Sitting of 30 June 1823

PRIVATE MADHOUSES.
Mr. Humepresented a petition from Mr. John Mitford, praying for an inquiry into the state of Private Mad-houses. The petitioner stated, that he had himself been confined in one of these institutions, and that he had lately published a book describing the abuses which existed in them. To obtain materials for this book he had visited a variety of private lunatic asylums: but at those of Mr. Warburton, he had been refused the means of information which he wanted.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, he had himself communicated with one or two persons, who had been confined in private mad-houses; and, from all he had heard, he thought the subject worthy the attention of parliament. The system of private madhouses was peculiarly calculated to open the door to most iniquitous offences, and unfortunately, the most difficult of proof. In his opinion the true course would be to put them down altogether; or to increase the public establishments at least to such a degree as should tend to diminish their number. The trade was a highly lucrative one. Individuals kept, in many cases, several establishments. Mr. Warburton was the proprietor of two or three different houses.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that private madhouses were establishments almost necessarily open to abuse; and where abuses did exist, it was most important that they be hunted to detection. At the same time justice was due to a number of highly respectable medical men, who were proprietors of houses of this description, and among others, to Mr. Warburton, with whom he was professionally acquainted. In the course of his legal practice, he had frequently seen Mr. Warburton examined in courts of justice; and his character stood equally high, both for medical skill and for humanity. Now it appeared that Mr. Mitford had himself been confined in a mad-house as a patient; and it should be recollected that a man might sufficiently recover from an attack of insanity to he discharged from confinement and yet not be in a state to appreciate, dispassionately, the very treatment which perhaps had been conducive to his cure. It frequently happened, that actions were brought against the keepers of lunatic asylums by people who had recovered under their care. One word as to Mr. Mitford. He had spoken of himself as the author of a book on the subject of mad-houses; and certainly he was the author of as scandalous a publication as ever bad issued from the press. The work in question was filled with the most slanderous anecdotes, and with details too disgusting to be repeated; and the names of persons of high respectability, and even of young ladies of rank, who had been visited with that dreadful malady, the privation of reason, were treated in a manner deserving the severest reprehension.
Mr. Peelsaw no ground in the present case for establishing an inquiry. To suppress private mad-houses, would be to create an evil greater than any which such a course could remove. Confinement in a public institution, under any circumstances, would always appear to many a very severe infliction; and the attempt to abolish private mad-houses would inevitably lead to the confinement of lunatics in private houses—an arrangement under which every facility to abuse would 'be increased. Upon the petition before the House, he would Only say thus much—that a variety of statements had been presented to him, in his time, by persons, sane to all appearance, complaining of abuses practised in mad-houses; he had examined into these statements over and over again, and he had, in almost
1334
all cases, discovered that they were without a shadow of foundations.
Mr. Bennetconfirmed the statement of the right hon. gentleman opposite, as to the very slight degree of reliance due to the accounts of persons who had been insane; but he thought, notwithstanding, that further regulations in private, madhouses were necessary. Upon the point however, altogether, he confessed he entertained little hope; for, so long as certain persons in another place systematically opposed every, thing tending to a reform in the law, there could he little expectation of any advantageous change, until Providence should: be pleased to remove them from their situations. With respect to the petition, he had seen Mr. Mitford, and thought that he certainly appeared in his senses at present; he made some assertions which he (Mr. B.) knew to be untrue. He trusted that Mr. Warburton would prosecute the publisher of Mr. Mitford's book.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that this subject was well worthy the attention of parliament. It had formerly been much considered; and three bills had, at different periods, been sent up from that House to the Lords, relative to the inspection of houses of this description, which, he regretted to say, had not been passed. He should be extremely sorry if any proposition were brought forward, similar to that spoken of by the hon. member for Westminster; because he believed that, though abuses might exist in some of these establishments, they were, on the whole, well conducted. There was little chance of patients being restored to their senses unless a certain course of treatment were adopted; and with that view, it was better that they should be taken care of in houses exclusively appropriated to the reception of persons labouring under this malady, than that they should be placed in private lodgings, and intrusted to the keeping of individuals who were not con versant with the disease. Persons ignorant of the treatment which should be extended to insane patients, frequently gave them medicines and bled them, for the mere purpose of reducing their strength.
Ordered to lie on the table.

SCOTCH JURIES BILL.
Mr. Kennedy having moved the third reading of this bill,
Lord Binningopposed the motion. The

1335
system, he admitted, required change; but not such a change as was contemplated by this bill. It was a puerile species of legislation, to come down with a measure, not absolutely to do away with a certain power, but to cast a slur on the manner in which it was exercised. He felt strong objections to nominating the jury by ballot. The hon. member for Knaresborough had, on a former evening, said a. great deal about the advantage which would be derived from nominating the jury by chance; and he had alluded to the mode of appointing committees of that House, which was done by ballot.
He (lord B.) looked upon that to be the very best mode of appointing committees in cases of contested elections, &c. But, would any man like to go to trial before a jury so formed? Several petitions had been presented on this subject by the hon. member for Aberdeen, who had prefaced their presentation with speeches which reflected on the way in which the law was administered in Scotland; and his noble friend (lord A. Hamilton) had cast reflections on the judges, to whom h attributed motives of a personal nature. Now, as he considered all those insinuations to be unfounded, he looked with great jealousy at every measure which seemed to throw a slur on the judges; which the present bill did; since it took from them a duty, which they had exercised from the time of Charles 2nd; and which had heretofore been acted on for the benefit of all parties.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, that the noble lord, in opposing this bill, had not stated his real objection, which could only be guessed at. The noble lord was adverse to the appointment of juries by ballot, because it would be a matter of blind chance. Now, it was for that very reason that he (Mr. A.) approved of it. To him it appeared to be, as it would depend entirely on chance, the fairest mode that could be proposed for nominating a jury. He could not argue this point, since the noble lord had advanced no reason for his opposition. All he said was, "I don't like this proposition, and I won't agree to it." The noble lord admitted that a change was necessary. If that were the case, then the question was, how it could be effected. The present measure had been considered in the committee as the best that could be devised; and he should like to know why the noble lord had not urged his objections on that committee. No objection
1336
was, however, offered to the bill in the committee; and therefore he contended that the noble lord was now too late with his opposition.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that the present bill could not passion such argument as that of the learned gentleman's, which had nothing to do with the measure, but was in fact an argumentum ad hominem, directed against his noble friend. The question was—whether the alteration which it was proposed to make in the administration of the criminal law of Scotland, by this bill, was or was not a wise one? He had very serious doubts of the wisdom of passing this bill; and he believed, that before two sessions had passed, the hon. member would be an advocate for the amendment of his own measure. The jury-books were made up alphabetically; so that before they could proceed to the letter B, they must exhaust all the names under the letter A, and the whole jury might be composed of Abercrombies [a laugh]. Now the having an entire jury of the same name might, in cases of assault, or offences growing out of ancient feuds, have a very bad effect. He thought that there were to be found considerable difficulties in the way of carrying the bill into effect. He could not consider it prudent in the hon. member to attempt so considerable a change in the criminal law of Scotland by any bill brought in so late in the session, and with so very little opportunity allowed for the discussion of it.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, that by the admission of almost every one in the House who had spoken, the principle of judicial selection had been condemned. If any novelty were to be introduced, it must be founded either upon selection or upon a fortuitous mode of appointment; The right hon. gentleman himself did not approve of selection by the judges; and his hon. and learned friend near him had adopted that which he considered the most unexceptionable mode, that of ballot. The objections of the right hon. gentleman, as they went merely to possible difficulties, were of a nature so general that no measure could be invented to which such objections might not be opposed. Having, however, admitted the impropriety of judicial selection, and suffered the opportunities escape him of discussing the bill on the second reading, or of improving it in the committee, the right hon. gentleman, in proposing to

1337
put off the proper remedy, was proposing the continuance of an evil to Scotland which he himself did not justify, and which was generally reprobated.
Mr. Canningcould not allow that his right hon. friend was bound to approve of this bill, because he disapproved of judicial selection; especially as he had opposed the second reading of it, and the committee upon it. For his own part, he disliked the present mode of selection by the judges; not because any thing improper had been, or could be alleged against it practically, but because he considered that mode unsightly, and unseemly in theory. But he by no means wished on that account to be considered an advocate for the ballot, to which he felt strong objections. He did not consider himself sufficiently acquainted with the details of the bill, to warrant him, considering the important measure it comprised, in giving his support to it. He thought the subject could not be safely determined upon until next session, when, if he found the objections removed, he would give his concurrence to some modification of the system which now existed.
The House divided: Ayes 60. Noes 55. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

SCOTCH COMMISSARIES COURTS BILL.
The Lord Advocate, in moving that the order of the day be read for the third reading of this bill, took the opportunity of entering into an explanation of the object and provisions of the bill. He observed, that it was by no means intended to abolish by the bill the forty-three Commissary Courts, but to transfer the business of them to the sheriffs depute. This would be generally advantageous; as it would have the effect of allowing the cases of litigants to be tried nearer home.
Lord A. Hamiltoncomplained of the manner in which the learned lord had conducted business in the present session, which was such, that bills arrived at their third reading, without any chance of an opportunity to any hon. member to deliver his sentiments upon them. The necessity under which the learned lord had just felt himself, of explaining the object of the present bill, on moving the order of the day for its third reading, was a striking illustration of the fact. With regard to the present bill, the learned
1338
lord had, on a former occasion, declared that the fault lay with him (lord A. H.). That he positively denied; and he appealed to his hon. friends near him, whether he had not sought most diligently during two months for an opportunity to give his opinion on a bill, which, as it was an original measure, ought to have been fully discussed in every stage. Was that a proper time of the session was that a proper state of the House, in which to press a bill of so much importance? He could scarcely believe, that the only two ministers of the Crown present would be induced to give their support to such a measure. He did not think that the learned lord had followed the report of the commissioners in many material points; one especially with regard to the discretionary power of requiring fees. One of the offices, that of the Procurator Fiscal, was stated, both in the reports of 1808, and 1817, as proper to be abolished; but, notwithstanding this recommendation, a sum of 500 l. had been given by an individual for that situation. Why was the sale of offices permitted in such a manner; and particularly, when the commissioners declared, that the office of Procurator Fiscal had long ceased to be of any practical utility? Another important point embraced in the bill, was the compensation given to persons deprived of offices by the abolition of the Commissaries. Now, in the report made in 1808, it was expressly recommended, that the right of compensation should be withheld from all persons who might, subsequently to that period, be appointed to those situations. Had this reservation been made in the present bill? He would here observe, that he was favourable to the object of this bill; although he was opposed to the mode in which it had been framed. He had himself last year moved for leave to bring in a measure of a similar nature, which he had afterwards withdrawn. But he could not help expressing his astonishment that the learned lord should suffer the evils which the commissioners complained of in their reports, to remain in existence from the year 1814 to the present hour. The government had been most neglectful of its duty, in allowing those evils to go on year after year, without applying a remedy. It was indeed true, that about three lord-advocates ago, if he might so express himself, a bill like the present was brought in and read a second time, but

1339
from that period till the year 1823 nothing had been done. And now, when the learned lord undertook to remove the evils, in what manner did he attempt to do so? The first step in this bill involved a principle which he could not conceive how either the learned lord or his majesty's ministers could sanction. It did not direct what other persons were to do in obedience to the legislature, but it gave authority to certain individuals in Scotland to legislate themselves, merely with this provision, that they were to have regard to the report of the commissioners. The main object of the bill was, to abolish the inferior commissary courts; and if the learned lord meant that the sheriffs and stewards should perform the duty of the commissioners, why did he not lay the expenses which would be thus incurred before the House? This course was recommended in the report of the commissioners; but instead of that, the learned lord delegated a power to the lords of the courts of session to determine those expenses. With respect to the courts of the sheriffs, the learned lord there again delegated the power to legislate to the court of session. The regulation of those courts, instead of being framed by the learned lord in conformity with the recommendation of the commissioners, and embodied in the bill itself, were to be submitted by the sheriffs to the lords of the court of session for their approval. If, then, there should, on this point, be any difference of opinion between the sheriffs and the lords of the court of session, the present measure must prove abortive; for the only guide which the lords of the session had was, the report of the commissioners. It was true, that the sheriffs were to record those acts by acts of sederunt, but the learned lord ought to know, that the people of Scotland considered all acts of sederunt as encroachments, and therefore as obnoxious to their rights and privileges. The present bill, however, not only went to multiply those acts now, but to render them necessary in all times to come. Why had not the learned lord avoided this course, by first ascertaining the collective wisdom of the court of session, and submitting it to the House before he brought in his bill? The power of legislating would then be placed in parliament, and not delegated (as it now was) to the judges of an inferior court. A clause, indeed, was introduced by way of salvo,
1340
providing that a copy of the regulations made by the lords of the session should be laid before each house of parliament, before the expiration of two months after it next met, and that they were not to become law previous to that period. But why did not the learned lord obtain this information in the first instance, and embody it in his bill before its arrival at the present stage? There was another point to which he would call the attention of the House—he alluded to the mode in which compensation was to be awarded under the present bill. And here he could not help again observing, that if the right to compensation had been withdrawn from persons appointed since the report of the commissioners in 1808, there would, perhaps, be no claimant for it under the provisions of this act. But, laying that consideration aside, those persons were to have their claims decided by the barons of the Exchequer, who were to investigate their legality. Now, he could not understand what was meant by legality in that instance; for he denied as a principle, that any of the individuals in question had a right to compensation at all; and yet the barons of the Exchequer were to award each of them either a gross sum or an annuity, in lieu of the emoluments of which they were deprived. He would say, that the measure, though in its last stage, had never yet been discussed. In its present shape, he considered it discreditable to his majesty's government, and should vote against it.
Mr. K. Douglashoped the House would not be induced, by what had fallen from the noble lord, to reject the present bill. Some of the noble lord's objections, however, were not unworthy of attention. As to the measure itself, it was of great importance to the people of Scotland. The districts, under the jurisdiction of the commissaries, were so extensive, that the revenue was, in consequence, defrauded to a large amount, and the, administration of justice generally obstructed. The persons, too, who held the situation of commissaries were not bred to the law, but were mostly country gentlemen; whereas, the sheriffs appointed to discharge their duty by the present bill, possessed legal knowledge, and were thus qualified for the office. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to mention the other evils which the measure was intended to remedy, and concluded by giving it his support.
Mr. Kennedyobjected to several clauses of the bill. One of these transferred the duties of the commissaries to the sheriffs, who were enabled to depute their power to their substitutes, who again were to do the duty without granting them any additional remuneration. He could not allow that opportunity to pass, without observing that sheriff substitutes of Scotland were a very respectable body of men, but very ill paid; and he hoped that their situation would soon be considered in the proper quarter, and that a provision would be made for them, more suitable to their station and the various important duties which they had to perform.
The Lord Advocateconcurred in what had been said by the hon. member, with respect to the respectability of the sheriff substitutes, and was anxious that a suitable addition should be made to their incomes; but the hon. gentleman must be aware that it rested with the treasury to give that compensation.
The House divided:—Ayes 56. Noes 21. The bill was then passed.

ROMAN CATHOLIC ELECTIVE FRANCHISE BILL.
Lord Nugent Lord Nugent moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the report upon this bill, with the intention of recommitting the bill. The House then resolved itself into the said committee. Upon the chairman reading the first clause,
Mr. Bankesregretted the necessity he was under of opposing this bill, because he felt that its object was, to confer political power, and not a mere qualification for office. He could not see the distinction between the franchise of electing and that of being elected. If parliament chose to extend to the Catholics the one, they ought also to grant them the other, and at once concede the privilege of representation. The hon. gentleman then cited the authorities of dean Swift and Burke, to prove that it was absurd to suppose, that one political concession could be made by such a government as ours to Roman Catholics, without all other concessions in church and state following as matters of course. He understood it to be a favourite proposition with some hon. gentlemen, that the numbers of those professing, and not the truth of the doctrine, ought to determine what the religion of a state should be. According to that proposition, therefore, the religion of the state in Ireland ought to be Roman Ca-
1342
tholic, seeing how numerous were its followers. But, was it meant, to be said, that no attempt was to be made to advance the Protestant faith, merely because of the comparative paucity or Protestants; or were greater facilities to be given to the Roman Catholics to advance theirs? The whole argument, however, stood in a singular dilemma. On the one hand, the numbers of the Irish Catholics (and they had of late certainly increased), and on the other, the paucity of English Catholics, were adduced in support of the claim for an extension of their privileges. Now, the evils of the enormous population of Ireland were on all hands admitted; but he would appeal to hon. gentlemen, whether any one thing so much tended to create those evils, as the fatal measure of increasing the forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland, a measure which had caused infinite and ruinous subdivisions of property? The hon. gentleman then alluded to the notorious existence in Ireland of an establishment of the order of Jesuits—a sect renowned in all history for their energy, their zeal and their perseverance in the work of proselytism—an order the more dangerous for being generally appointed to superintend the education of youth, and the destructive tendency of whose tenets had caused their expulsion from every territory in which they had settled. The fact of their re-establishment in Europe, and more especially the alarming fact of their existence in the sister kingdom, ought to induce the House to pause, before they did any thing which should encourage the hopes and foster the pretensions of the decided enemies of the Protestant church. For the concessions which the House was now called upon to make, he had heard no one adequate reason adduced. Against them he saw many, and should give his decided opposition to the bill.
Mr. Hudson Gurneythought the speech of the hon. member for Corfe Castle had little relevancy to the bill before the House. His argument went to the danger of granting to the Catholics an increase of political power. Now, the number of Catholics which by this bill would be admitted to vote was so very inconsiderable, that the influence of Catholics over elections could hardly perceptibly increased by its passing Mr. G. said that he had once been in a borough where one. Catholic had been prevented from voting, but where the in-

1343
fluence of a Catholic lord in the neighbourhood had been sufficient to decide the return. In counties it was much the same. Catholic landlords of ancient families and ancient possessions had great influence; but the votes they would carry were votes of Protestants. As to the anomaly of persons being able to vote for members of parliament who were disqualified from sitting in that House, it was the case with the whole body of the clergy; and he did not conceive that his hon. friend opposite, the member for the University of Cambridge, could be greatly shocked with this equal inconsistency.—Mr. G. regretted that the noble lord had been prevailed on to except Scotland from the operation of his bill. The Catholic Heritors there were very few, but of the highest respectability. The words of the act of Union which had been quoted, appeared to him to bear as much upon the question as the union between the Scots and the Picts. And, at least as one proof that the spirit of John Knox was not to be attributed to the whole church of Scotland in these days, it was a curious fact, that, after the failure of the negociations at Chatillon, when the plenipotentiaries, assembled there, put in their demand to the French government that the pope should be restored in entire liberty to his full powers, the instrument was signed but by one Catholic, and by two Scotch Presbyterians.
Mr. W. Peelsupported the bill, but protested that he would not go one iota beyond its provisions, in the way of concession.
Mr. J. Smithsaid, he well knew that the hon. member for Corfe Castle was generally opposed to all concession, under any circumstances, to Roman Catholics. Now, if he (Mr. S.) were called upon to point out any one body of men, whose political and moral conduct had been for ages most irreproachable, he should turn to the English Roman Catholics. He was extremely averse to inflicting any penalty-upon men for their religious opinions: and he could easily instance the folly of such a policy. He had the pleasure of knowing a great many individuals among the society of Friends, called Quakers: a body of men more excellent, more upright, and of greater correctness in all their dealings, could not be named. This character was generally admitted to them; and yet he wondered how they had existed so long in this country, seeing
1344
how opposite their maxims of policy and religion were to our own, and how much Roman Catholics had suffered from a similar cause. Their doctrines were at total variance with the first principles of civil society; for it was part of their creed, that when they were smitten on one cheek, they were to offer the other: and when an enemy came, that they were to make no resistance: yet for a man to speculate on this passive principle would be a somewhat dangerous experiment. He remembered an instance, in which an ostler in an inn-yard, supposing he might be so with impunity, had been extremely insolent to a Quaker, whom he abused in the most vehement terms. The Quaker, with much deliberation, observed to him—"Though I am forbidden to strike thee, it may be good that I should cool thy passion;" and so saying, he deposited the refractory ostler in a horse-trough full of water; having held him there for about five minutes, he let him go, with this admonitory remark:—"Friend, I hope that thy heat hath now left thee." As preposterous as was this fellow's speculation on the habits of the Quaker, were the prejudices entertained against those whose religious observances did not accord with our own. It was upon their conduct, and not upon their principles, that he would try the English Catholics. Their conduct had been uniformly such as entitled them to the protection of the House; and he therefore felt it his duty to support the present measure.
Mr. Secretary Peel, although opposed to the general measure of Catholic Emancipation, was ready to support the bill before the House. Nothing which had fallen from the hon. member for Corfe Castle had convinced him, that there was any danger in the measure; or that he should compromise, by voting for it, any principle which he had heretofore professed. He could not see by what process, upon granting the elective franchise to the Catholics, he was at all bound to grant them the further right of sitting in parliament. In fact, the two. privileges, as it seemed to him, had no connexion at all with each other. The hon. Members for Corfe Castle said—" This measure gives us in England a class of men who may make members of parliament, but who cannot become members of parliament themselves." Why, what was there new in this From the different rights to attaching to different kind of property, there

1345
were already thousands of men in the country, who could vote for members of parliament, and yet could not sit in parliament themselves; and vice versâ, there were many who were competent to sit in the House, who had not, nevertheless, the qualification for voting. Again, as the hon. member for Newtown (Mr. H. Gurney) had stated, there were the clergy of England, a whole body of individuals who were excluded by law from being elected to parliament, although they possessed, or might possess, the elective franchise. As for danger in the present measure, he saw none; and he denied that it bound its advocates to support any ulterior measure. The Catholics of England were few in number; and even taking Lancashire, the county in which their party was strongest, he did not believe that they would have influence enough to return a single member to parliament. There was nothing in the ancient law of the country, to oppose the grant of this cession to the Catholics; nothing anomalous in granting it. The law of exclusion at present was one of the very worst character. Its enforcement depended upon the pleasure of individuals, who could never make use of it upon public grounds, or upon principle; because the individual who barred the Catholic from voting was always the party against whom he was going to vote. If the exclusion were to continue, he would prefer seeing the veto made absolute, to leaving the law in its present state; but, as he thought that one admission could do no possible mischief, and that much advantage would accrue out of that community of feeling between Catholic and Protestant which the bustle of an election would produce; he should give his hearty support to the measure.
General Gascoyneentertained the highest opinion, personally, of the English Catholics; but looked upon the measure before the House as part only of a new system. He could not help regretting the support given to it by the right hon. Secretary, and thought that the opponents of Catholic Emancipation generally would differ from him decidedly in opinion.
Dr. Lushingtonsupported the bill, and warmly expressed his feelings in favour of the Catholic generally.
Lord Binningwas happy to join in an act of rather tardy justice. He wished that the Catholics of Scotland had been included in the measure. As the exclu-
1346
sion of that class, eo nomine, was guaranteed by the act of Union, he had not pressed for their admission, lest the bill before the House should be lost. At the same time, although he would touch the Union, and matters connected with it, with all the caution and respect which he felt for it as a Scotchman, still he could not think it right that it should be permitted to perpetuate against any class a course of injustice and oppression.
Mr. Goochsaid, he knew many Catholics who were loyal and respectable men; but he must oppose the removal of the restrictions placed on them.
Mr. Smythsaid, that he had come down to the House, intending to vote against the bill, but had been converted by the speech of the right hon. Secretary, and should support it.
Mr. G. Bankessaid, that the suggestion of the noble lord (Binning) sufficiently proved that the concessions to the Catholics were not to stop at the present measure. He heartily wished that the right hon. Secretary might not live to regret his assent to it.
Mr. W. Smithsaw no possible danger to be apprehended from the bill; and hoped to see the time when its own feeling of justice would carry the House to ulterior measures.
Mr. Butterworthdeclared, that he could not consent to the measure then before the House. If parliament granted the boon now called for, it would be the first step towards making still greater concessions to the Catholics. They would not rest satisfied here, but would demand still greater privileges. To prove the truth of his assertion, he need only refer to the fact, that when the elective franchise was extended to the Catholics of Ireland, they soon began to claim more extensive privileges. He could not agree, that those rights contemplated by the bill should be granted to them, because he considered the principles of the Catholics not to have undergone any change. The fears which were formerly entertained of the Catholics were as well founded now as they ever were. The same intolerant spirit still prevailed amongst that sect. So much were the intrigues of particular orders among them dreaded, that the Jesuits had been suppressed in every part of Europe. In the late settlement of the kingdom of the Netherlands, the monarch wished to extend the privileges of the Protestants; but the Catholic bishops

1347
complained against the adoption of any such measure, as trenching on the prerogatives attached to their religion. He was a sincere friend to religious freedom, and therefore he opposed this bill.
Mr. Humerose to protest, in the strongest manner, against the species of argument made use of by the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. Such observations were unfit for any man to make; but as the hon. gentleman was himself a sectarian, and enjoyed all the benefits of toleration, he was doubly criminal in harbouring sentiments so intolerant. The hon. gentleman had expressed his dread of the Jesuits; but he would tell the House, that there was a class of Protestant Jesuits who were much more to be feared. The church establishment had much greater reason to apprehend danger from the sect to which the hon. gentleman belonged than from the Catholics. There was not a point that could be favourable to their interest, or by which they thought they could undermine the established church (notwithstanding all their declarations of devotion to it), that they did not, most assiduously, endeavour to gain. He looked upon the Methodists to be the Jesuits, above all others, from whom the church of England had most to apprehend. It was quite clear to him, from the observations made by the hon. gentleman, that it was impossible that he could have a particle of tolerant spirit in his breast. The whole of his speech breathed nothing but persecution. He again asserted, that the government ought to look after the Metholists, instead of the Catholics. For the last fifty years they had shown themselves most anxious in making proselytes, and most assiduous in their hostility to religious liberty; and he must say, that he believed no Roman Catholic had ever expressed Such intolerant opinions as the hon. gentleman had uttered that night.
Mr. Butterworthsaid, there was no necessity for him to defend himself against the attack of the hon. member. The sect to which he belonged was highly complimented by the censure of a gentleman who had defended the principles of Carlile in that House.
Mr. Humesaid, if the hon. member attended to facts, it would be much better. He had never defended Mr. Curlile's principles. The statement was not true [Hear].
The Chairman said, that the hon. mem-
1348
ber was undoubtedly proceeding in a strain of personal invective.
Mr. Hume.—If the hon. gentleman stands up and asserts that which is not true, I have a right to contradict him. I declare that the hon. member has made an assertion with regard to my conduct which is not true.
The committee divided: For the motion 89. Against it 80. The bill was then reported.

MARRIAGES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
On the committal of the Marriages at St. Petersburgh bill,
Lord Hollandsaid, that the present bill had his entire concurrence. He only regretted that, it did not extend to all marriages contracted by British subjects, and solemnized in the chapels of our ministers abroad; for, although no lawyer, he had no doubt of the validity of such marriages himself yet many respectable persons did entertain doubts on the subject; and, though lawyers when ap-
1320
plied to had given an opinion favourable to the validity of such marriages, yet such opinion had always been clogged with the observation, that there had been no decision, on the subject. He regretted that, during a session in which so much of the law relating to marriages had been taken from the common law, and placed on the Statute-book, no statute nor clause, nor even dictum, had been uttered, for setting at rest this question of the legality of marriages solemnized in factories abroad, or in the chapels of our ambassadors.
The Marquis of Lansdownconcurred in opinion with his noble friend as to the necessity of some declaratory law on the subject.
Lord Colchesterwas also desirous that another session should not pass without some measure being brought in for setting the question at rest.
The Earl of Liverpoolentirely agreed with what had fallen from the preceding speakers. At the time the present bill was brought in, he had said, that the only objection which could be made against it was, that being confined in its operation to marriages solemnized at St. Petersburgh, it might give rise to doubts of the validity of other foreign marriages. He believed it was a completely recognised principle of our laws, that marriages made in foreign countries, according to the laws of those countries, were valid; but the present bill had no reference to that case. There were two ways in which marriages might be regularly solemnized by British subjects abroad. They might either be made according to the laws of the respective countries, or the parties might be married in the House of the minister. So long as the factory at St. Petersburgh existed, marriages solemnized by the chaplain there were conceived to be of the same effect as if they had been solemnized in the house of the ambassador; but it having happened that the factory at St. Petersburgh had been put an end to, the question had arisen, whether marriages made there, not according to the laws of Russia, were valid in this country. It was with a view to that particular difficulty that the present bill was brought in. He should have no objection to a general measure, if it were thought necessary.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, there was no doubt as to the law regarding marriages made in foreign countries according to the laws of those countries; but the doubt

1321
was, as to marriages made in British factories abroad, or in the chapels of ambassadors and, respecting these, there ought not to exist any doubt, since a short bill might be passed on the subject during the present session.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that during the fifty years he had been in the profession, he never heard of any doubts till the late bills were brought in, whether marriages performed in the chapels of our ambassadors were valid. There was no doubt that they were good marriages; and he was persuaded that no contrary opinion would ever be sanctioned by judicial authority.
The bill went through the committee.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
The Earl of Liverpool The Earl of Liverpool moved the first resolution, recommended by the select committee, for increasing the number of days during which the House would hear appeals, from three days to five days in the week.
Earl Grosvenorobjected to the compulsory clause for enforcing the attendance of peers, and thought it would be worth while to see first, whether a voluntary attendance could not be procured. If this resolution were adopted, it would lead to a singular anomaly; part of a cause might be heard by three peers, another part by three other peers, and the conclusion by three others, who had heard perhaps little or nothing of the case, and the deputy Speaker could only give his opinion. At present, the House had the advantage of the opinion of the noble and learned lord on the wool-sack; which, notwithstanding that habitual doubt and hesitation which he had himself good-humouredly acknowledged to belong to him, certainly, swayed the opinion of many noble lords. They had also the advantage of the noble and learned earl's vote, which they could not have from the deputy Speaker.
Lord Manvershoped the House would pause before they adopted this resolution; for if agreed to without modification, the House must sit all the summer.
Lord Erskinethought, that if the bill which had been read the second time that evening passed into a law, their lordships would, in a short time, be under no difficulty at all on the subject of appeals; because he was sure, that if they appointed proper commissioners (of which he had
1322
no doubt) they would have faithful and enlightened assistance from the judges of the court of session, and from the eminent persons of the Scotch bar, and the best effects might be anticipated. In his opinion, the great arrear arose from their having brought before them points of fact, and not points of law. It never was intended that appeals on facts should occupy their lordships' time. But if might be said, what was to be done in the interim, while the inquiry was going on by the commissioners? He would say, nothing should be done. They must go on as they could. The present seemed to be meant as a preliminary step; and he for one could not consent to any change in the manner in which the House should exercise its jurisdiction. For his own part, he was so well satisfied with the manner in which the judicial business of the House was con ducted by his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, assisted by another noble and learned friend (lord Redesdale), that he professed he could see no remedy for the evil, but impounding him in that House [a laugh!]. It was very true, they might lose the benefit of their services by death; but he believed they were too much men of honour, seeing their usefulness, to suffer any thing but death to cause the House a loss of their services. He might say, that he knew something of the law; but of Scotch law he was as ignorant as a native of Mexico. And yet he was quite as learned in it as any one of their lordships who could be appointed deputy Speaker, and who could but bring to his office a legal apprehension. For his own part, he was above seventy years of age, and could not be compelled to take any part; and he should, therefore, if the resolutions were adopted, leave their lordships to them selves.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he did not see because his noble and learned friend was above seventy years of age, that he should, therefore, have such an utter obliviousness of what was going on, that he should not assist in the business of appeals in the House of Lords. He thought that in the case of any future Chancellor retiring, the minister should make his attendance a condition of his pension. A noble earl (Grovenor), in the plenitude of his knowledge, might perhaps have no doubts on any point of English, Irish, or Scotch law; but, when the noble earl

1323
took upon himself to taunt him with hesitation, and doubting, he would tell that noble earl, that when they were deciding causes in the last resort, and their decisions were to give the law to other courts, they could not be too cautious. The time was fast approaching when his natural life must terminate; and for his judicial life, it had already been too long; but, when the termination of his natural life did arrive, that degree of caution, which was called doubt and hesitation, would be his greatest comfort; because, by means of that caution, he had reversed decrees, and prevented the injustice of A keeping possession of property which of right belonged to B. If their lordships would compare his conduct during the twenty years which he had sat on the judicial bench, with the conduct of any of his illustrious predecessors—and he did not fear the comparison; on the contrary, he invited it—he was sure that the comparison would not turn out to his discredit. On that account he could not but feel indignation, when he was informed of the language in which his conduct had been arraigned in another place, by those who ought to have known better. It had been publicly asserted, that appeals in the House of Lords were nothing more than appeals from the lord chancellor in one place, to the lord chancellor in another. He should like to know, whether the persons who dealt in such assertions were aware that there were many appeals to their lordships from the Chancery, in cases which had never been heard at all by the lord chancellor, but which had been decided by the Master of the Rolls, or the Vice-chancellor? For instance, the great case of Clinton v. Cholmondely was not an appeal from the Lord Chancellor; and there were a number of other appeal cases now before their lordships of a similar description. Besides this, he should like to know whether the gentlemen in Westminster-hall had yet to learn, that lord chancellors were not ashamed to retract their opinions, when they had season to believe that those opinions were formed upon erroneous grounds. He would undertake to say, that not one of die distinguished characters who had sat before him upon their lordships' woolsack; had ever shewn the slighest reluctance to reverse his judgment, when it was shown to be incorrect; and he would fearlessly ask, whether he himself had ever exhibited any unwillingness to reconsider before
1324
their lordships any of the decisions to which he might have previously come in another place? He could say most conscientiously, that he never had; and for that very reason, the insinuations which had been thrown out against his judicial conduct were as cruel and vexatious as they were unfounded and unjust. He had never upon any occasion declined, on the contrary he had made it his continual practice, to state at length the various grounds upon which he rested his decisions; in order that the bar might be enabled to declare to their clients, whether those decisions were correct or not. And he defied any man to point out a single case where the correctness of them had been doubted, in which he had not expressed his gratitude to the party who suggested the doubt. If persons acquainted with the practice of his court had made upon his conduct the observations which had been made upon it by those who were totally unacquainted with it, he should indeed have felt them acutely: but he was happy to say, that those observations did not proceed from those who had the best opportunities of marking his conduct. They came from those who knew little or nothing of the subject—who had scarcely ever put a foot into his court; and who were not therefore particularly well qualified to judge of its proceedings. He would add, that, upon that very account, they were bound, in common honesty, to abstain from throwing out random insinuations, which were calculated to hurt, in the opinion of the king's subjects, an individual, who, if he was not a great judge—and he did not venture to call himself a great judge—at least filled a great judicial situation.—Having said thus much regarding the doubts and hesitations with which he had been taunted, he now came to the subject more immediately before their lordships. The bill then before the House ought not to be considered with reference to the present lord chancellor, but all future lord chancellors; And it appeared to him, that however sedulously they might attend to their judicial duties in that House—and he could assure their lordships, that whether in office or out office, he would always attend in his placed whilst strength was left to him—no reform that their lordships might make in their own judicial regulations would effect much good, unless a very great change were, at the same time, made in those of

1325
the Court of Session. It was the peculiar happiness of the people of England, that they had a system of law, no matter bow it had been constructed, and an administration of justice, superior to that of any other country. The division of the courts of law from the courts of equity was so admirable, and at the same time so necessary to the administration of speedy justice, that until something like it were established in Scotland, it would be impossible for their lordships to do enough, whatever alterations they might make in their appellate jurisdiction. In making this observation, he did not mean to reflect either upon the learning or the judgment of the members of the Court of Session—by no means. It was the system of which he complained, not of those who administered it. So involved and complicated was it, that it was almost impossible for any man who perused the different papers in a Scotch appeal, to discover what the point was, about which the parties were quarrelling; Here the learned lord entered into a description of the manner in which the papers of a Scotch lawsuit increased in its different stages; first from the summons to the memorial; then from the memorial to the answer, in which a distinguished Scotch advocate had confessed to him, that it was the practice to insert any thing and every thing the party chose; and then from the answer down, through all the intermediate stages, to the decree, by which time the papers were swollen into an immense mass.—The learned lord then proceeded to complain, that when the judges in the court of session gave their decision, they merely stated the nature of it, without explaining the reasons on which it was founded. Hence it happened, that it was frequently not satisfactory to the party against whom it was given; and it was a fact that was undeniable, that appeals were often made from Scotland to their lordships, in order to discover the reasons on which the judgment rested in the courts below. He bad once thought, that the establishment of a court of error in Scotland, by calling in all the judges to review the case which had been decided by a portion of them, would tend much to diminish the number of Scotch appeals. He had been since told, that such was not likely to be the result of it. Indeed, one objection that had been made to it was the expense. But he could not see how it applied, since at present an
1326
appeal could be made by reclaiming petition from one division; of the Court of Session to another; and the only difference which his plan would have made would be, that the appeal would be to the whole court instead of to a part of it. He had, however, abandoned that idea; arid he now said to noble lords, with regard to the plan contained in the bill before the House, "If it be not the best, have any of you any thing better to propose? If you have, propose it; if you have not, examine whether this plan be not better than your existing system." He believed that one noble lord had suggested, that it might be expedient to take away from-their lordships all Scotch appeals. If that could be done constitutionally, it might be well; but he was afraid it could not. He had now been conversant in Scotch causes for forty years. Whilst at the bar, he had been counsel in many of, the most important of them: whilst he was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, he had; attended regularly when they came before the House; and he thought that since he had been chancellor, nobody could justly charge him with treating them with negligence. Experienced as he was in them, he would say that they occupied his attention, not only while hearing them ins that House, not only during the intervals when he was enabled to detach his thoughts from the cases he had heard, elsewhere, but also during many a night which their lordships had devoted to much more interesting pursuits. With that experience to direct him, he again said that the remedy for these numerous appeals must be administered in the courts below in the first instance, and in that House in the second. Without, some such remedy, it would be quite impossible that those of them which happened to be in arrear, could ever be overtaken. The learned lord then asked leave to offer a few observations to the House upon the court of Chancery, in which he-trusted their lordships would not so much consider him the person presiding in that court, as an individual peer declaring his opinion upon a point in which the whole nation was interested. He believed it was a generally admitted truth, that the greater attendance a judge gave to causes, the more causes he had to attend to. Now, under the present increase of business in the court of Chancery, it would be quite impossible for the lord chancellor, if be only attended to it three days in the week,

1327
to perform the duties of his situation, in any manner at all adequate to their importance. The question then was, what relief could their lordships give to the individual who filled that distinguished office, in the discharge of his two-fold duties—he meant those in the court of Chancery, and those in the House of Lords, as its Speaker? He believed that if the constitution would allow of it, the best thing that could be done would be, to prevent the Scotch causes from coining into the House of Lords at all; but as, according to its constitution, that could not be done, the next best thing for their lordships to do, would be to try the present experiment. For his own part, he thought it would fail: but still, on account of the great interests involved in it, it was only due to the country to try it. The learned lord then alluded to the projects which had been started for dividing the duties of the lord chancellor. One of them was to prevent the office of lord chancellor, and that of Speaker of the House of Lords, from being ever vested again in the same person; and another was, to abstract from the lord chancellor part of the duty which he was now in the habit of performing. With regard to the first of these projects, he would assert, now at the close of his official life, that which he would not have ventured to assert so positively at its commencement—that he had never known any man in the profession who had not deprecated the separation of the two offices of lord chancellor and Speaker of the House of Lords. Against that project, therefore, he opposed, not merely his own individual opinion, but the collective wisdom of, an acute and intelligent profession. With regard to the second, it became necessary to consider, what part of the business of his court they would take from the individual filling the office of lord chancellor. He believed it was proposed to take away one of these three divisions of its business—cases of lunacy, the appellate jurisdiction, and bankruptcies. He would begin with the last of these. He had understood, that it was the opinion of some distinguished characters now no more, and for whom he felt the most, profound respect, that the bankruptcy business at least ought to be abstracted from the lord chancellor. From that opinion he dissented most widely; and to any attempt to carry such a scheme into execution, he would always say no.—The learned
1328
lord then stated his reasons for this dissent, and afterwards proceeded to remark upon the appellate jurisdiction; but in sp low a tone of voice as not to be audible below the bar. With regard to lunacy cases, in which there was an appeal from the decision of the lord chancellor to the privy council, and in which he was sorry to say that, of late years, there had been a great increase, he was of opinion, that nobody who was acquainted with the subject would wish to remove them from the jurisdiction to which they belonged at present. These were the principal observations he had to make to their lordships on this question. He hoped that in making them he had not said any thing that was personally offensive to any noble lord. He could assure their lordships that such had not been his intention; but it was impossible for him always to remain silent when he was taunted about his doubts and hesitations.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, he had never intended to impute to the learned lord, want of acquaintance with the law of the land. His great and unrivalled knowledge of it was so universally acknowledged, that it would be absurd in any man to deny it. With regard to the doubts and hesitations of the learned lord, which upon a former occasion the learned lord had admitted with the utmost good humour, he must observe, that he had never doubted that they arose from the learned lord's conscientious anxiety to do equal justice to all parties. If, however, they led to greater delays in a court which was already proverbial for its dilatory proceedings, he could not help considering that to be an unfortunate circumstance, not only for the suitors in it, but for the country at large.
The Earl of Aberdeen, after complimenting the lord chancellor upon his profound knowledge of the law of England and his unwearied patience in administering it, proceeded to vindicate the law of Scotland from the reflections which the learned lord had cast upon it. It was not a rude and barbarous system of law, but a system founded on the wisdom of the most civilized nation of antiquity—a system received by most of the nations of Europe, and one which required quite as much research, talent, arid ingenuity, a that perfection of human reason, the law of England. The number of appeals from Scotland had increased very much of late years; and a circumstance had oc-

1329
curred within the last year, which: he thought was likely to increase it even still more. In the year 1784, a case had been tried by the Court of Session, and after it had been argued by the most able men at the bar, had been unanimously decided upon by the judges of that day. The judgment was not disturbed until the year 1818. The case was then reheard by the Court of Session, and again the judges came unanimously to the same decision as before. An appeal was presented to this House, and, strange as it might appear, it was however not less true, that by its authority the unanimous decisions of the Court of Session on two different occasions were rescinded. After contending that the knowledge of such an event would encourage those who felt themselves aggrieved by any judgment of the Scotch courts to appeal to their lordships, he proceeded to object to any attempt to separate the office of the Speaker of the House of Lords from that of lord chancellor. He objected to it on two grounds:—first, that it would tend to bring the House into contempt with the public; and second, that it would increase the evil which it was intended to check. The only remedy which suggested itself to him was, to remove the appellate jurisdiction, with respect to Scotland, from their lordships' House altogether. The learned lord seemed to approve of this remedy, if it were not objectionable on the ground of its being contrary to the constitution of the House; and the learned lord had added, that their lordships had no right to disencumber themselves of that duty. Now, he would maintain, that their lordships had the right to remove that duty from themselves if they pleased. The noble lord then went into a series of arguments to prove that this right was in their lordships; and amongst others he urged, that in the act of Union with Scotland, there was no mention whatever of the right of appeal to their lordships' House. That right he, therefore, contended might now be refused without injustice.
Lord Melvillecontended, that the recommendation of their lordships' committee was riot for an alteration or remodelling the constitution of the House, hat which they recommended was quite consistent with the practice of their lordships. The same objection might be made to the appointment of a lord-keeper to preside in the House, or to the temporary presidency of a deputy Speaker in the
1330
absence of the lord chancellor; which deputy Speaker their lordships knew might be a commoner. The clause which made it compulsory on peers to attend to these appeals was, he thought, a very proper one. By such an arrangement, there would be a certainty of having the business dispatched. The noble lord went on to contend, that the people of Scotland possessed the right of appeal to their lordships' House, and that that right was essentially recognized by the act of Union. The fact was proved by the constant practice of Scotland in sending appeals from that hour up to the present; and the result of the exercise of that right had given great satisfaction to the bend's the bar, and the whole population of Scotland.
Lord Hollandsaid, he did not object to the first part of the recommendation of the committee, but should strongly protest against the resolutions. He did so on two grounds; first, because he understood that by them the noble earl imputed to the constitution of the House a defect which he did not admit; and secondly, that they threw out imputations on the negligence of noble lords, which they did not deserve. Let their lordships look at the manner in which this proposal came recommended to them. The learned lord on the woolsack had said, he did not think this the best plan which could be devised—"but," added the learned lord, "let any noble lord point out a better." This was certainly rather a strange recommendation. A committee of their lordships had been appointed to devise some remedy for the alleged inconvenience, and then, after producing one, admitted not to be the best, they called on their lordships to devise a better. What would any of their lordships think, if, having given his cook orders to provide a dinner, and a bad dish were laid on his table, he was to be asked by the cook whether he himself could provide a better? But this was exactly their lordships' case. The cooks to whom they delegated the power of preparing the dish before them, did not recommend it; but asked their lordships "if they could dress a better." Such as it was, he strongly objected to it. He would not allow that a commoner should preside there, to dictate and administer the law in their lordships' name. But he was told that, according to the constitution of their lordships' House, a commoner might now be placed in the

1331
same situation. It was but a weak defence of the proposition, to rest it upon an accidental defect in the constitution of the House. It reminded him of the answer given by Mr. Burke to a gentleman who was objecting to the complaints of the Americans—that they had taxation without representation: the gentleman observed, that the Americans had virtual representation, and that in that respect they were not worse circumstanced than the people of many parts of England. "That," said Mr. Burke, "is pointing out to them the shameful parts of your constitution, and telling the to look up to those with respect." It was the same case here. Their lordships were now telling the Scotch people to look up to what was a defect in the constitution of their lordships' House, and be contented with that. The noble lord then went on to contend, that the scotch people had the right of appeal to their lordships, and that it would be an act of injustice to fritter it away, by sending them to a sort of tribunal, which, acting in their lordships' name, could not be said to give its decisions as those of the House of Peers. The people of Scotland were satisfied with the manner in which justice had been heretofore administered to them, but they would not be satisfied with this new species of justice. Would they not justly say, if this innovation upon the constitution of the House of Peers were to be carried into effect—"Why do you give us an inferior article of justice, and keep the best for yourselves? All the appeals from English and Irish courts are to be decided in the usual way by your lordships; but our appeals are to be pronounced upon, and decided, by an inferior tribunal, though acting in your lordships' name?" Such a course, be would contend, would shake the confidence of the people of Scotland in the administration of justice. They had hitherto been satisfied with the decisions in their causes, because they looked upon them as the decisions of the House of Peers; but they would not so respect the decisions by the proposed novel tribunal. When he considered the situation in which their lordships would be placed with respect to the proposed new deputy president in Scotch cases, and the situation of the deputy with respect to them, he was strongly remind of the words of Shakespeare in describing the ne plus altra of human folly, Justice Shallow and
1332
his assistants—"They, by observing him, do bear themselves like foolish justices; he, by conversing with them, is turned into a justice-like serving-man." He could not consent to the placing on the Journals of their lordships' House, a resolution which would point put a defect in the constitution of their House, which he could not admit. He would contend, that, by the 19th article of the Union, the right of appeal to the House of Peers was admitted to Scotland. r| If their lordships were to have any change he did not see why (though he would not recommend that or any other alteration in their present constitution) they need have a commoner to preside. Why could they not select a competent person from their lordships' house? It would be a degradation to them to look for such a president out of their lordships' own body. For these reasons, he should decidedly oppose the resolution.
The debate was then adjourned till to morrow.