Earl's impartiality or discretion must have been utterly destroyed by his imprudent and unjustifiable language?
EARL SPENCER (LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND): My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House that I should rise at once to answer the Question which has been put by the noble Lord (Viscount Midleton.) The noble Lord did not confine himself in his speech to the terms of the Notice which has now been for some days on the Paper of your Lordships' House; but in the commencement of his remarks he said he thought it was right that attention should be called to the fact that a Member of your Lordships' House had taken part at a public meeting and used expressions which were not befitting him as a Member of your Lordships' House. I hardly think the House will concur with the noble Lord in that view of the matter;
864
for I believe it is open to the discretion of every noble Lord to make a statement on public affairs in this House, or to attend a public meeting of his fellow-countrymen, and make speeches on any matter of public interest. But I will now come to the actual terms of the Question which the noble Lord has put to Her Majesty's Government. I am not prepared to deviate from the course which has been pursued in "another place" with regard to the Questions which have been put on the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh and on any subsequent proceedings that have been taken in Ireland. Her Majesty's Government have very grave and important judicial functions to perform with regard to the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh. They have to consider most carefully, with the aid of the Law Officers of the Crown, the very voluminous evidence that has been laid before the learned Judge who tried the Galway Petition; and I believe I am correct in saying that the whole of that evidence has not yet been laid before Parliament. Until that voluminous evidence has been carefully weighed and considered by the Law Officers of the Crown, it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that they should express no opinion whatever, either on the Judgment itself or on the expressions that have been made use of at various meetings that have been held in Ireland on the subject. I therefore must decline to give any opinion on the letter of Lord Granard, which the noble Lord has brought before the House. But I may say, if Her Majesty's Government abstain from giving any opinion with regard to what has been said, that this does not apply to any legal proceedings that have been taken in Ireland. Various legal proceedings have been taken in consequence of what has occurred since the delivery of the Judgment. The Government have given directions, where it was necessary—and in many cases it was necessary—that prosecutions should be instituted with regard to infractions of the law. Many convictions have been made summarily in Ireland—both in Dublin and other places—and some cases have been sent to the Assizes and are now awaiting trial. I think it is important to state that to the House to show that Her Majesty's Government have not neglected to vindicate the law in respect of matters which have arisen

865
from this Judgment. I would further wish to say with regard to the danger which the noble Lord thinks attaching to the learned Judge, who is now already on circuit—the noble Lord was incorrect in saying that he was about to go on circuit; I believe he went on circuit to-day with his learned colleague—that Her Majesty's Government have given the greatest possible attention to that matter. My noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland and myself have been in constant communication with all the officials in Ireland who are responsible.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Responsible for what?
EARL SPENCER: For the protection of life and property. They have given every possible attention to this matter, and I believe every step has been taken for protecting the Judges from insult or from any danger that might possibly occur on circuit. With regard to other topics to which the noble Lord has alluded, I cannot go into them, for I cannot think that this is the proper occasion for raising a debate on this subject. I feel confident that when the proper time arrives we shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government have done everything to vindicate law and order, and everything that it was right and prudent that the Government should do. I regret that I cannot give on the part of Her Majesty's Government any opinion upon the letter to which the noble Lord has referred.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHasked whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to express an opinion on the letter before the prorogation of Parliament?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I trust, after what has fallen from the noble Earl the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the course I am about to take will not appear to be disrespectful to your Lordships—that of declining at present to enter into an explanation of the subject-matter of the speech of the noble Lord opposite. But I think it is due to your Lordships and to myself to say at once frankly and unreservedly that I did write the letter complained of; that I wrote it in my private capacity; and that I did so under feelings of great indignation, after having read in the newspapers the language used by Mr. Justice Keogh in his Judgment towards the clergy of my
866
Church. I will also state that I acted prematurely in writing the letter before the evidence had been laid on your Lordships' Table. Having stated this much, trust your Lordships will forgive me if I decline to go farther into the matter. When the proper time arrives I shall be prepared to enter into the whole subject. With regard to what the noble Lord (Viscount Midleton) said of my conduct whilst I was in the temporary command of the Westmeath regiment of Militia, it would appear that he seems to apprehend that the effect of my being in command of that regiment would probably lead to results similar to those which have disgraced the good name of the Tipperary Militia; but I beg to inform him that though the learned Judge was burnt in effigy outside my barrack gate, I was successful in preventing my men from being mixed up with any disorderly proceedings. I think it is unfair to mix my name and the regiment I have the honour to command with the disorderly proceedings that took place, which led to the removal of the Tipperary Militia from Cashel to the Curragh. It is exceedingly unfair, I repeat, when charges of one kind are brought forward, that others should be mixed up with them, without having previously ascertained their correctness.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think your Lordships are hardly satisfied with the statement of the noble Earl whose conduct has been impugned, and who will not either retract or explain in this House the incendiary expressions which he did not scruple to address to a public meeting. He says the time has not come to explain them. I ask how the time had come to use these expressions? If he is so scrupulous that he will not break silence now before the whole of the evidence is before your Lordships, and before the legal investigations are finished, how was it that he did not restrain his cursive and cursing pen until he had an opportunity of knowing whether the expressions which he used were justified by the facts?
EARL GRANVILLE: I rise to Order. It is contrary to the Rules of the House to speak of a Member of it as having used a cursed pen.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should not have thought of using the passive participle. I said "cursive and cursing," not "cursed," and I

867
cannot think the active participle is at all out of place, for if I ever read a letter in which one gentleman cursed another it is this. The noble Earl appears in two characters. As a Member of this House he is a model of caution and discretion; but as a private gentleman in Ireland he writes, under feelings of great indignation, the letter I have described. Like the Governor of Tilbury Fort—"The Man relents—the Governor is firm." It is obvious that the noble Earl (the Earl of Granard) is not likely to be influenced by any discussion in this House, for he has been convicted of a previous offence, and had your Lordships then passed any censure upon him he would probably have shown more moderation; but with regard to the noble Earl the Lord Lieutenant, I venture to take exception to the doctrine he has laid down. The question is not what Mr. Justice Keogh said—there is no necessity for waiting for the evidence to be produced—the noble Earl ought to judge of the act of his subordinate without waiting for that—the question is, whether the Lieutenant of an Irish county is or is not justified in publicly denouncing in vituperative terms the act of one of Her Majesty's Judges; and that question is in no way affected by what Her Majesty's Judge may have done. If he has done wrong, there are authorities who can deal with him; but it is not for a Lieutenant, representing Her Majesty, to point him out to the violence, anger, and fanaticism of a hostile mob. The noble Earl (Earl Spencer) has involuntarily drawn a terrible picture of the state of Ireland. He has told us that the officials charged with that duty are thoroughly awake to the necessity of looking after the life of Justice Keogh. Now, is it not a frightful state of things where a Judge of the land, having delivered such observations as he thought it his duty to offer—I will not now inquire whether they were justified or not, for I have not seen them, and do not know what they are—is so pursued by the hostility of the people among whom he lives that his life has to be protected by the intervention of the two highest authorities in the country? Is it not a still more terrible state of things when a Lieutenant should intervene to point out the Judge to the mob and exasperate their fury against him? I do not deny, indeed, that this
868
proceeding is in some degree in keeping with the policy which the Government have announced in their management of Irish affairs. I believe that to appoint a Lieutenant who hounds on the mob against Her Majesty's Judges, and who publicly eulogizes a rebellion against the British Crown which is still in the memory of living men—I believe that that is "governing Ireland according to Irish ideas." In that respect Her Majesty's Government have been perfectly consistent; but it is useless to preach the maintenance of law in Ireland—it is useless to maintain the most stringent Coercion Act ever inflicted on that country—if they allow persons in high positions to defy the law and point out its ministers to the vengeance of the people.
LORD DUNSANYsaid, he thought it would be ungenerous to press any charge against the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Granard), who had confessed that his letter was an imprudent one; but this case was an illustration of the present state of Ireland. No form of intimidation could obviously be more dangerous than intimidation towards the Judges: and he could not but think that this was only the beginning of other outrages to which the Judges and administrators of the law might be subjected. A Chairman of Quarter Sessions, according to an Irish paper, had been prevented from conscientiously discharging his duty by scurrilous letters, written by educated men. Such a habit could not grow without further demoralizing the whole community. Another Judge had received threatening letters, one of them written in Greek. This might be deemed an improvement, if Greek was a substitute for the blunderbuss; but, unhappily, violence also was still exercised. A landlady had recently been shot in the vicinity of Dublin, where she naturally supposed herself safe. In former days agrarian murderers were occasionally convicted, butnearly 20 years had elapsed since such a criminal had been executed.
EARL SPENCER: No.
LORD DUNSANYsaid, he should be glad to know when the last execution of an agrarian murderer happened.
EARL SPENCER: If I am not mistaken, there were two executions in King's County in 1870 for an agrarian murder—a woman and a man.
LORD DUNSANYsaid, he believed he was correct in saying that with those exceptions there had been no such executions.
LORD O'HAGAN: There have been others. When I was Attorney General, in 1864 I think, there was a special commission in Limerick, and three men were executed for a single agrarian murder.
LORD DUNSANYwas glad to hear it—he was glad to hear that there had been several executions for this crime in recent years; but he believed that in 19 cases out of 20 the murderer escaped with impunity. In past times, when convictions were obtained and the sentences were enforced, the Irish people did not hoot or villify the Judges, but looked upon them as having done their duty. The Judges, he might almost say, were not unpopular; at all events, their lives were safe—as safe as his own was, and that he always imagined to be as safe in Ireland as in England. Judges at that time fearlessly performed their duty; but he was obliged to add that Lords Lieutenant did not then judge the Judges and condemn them unheard. The evil was attributable to the long-continued policy of the Liberal party, that of first considering party interests—he wished he could say party principles, for that would be better—and then the interests of the public. The Government appeared to be under the delusion that Ultramontanism in Ireland was synonymous with Liberalism in England; whereas it was no more consistent with Liberalism in England than on the Continent. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) took an optimist view of the state of Ireland, but he could not think that view a correct one. Many of the appointments made in Ireland were exceedingly improper and injudicious. He did not deny the right of the Government of the day to appoint their own partizans to office; but the distribution of the loaves and fishes ought to proceed on sound principles. As to the noble Earl (the Earl of Granard), he had of late years, since he became convinced of the Pope's infallibility, shown less moderation in public matters than was desirable, and his language had often been just such as Her Majesty's representatives in Ireland ought not to use—it was too strongly tinged with sectarianism. There were
870
no more honourable men than were to be found among the Roman Catholics, and they ought to be treated with perfect equality; but it was most unfortunate that a Liberal Government should invariably look for support not to the liberal, but the illiberal, or rather the anti-liberal Roman Catholics. Such policy was deplored as a mistake by Roman Catholics themselves.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid, he looked upon the whole of these proceedings as a chapter of errors. His noble Friend (the Earl of Granard) had certainly done wrong; but, on the other hand, the language of the learned Judge was rather strong language.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, what had fallen from the noble Earl who had just spoken showed that one of the most earnest supporters of the Government thought the language used by Mr. Justice Keogh almost seemed to warrant the language used by the noble Earl (the Earl of Granard). Under such circumstances, their Lordships had a right to be put in possession, before Parliament was prorogued, of the views of Government upon this most important subject.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that the old Roman Catholics in Ireland were among the most high-minded men in the country, and it pained them to find that in Galway even the confessional had been prostituted to party purposes. He denied that Mr. Justice Keogh had attacked "the Roman Catholic clergy." Those whom he attacked were individual priests, who had disgraced their order by inducing perjury, and acts and language dishonourable to any men. He believed that Mr. Justice Keogh had attacked these men entirely from his feelings of indignation as an old Catholic at such conduct.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he should like to know whether the Government would or would not answer the Question put to them by his noble Friend behind him?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had hoped that what had been said by his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant (Earl Spencer) would have shown that while the Government did not desire, without sufficient opportunities for consideration, to give an answer which might involve an opinion, they would not waste a single day in considering the evidence,

871
and he hoped to be able to inform Parliament of the opinion they had come to upon the matter. But meanwhile he could give the noble Marquess no information on the subject.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.