Lords Sitting of 30 June 1905

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

1. Finance.

2. Closing of Licensed Premises (Christmas Day) (Ireland).

3. Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.

4. Alexander Scott's Hospital Order Confirmation.

5. Grangemouth Water works and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation.

6. Arbroath Corporation Water Order Confirmation.

7. Dundee Water Order Confirmation.

8. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

9. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).

10. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

11. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).

12. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6).

13. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).

14. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9).

15. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15).

16. Local Government Provisional Order (Gas).

17. Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law).

18. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1).

19. Electric Lighting. Provisional Order (No. 2).

20. Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3).

21. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1).

22. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3).

23. Municipal Corporations (Merthyr Tydfil Scheme Confirmation).

626

24. Walker and Wallsend Union Gas.

25. Southampton and Winchester Great Western Junction Railway (Abandonment).

26. Cordoba and Rosario Railway.

27. Entre Rios Railways.

28. Marylebone Chapels.

29. West Cumberland Electric Tramways (Extension of Time).

30. Holy Trinity, Portsea.

31. Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester Water.

32. Commercial Union Assurance.

33. Mortgage Insurance Corporation.

34. Truro Water.

35. Hastings Harbour.

36. Weybridge and Walton-upon-Thames Electric Supply.

37. Chelsea Electricity Supply.

38. Epping Gas.

39. South Suburban Gas.

40. Nottingham and Retford Railway.

41. Leeds and Liverpool Canal.

42. Metropolitan District Railway.

43. Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage.

44. East Cowes Gas.

45. Hastings Harbour District Railway (Abandonment).

46. Tyneside Tramways and Tram-roads.

47. Tralee Urban District Council.

48. Clay Cross Railway (Abandonment).

49. Great Berkhampstead Gas.

50. Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time).

51. Wrexham Gas.

52. Dublin Corporation (Superannuation).

53. South Oxfordshire Water and Gas.

54. Clyde Navigation.

55. Great Eastern Railway.

56. Loughborough Corporation.

57. Norwich Union Life Insurance Society.

627

58. Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water.

59. South Metropolitan Gas.

60. Ilfracombe Harbour and Improvement.

61. Accrington District Gas and Water Board.

62. Hull, Barnsley. and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock.

63. Otley Improvement.

64. Accrington Corporation.

65. Aylesbury Gas.

66. Croydon Gas.

67. Aberdare Urban District Council.

68: Colne Corporation.

69. North Sussex Gas.

70. South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company.

71. London United Tramways (Extension of Time).

72. Alexandra Park and Palace.

73. Metropolitan Railway.

74. Barry Railway.

75. Clacton Improvement.

76. Dearne Valley Railway.

77. Croydon Corporation.

78. Stockport Corporation.

79. Birmingham Corporation.

80. Brentwood Gas.

81. Darien Gold Mining Company.

82. Leven's Patent.

83. Rhymney Railway.

84. Morley Corporation.

85. McConnell's Divorce.

86. Lautour's Divorce.

87. Malone's Divorce (Validation).

88. Gamble's Divorce.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied
628
with:—North British Railway (General Powers); Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power; Great Northern Railway (Ireland); London County Council (Money); Metropolitan Electric Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill. A petition of Messrs. Turner and Company, of 34, High Holborn, London, Parliamentary Agents, praying for leave to present a petition of the Electrical Contractors' Association and others, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table, and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered on Monday next in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Newry, Keady, and Tynan Light Railway Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed. Read, and agreed to.
London and North-Western Railway Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 5th and 8th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
Corbett Estate Bill [H. L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Forty-seventh Report of the Board of Superintendence of Dublin Hospitals, with appendices, for the year 1904–1905.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND) 1904.
  Part II. Civil Statistics.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
  Eighty-third Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, dated: 29th June, 1905.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SHIPPING LAW.
  LORD MUSKERRYrose to call attention to a resolution, adopted at the recent Conference on International Maritime Law at Liverpool, pointing out the necessity of the representation of His Majesty's Government at the forthcoming International Conference convened by the Government of Belgium to consider the draft codes relating to collisions at sea and salvage; and to move to resolve, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that, in the interests of British shipping, His Majesty's Government should ensure that this country should be represented at the International Conference on Shipping Law about to be held in Belgium."
  The noble Lord said: Your Lordships may remember that last year I urged upon the Government the importance of the forthcoming International Maritime Conference convened by the Belgian Government, and how imperative it was that this country should be represented at that conference. On March 4th of last year the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs received a deputation made up of most of the highest authorities in the shipping and legal world. From the reply of the noble Marquess to this deputation it was clear that he. was impressed by the magnitude and
  630
  gravity of the interests involved in the matter, and by the interdependence of the interests of our country and our merchant service. Furthermore, the noble Marquess was quite alive to the weighty character of the deputation itself.
  It is the case that hitherto the British Government of the day have refused to participate in Maritime Congresses such as that about to take place. The reasons which have prompted them in this have been expressed in the reply of the noble Marquess in this House and. in that to the deputation to which I have alluded. These reasons, I gather, are, firstly, that it is not in accordance with precedent that the British Government should appoint representatives at conferences of the kind; and, secondly, that whilst British shipping was the predominant partner in the world's shipping it would only be allowed equal representation with the smaller maritime Powers. The first argument, viz:—that of a departure from precedent, is to my mind a very puerile one. It is transparent that if this country remains in the old rut we will be very quickly overshadowed by the bold enterprise and modern methods of the other Powers. IE we have followed certain antiquated practices in the past, does it follow that we must perpetuate them? The dishonourable and dishonest land legislation in Ireland has been a very distinct departure from precedent.
  It is notorious that our merchant service suffers acutely from obsolete and absurd laws and regulations. We do absolutely nothing in keeping pace with the times. In this matter we pursue our fine old-crusted conservatism to the end, and, if we continue to do so, before long we shall find where it is leading us to. We are certainly not tied to precedent, and there is nothing whatever to prevent the departure of His Majesty's Government from it in the present instance. To come to the second argument, as to the United Kingdom having only the same representation at the congress as other maritime Powers, I may say that from a superficial point of view it might appear to be a very forcible one. But it is plain to see that representation according to tonnage

  631
  would mean that the representatives of the United Kingdom would swamp the whole conference, and we would never get the smaller maritime Powers to agree to this.
  The mere fact of England sending a representative to the Belgian Conference does not in any way commit this country to anything or anybody. It is simply encouraging an object of which everybody is desirous, namely, a unification of the shipping laws of the different maritime nations. His Majesty's Government are not bound to follow the decisions of a conference simply because they had a representative, there. They need not pledge themselves in the slightest. After all, we may safely turn to the different shipping authorities who have the most at stake. We find that, in the face of all the arguments presented by the Government, the International Maritime Conference at Liverpool has recently carried unanimously the following resolution—
  "That the representatives of the British ship owners, merchants, and under writers attending this conference are of opinion that in the interests of the international commerce of this country it is of the first importance that His Majesty's Government should be represented at the International Conference convened by the Government of Belgium to consider the draft codes relating to collisions at sea and salvage, and that the secretaries are respectfully requested to submit a copy of this resolution to His Majesty's Government."
  The representative character of this conference may be gathered when I inform your Lordship that it consisted of representatives of the Incorporated chamber of commerce of Liverpool, the International Law Association, the General Council of the Bar, London, the chambers of commerce of Paris, London, Liverpool, and other places, the Liverpool Steam Ship owners' Association, the Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool, the London Steam Ship owners' Association, the London Steam Ship owners' Mutual Insurance Association, the Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Company, the Institute of London Underwriters' Association, the Liverpool Average Adjusters' Association, the United Steam Ship owners' Association, the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, the North of England Steam Ship owners' Association, the Alliance
  632
  Marine Insurance Company, and other eminent shipping authorities.
  Mr. Justice Phillimore, speaking on one occasion at Antwerp, said—
  "The attitude of the British Government in not only churlish, but may even seem ridiculous, when one recollects that the draft treaty on salvage embodies the English law without substantial, I believe even without formal, modification; while there are only three modifications of English law in the draft treaty on collision, and only one of these is likely to give rise to dispute"
  I do not hesitate to say that by declining to nominate a representative at the Belgian Maritime Conference His Majesty's Government are flying in the face of public opinion. This House is supposed to present a true and honest reflex of public opinion, which, after all, is the supreme law. The maintenance of our present attitude simply means that we are acting as a drag on the wheels of progress, and if we remain where we are, we can relegate a unification of the maritime laws of nations to the Greek Kalends.
  In moving the Resolution which stands in my name it is under a sense that it is our duty to not only listen to public, opinion but to give effect to it when we see that, as in the present instance, opinion emanates from those who really know and who are both unanimous and emphatic. I trust to hear from the noble Marquess that, as a result of mature consideration, His Majesty's Government have decided to nominate a representative. I might mention that it is not only ship owners' and shipping lawyers' views I am quoting, for I have-been urged to bring this matter forward by the Merchant Service Guild as one-calculated to benefit the interests of our merchant service. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved to resolve, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that, in the interests of British shipping, His Majesty's Government should ensure that this country should be represented at the International Conference on Shipping Law about to be held in Belgium to consider the draft codes relating to collisions at sea and salvage."—(Lord, Muskerry.)
  LORD ALVEESTONE: My Lords, before the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replies, I wish to say a word or two upon this subject, as it is one in which I have for a great many years taken considerable interest; and I desire to do so the more because I must dissociate myself from some of the arguments used by the noble Lord. I cannot agree that the previous refusal of the Governments of the Queen and His Majesty to take part as a Government in an international conference has been due to the worse form of conservatism; nor do I agree with Mr. Justice Phillimore that the attitude of the British Government has been churlish or prompted by other than the best feeling. I know that there were very good reasons why Her late Majesty's Government could not take official part in congresses, as they might thereby be led into discussions which would not be to the best interests of the nation; but in the present position of matters I think things have somewhat changed.
  The question of the incidence of liability in the matter of collision at sea, to say nothing of the second subject, that of salvage, has been attracting the attention of maritime nations for a considerable number of years, and it is the fact that the present uncertainty of the law—depending as it does in some cases where the vessel happens to be arrested, in some cases upon the place where the collision occurs, and in some cases upon the nationality of the ship—makes it impossible for owners of ships to know exactly what their liability is. There is therefore a very strong feeling among the maritime nations that the time has come when an attempt should be made to get something like uniformity in these matters. If that is admitted, it is, as the noble Lord said, of very great importance that the views of British shipping interests should be heard. Foreign nations are prepared to pay great attention to the attitude taken by British ship owners and British lawyers in this respect, and, therefore, I think, subject to what may be, I am sure, the wise decision of the noble Marquess and His Majesty's Government as regards the line which should be taken, that the question does merit serious consideration.
  634
  I do not for a moment say that representation at the conference should be of an official character, but I think it is very desirable that whoever does go from this country to represent British interests at the Belgium Conference should be in touch with His Majesty's Government. I do not know whether the noble Marquess has yet received the resolutions that were passed after a most interesting discussion at the conference held in Liverpool a few days ago, over which Mr. Justice Kennedy presided, and the discussion at which was marked by moderation and a desire to introduce into any amendment of the law the best considerations both of policy and public utility, and by the wish that the view of Great Britain in this matter should be respected. I do not press the noble Marquess to give any pledge which he feels he cannot give, but I do trust that he will allow me to urge upon him my conviction that some step in the direction indicated in the noble Lord's Motion is required in the interests of British commerce and British shipping.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, it is almost superfluous for me to assure your Lord ships that His Majesty's Government are well ware of the great importance of the subject to which this Motion has reference. The noble Lord who introduced it this evening mentioned a deputation which I had the honour of receiving at the Foreign Office. That deputation was one of the most representative and influential that ever waited upon a British Minister. It is perfectly true that we did not think it desirable that an official representative should be sent to the conference which sat last year, for the reason mentioned by the noble old. I found that there was a very strong feeling that, considering the magnitude of our shipping interests, there would be a certain amount of ask in allowing any official representatives sent to attend this conference on behalf of this country to commit us in any way as to the manner in which we might hereafter deal with this subject by legislation. That may have been, perhaps, excessive caution; but it was a feeling, I know, which was very widely entertained.

  635
  The position at present is this. The conference, I understand, suspended its sittings and is to meet again in September, and the Question which presume I am asked is whether, when that conference reassembles, we shall take any part, official or unofficial, in its proceedings. In the meanwhile there has taken place another conference representative of our own shipping interests—I mean the conference held at Liverpool, to which the Lord Chief Justice referred. The resolution of that conference, reached me only the day before yesterday. It is a short resolution, decidedly in favour of participation by this country. But beyond that resolution we have as yet received nothing from the Liverpool Conference. I think, therefore, we are entitled to ask that we should have a fuller opportunity of considering not only the resolution of the conference, but the account of its proceedings upon which that resolution was based.
  I can assure both noble Lords who have spoken that we shall approach the consideration of the matter with an open mind. I think we may derive some encouragement from the knowledge that the draft codes dealing with the subjects of salvage and collision, which have, I under-stand, been approved by this conference, are both of them drawn upon lines which are very much in accord with the law which prevails in this country. I am afraid I must, in those circumstances, return a somewhat dilatory Answer to the Question of the noble Lord; but I can promise him that when we receive the fuller account of the proceedings of the Liverpool Conference, we shall examine them with the desire that the interests of this country may be represented, if not officially, at any rate in some adequate manner, at the subsequent meetings of the Belgian Conference.
  LORD MUSKERRY: Under those circumstances, I ask your Lordships' permission to with draw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, with drawn.

  HORSE DISEASE IN IRELAND
  THE EARL OF MAYOrose, "To ask His Majesty's Government how many cases
  636
  of epizootic lymphangitis have occurred amongst artillery horses and troop horses in Ireland; how have these cases been dealt with; and, if there is any truth in the report that horses suffering from the "disease or coming from infected stables have been sold to the public, what measures have been taken to stop the spread of this disease."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, my reason for putting these Questions to His Majesty's Government is that this very dangerous horse disease has been introduced into Ireland by the artillery horses and troop horses that were brought back from South Africa at the conclusion of the war. The disease is very contagious, and, although there have been cases of recovery, the course generally adopted when a horse is attacked with this disease is to kill and bury it, and destroy all the harness and saddlery with which the horse has come in contact. Your Lordships will, therefore, understand how anxious we are in Ireland to know what steps the Army authorities, who are responsible for the-introduction of this disease into Ireland, have taken to stamp it out. The disease has spread to civilian stables and the matter has become a really serious one. I hope we may hear from the noble Earl who will reply on behalf of the War Office that the disease has been stamped out, at all events in the stables over which they have control.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMOBE): My Lords, in reply to the Questions put to me by the noble Earl I have to Hay that there have been thirty-seven cases of epizootic lymphangitis among Army horses in Ireland. Of that number thirty-five horses were destroyed, and. two were cured. I am informed that no horses from infected stables have been sold to the public within six months of the occurrence of the last case in the unit attacked. The period of six months was arrived at after considerable discussion amongst those who have had experience-of the disease in South Africa, as affording security. I believe it is true that the-disease is spreading in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Amongst Army horses?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: No, we have had no case in the Army since October, 1904, and I am sure my noble friend will regard that as very satisfactory. We have opportunities in the Army of dealing much more drastically with these cases when they occur than is possible in civilian stables, and this, I think, is responsible for the fact that we have had no case in Ireland since October, 1904. The procedure we followed has been accurately described by my noble friend. All horses in contact—that is to say, in the same unit as any of the horses affected—were kept entirely apart, and, with the exception of the two that we were able to cure, the horses suffering from the disease were all destroyed. I hope my noble friend will accept the assurance that we are fully alive to the dangers of this disease, not only in Ireland but in the whole of the United Kingdom, and that most drastic measures are at once applied when any case comes to our notice.
  EARL CARRINGTON: This disease of epizootic lymphangitis is what is known as the horse-disease in South Africa, and I should like to ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary whether any warning was sent from South Africa to His Majesty's Government as to the danger of bringing these horses back to this country.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I presume the noble Earl means any recent warning. I am not aware of any, but I shall be glad to make inquiries. The noble Earl knows that our usual practice is not to move horses about. A cavalry regiment coming home from South Africa would not bring its horses with it, but would be provided with fresh horses on its arrival.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I should like to ask the noble Earl or any other member of His Majesty's Government whether any steps, and, if so, what steps, have been taken to prevent the spread of this disease in civilian stables.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I can inform the noble Lord opposite that the Department of Agriculture in Ireland has issued an Order, which I shall be happy to
  638
  show to him, containing instructions how to deal with the disease and prevent its spreading, and I think the same thing has been done by the Board of Agriculture in this country.
  The subject then dropped.

CRIMINAL CASES (RESERVATION OF POINTS OF LAW) BILL [H.L.]
[THIRD READING.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lord, this Bill was introduced to meet the recommendation of the Beck Commission. Your Lordships are probably aware that there is a considerable body of opinion in favour of the establishment of a larger Court of Criminal Appeal; but, recognising that this Bill was introduced simply to meet that specific point, I did not take any part in the earlier discussions. The Bill, however, has been considerably amended since it was introduced, and I notice a very curious provision in it of which I should like to have some explanation. In Clause 2 of the Bill, as now printed, it is provided that—
"The Court hearing and determining a question of law with respect to which a case is stated under the Crown Cases Act, 1848, whether in pursuance of this Act or otherwise, shall, in addition to the powers given to them by that Act, hive power to order the retrial of the case—"
So far I have no objection to the clause. But then it proceeds—
"and may also order that any conviction or judgment shall stand, if they consider that no miscarriage of justice has, in point of fact, occurred, notwithstanding that they are of opinion that the question of law should have been decided in favour of the person convicted."
I am bound to say that that seems to me rather a strong order, because, if I understand those words correctly, they mean that this Court of Criminal Appeal may say in one breath that a person has been wrongfully convicted from a strictly technical legal point of view, and in the same breath may say that, though not legally convicted, he is at

639
the same time to be punished. The effect of those words has, perhaps, not been fully considered.
There is another aspect of the clause which I think can scarcely have occurred to those who drafted that provision, and it is this: that the wrongful conviction of a person will depend upon whether he is tried in the first instance by a Judge who knows the law or by one who does not know the law. If he is tried by a Judge who does know the law the Judge will rule that the evidence cannot be admitted, and the prisoner will escape conviction; but if he is tried by a Judge who does not know the law, that Judge may wrongfully admit some irregularity at the trial, and the prisoner may, in consequence, be convicted; and in that case the Court of Appeal can, under this clause, allow the conviction to stand although the conviction arose through the Judge making a mistake in law. I do not think the anomalous effect of this provision has been fully considered.
I should also like a little explanation of the words "miscarriage of justice." The clause provides that the Court may order that any conviction or judgment shall stand if they consider that no miscarriage of justice has, in point of fact, occurred. I should have thought that to a lawyer a miscarriage of justice meant an illegal conviction. If it means in the popular sense of the term that a man ought to be punished, although not legally guilty of the particular thing for which he was tried, I do not see why you should not give that power also to the Court of First Instance. I think these words introduce what might become a rather dangerous practice, and one which might lead to rather unfortunate results, and I should be glad to hear what explanation or what justification there is for them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, the explanation is very simple. In both the civil and criminal Courts it has been the subject of grave animadversion that some technical objection outside the
640
real moral merits of the cases has decided a case the wrong way. In respect of civil procedure, since 1873 it has been recognised and enacted that wherever the Court is of opinion that justice in its broadest sense has been done, notwithstanding some technical irregularity, the decision ought not to be set aside on the ground of some mistake which did not affect the real justice. of the case. This system has worked with extreme efficiency in civil cases, and when the measure was introduced for the purpose of aiding persons who were before a criminal tribunal it was pointed out that if the Court was invested with the power of inquiring into every one of these cases, and if they should be of opinion that some question which really did not affect the merits of the case one way or another had been wrongly decided, without some provision of this kind they would be compelled to allow a criminal to escape from punishment, although he might be guilty. Where, therefore, there had been no miscarriage of justice in the ordinary and popular sense of the word it would be undesirable to allow a technical error to disturb the due course of justice. That is the meaning of the clause. I think that the object sought to be attained is a right one.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, this provision has been most carefully considered by the Judges of the King's Bench who have to administer the criminal law in assize towns. The Judges arc unanimously of opinion that some such clause as this is absolutely necessary. I would cite by way of illustration the recent trial of a hotel manageress for fraud, and owing to a technical misdirection on a minor point of law by the chairman of quarter sessions the conviction had to be set aside. In more than one case the Judges have been satisfied that there has been no real miscarriage of justice at all, and it is felt that if this state of things is not to become part of the practice it is absolutely necessary that, if there is some minor point to argue which has nothing to do with the real merits of the case, the Judges should have the power to say that it is not necessary to have a new trial, thereby saving expense and delay, and preventing a miscarriage of justice.
THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that the Amendments standing in his name were of a purely technical character. They were put down originally for Standing Committee, but as no sufficient explanation of them was forthcoming at the time he declined to move them. He now begged to move their insertion.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 6, page 3, line 4, to insert the following sub-sections: (3) The provisions of this Act relating to legal aid on the hearing of a case stated shall not apply to Ireland. (4) Rules of Court made under Section 61 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877, may regulate generally the practice and procedure under this Act in Ireland.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 7, page 3, line 6, to leave out from the word 'may' to the word 'be' in line 8."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.