Sitting of 11 May 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Inns and Alehouse Sale of Spirituous Liquors.
Petitions presented. By several MEMBERS, from various Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Sir C. B. VERE, from those interested in the Mackarel Fishery at Lowestoft, for a Clause in the Sabbath Bill, Allowing them to sell Mackarel as heretofore.—By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from Sunderland, Complaining of the Confiscation of their Property by the Danish Government, and praying for Relief; and from Auchtermuchty, Complaining of the Inefficient Manner in which Merchantmen are built and put to Sea.—By Captain PECHELL, from Aeundel, for the Repeal of the Land Tax; and from Brighton and Plymouth, in favour of the Fisheries' Bill.—By Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, from Wath-upon-Deame and Thorne, for an Alteration of the Law relating to Coroners.—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, for a Revision of the Criminal Code.—By Mr. BRADSHAW and Mr. BROTHER-TON, from various Places, for an Equalization of the Duties on East and West-India Sugar.—By Mr. JOHN FERGUS, from Kirkaldy, for the Revision of the Laws relating to the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland).—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, for the Amendment of the Factories' Act.—By Lord GEORGE LENNOX and Mr. FLEMING, from various Places, against the Fisheries' Bill.—By Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR, from various Places, against the Bishopric of Durham Bill.—By Mr. HUME, from the Legal Profession at Kingston-upon-Hull, for the Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. GROTE, from the Parishioners of Christ Church, Newgate-Street, and St. Leonard's, Foster-Lane, praying that no Law may be passed which shall sanction Clergymen holding Livings, unless Resident and performing the Duties thereof; and from Great Yarmouth and Stockton-upon-Trent, in favour of the Vote by Ballot.—By Mr. S. CRAWFORD, from Dundalk, for the Repeal of the Duty on Marine Insurances.—By Mr. DIVETT, from Exeter, against transferring Ecclesiastical Courts to London.—By Mr. HUME, from the Dissenters of various Places, praying for Relief; and from London for the Alteration of the Stamp Duties' Bill.—By Mr. S. CRAWFORD, from various Places, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. GUEST, from Mandson, against the Tithes' Commutation Bill.—By Sir ROBERT BATESON and Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, from various Places, in favour of the Excise Licences' (Ireland).

DEVISES.
Mr. Aglionbywished to know from the right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General, whether there would be any objection, on his part, to the taking out of the Bill for securing the clause enabling customary tenants to devise their property, and the introduction of a specific Bill upon that subject.
The Attorney-Generalexpressed his regret at being unable to return a satisfactory answer to the hon. Member's question. A Bill containing the clause alluded to by the hon. Member had early in the present
826
Session passed the House, and found its way to the House of Lords. There, however, it was asleep, and how its slumbers were to be disturbed he knew not. It lay in the dormitory of the other House; and, conversant as he was with difficulties, it puzzled his ingenuity to suggest any process by which its return to the House of Commons might be brought about. If the hon. Member, however, would bring in a Bill on the subject to which he alluded, he would not only not oppose it, but give it his cordial support.
Mr. Humewould be very glad to know whereabouts the dormitory of the House of Lords lay. If he could obtain the information, Quixotic as the attempt might appear, he should feel a strong inclination to storm it. But why should the Bill be allowed to sleep in the other House? Why should not the right hon. Gentleman's legal friends in that House wake and take it up?
Subject dropped.

ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES BILL.
Mr. Lynch Mr. Lynch moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. Lefroyrose to oppose the third reading, and objected to the House being called upon to pass a Bill for Ireland, which conferred a power on Roman Catholic clergymen which was not possessed by Roman Catholic clergymen in England, nor by Dissenting clergymen in either England or Ireland. He (Mr. Lefroy) had no objection to support a general Marriage Act for Ireland; but he could not give his sanction to a partial measure like that then under consideration, which professed to remedy one evil, whilst at the same time it introduced others of greater magnitude. The Bill then before the House went to repeal the only security which the Protestants of Ireland had for preventing clandestine marriages. The Marriage Act known in England as Lord Hardwicke's Act, did not extend to Ireland. The objects of that Act were, 1st, to prevent clandestine marriages, and, 2dly, to preserve the evidence of marriage with a view to civil rights. These objects were obtained in Ireland (though imperfectly), 1st, by the law of the Church, and, 2dly, by the provisions of the very Act of Parliament which it was now sought to repeal. The protection which the law of the Church afforded was as follows:—In the first place, no clergyman of the Established Church can celebrate a marriage without banns having been

827
published, or a licence obtained; secondly, he can only celebrate marriage during certain hours; thirdly, he is precluded from celebrating marriage anywhere but in a place of public worship; and in the fourth place, he cannot celebrate a marriage between infants, or an adult and an infant, without the consent of the parents or guardian. These were the protections which the law of the Church afforded; and whilst this protection was afforded to the members of the Establishment by the law of the Church, it was of the utmost importance that a body of clergy not subject to the canons or authority of one church should not be invested with the power proposed to be given by this Bill. In order to give further protection against clandestine marriages, several Acts of Parliament were passed in Ireland. There was one class of statutes rendering it penal for a Roman Catholic priest to marry a Protestant and Roman Catholic, and there was the Act now sought to be repealed, invalidating such marriages, and this Act was grounded, as the recital states, upon the insufficiency of the others to prevent the mischief. Bills had been brought in of late years, either by the hon. and learned Member, or those with whom he acted, to repeal the first class of statutes, namely—all those which imposed a penalty for celebrating such marriages; and these Bills were passed into a law, so that the only remaining security left to the Protestants of Ireland was, the Act declaring the marriage invalid, and this it was now sought to repeal; and what was the argument for altering the law and putting it upon a different footing from that which it vested in England? The argument was this—that an Act of Parliament invalidating a marriage is inhuman, inasmuch as it leaves the really guilty party free, while the innocent offspring is visited with so severe a penalty. But did not this argument apply equally to the Marriage Act of England as well as to the law as it now existed in Ireland? Nay, did it not apply more strongly to the Marriage Act in England, which rendered void the marriage for mere informalities, of which the parties might not be aware. The object of this Bill was to introduce a state of law in Ireland, not only contrary to that which existed in England, but which it never entered into the mind of any man to propose to introduce into England; for neither the Bill for a new marriage law brought in by the present Government, nor that introduced by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth
828
(whilst in office), ever contemplated allowing the clergy of any Dissenters, Roman Catholics or others, to celebrate marriages between members of the Establishment and others. He had lately heard a great deal of the importance of equal laws and equal justice for Ireland; and he, therefore, hoped his Majesty's Government would oppose this Bill as a violation of that principle. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Colonel Percevalseconded the amendment.
Mr. Lynchsaid, the object of the Bill was to remove a defect in the marriage law in Ireland, which was productive of the most unfortunate consequences. As the law now stood a marriage between a Romanist and a Protestant, if celebrated by a clergyman of the former persuasion, was invalid. It frequently happened that villains took advantage of this law in order to gratify their base passions, and then abandoned their victims, who had supposed that they were legally married, to a life of shame, and bastardized their offspring. The marriage law in Ireland at the present time was in the same barbarous state in which the marriage law of England was previously to the introduction of Lord Hardwicke's Act. In Scotland, marriages between a Protestant and Roman Catholic were valid although celebrated by a Roman Catholic clergyman. Why should not that be the case in Ireland also? He called upon the House to pass the Bill, not for the sake of Roman Catholics alone, but of Protestants also, for both classes were equally interested in the question. What was the ground upon which the House was called upon to maintain the existing law? It was said that the alteration proposed by the Bill would, if carried into effect, give rise to clandestine marriages. Were those who urged that objection to the Bill aware what was the existing state of the marriage law in Ireland? Under the existing law, marriages could at present be celebrated during any hour of the day or night, and at any place whatever. If a man and woman should go before a Protestant clergyman in Ireland, at any hour of the day or night, and declare themselves to be man and wife, that was a valid marriage; but if the same declaration were made before a Roman Catholic clergyman the marriage was invalid. Now should this difference be allowed to continue? Did it not open a door for fraud and

829
cruelty? No objection was made to clandestine marriages as long as the Protestant clergyman was engaged in celebrating them; but the moment the services of the Roman Catholic priest were placed in requisition, they became evils of great magnitude. In conclusion, he beseeched the House to pass the present Bill, by which a remnant of the barbarous penal code which had been applied to Ireland would be abolished, and all parties would be placed upon an equal footing.
Mr. Shawsaid, the marriage law in Ireland, generally, and the opposition made to that Bill, were both much misunderstood; he and his friends did not contend that the present condition of the law should continue; on the contrary, they were anxious for its improvement, and pressed on the law-officers of the Crown to introduce a general and impartial measure for that purpose; but the Bill then under consideration would render a bad law much worse, by removing the only practical check to that species of clandestine marriages the most likely to occur in Ireland, namely, those performed by Roman Catholic clergymen between Protestants and Roman Catholics; besides, it was a measure of very partial legislation, professedly, to relieve the Roman Catholics, and to leave all other classes as they were. The 12th George 1st had imposed the penalty of death both on the Roman Catholic priests and the degraded clergymen, for celebrating marriages between two Protestants, or a Protestant and Roman Catholic. The 19th George 2nd annulled the marriage, and the 33d George 3rd. inflicted a penalty of 500 l. upon the Roman Catholic priest in case of his celebrating such a marriage. This pecuniary and capital punishment were held to conflict, and, at all events, to be unnecessarily severe; and Mr. Justice Perrin introduced an Act to relieve the Roman Catholic priest from the penalty; but that Act left the degraded clergyman subject still, in point of law, to the capital punishment, and, in fact, sentence of death had recently been recorded against a degraded clergyman under the statute of George 1st. Mr. Perrin expressly retained the law it was now sought to repeal, annulling the marriage, and the present Bill left all that was objectionable in that law still to operate against Protestants. Mr. Crampton, when Solicitor-General, had introduced a Bill, rendering the offence equally a misdemeanour in all clergymen, and he supported that Bill; but it did not satisfy hon.
830
Gentlemen opposite, and it was lost. He then protested against the present Bill both on account of its partiality, and because it repealed a law which in practice operated to prevent clandestine marriages. It was no answer to him to say, that there might be clandestine marriages without any religious ceremony, because the feelings, the prejudices, and the habits of the people afforded great protection in that respect; and the argument, that it was the innocent offspring who suffered, went too far, for it would equally apply against any marriage law, and, indeed, did apply to other restrictions in this very Bill—he meant those which rendered any marriage invalid, unless celebrated between the hours of eight and twelve in the morning, and in a church or chapel which had been used for one year as a public place for Divine worship. Suppose, then, a marriage celebrated at half-past twelve o'clock, or in a chapel that had been open but for eleven months, the children would be equally innocent, and equally sufferers. Under all these circumstances, while he anxiously desired a revision and amendment of the whole marriage law in Ireland, he hoped the House would reject that Bill.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that he would briefly state the grounds upon which he gave his support to the Bill. He thought that Roman Catholic priests should be put upon the same footing as clergymen of other persuasions. His only objection to the measure was, that it did not go far enough; but because, from respect to the feelings, or, speaking more correctly, the prejudices of hon. Members opposite, the framer of the Bill had not carried its enactments far enough; but that was no reason why he should not support the measure as far as it did go. The marriage law in Ireland was nearly the same as that which existed in England previously to the passing of Lord Hardwicke's Act, when a contract per verba de praesenti was a marriage, as also was a contract per verba de futuro if executed. In Ireland a clergyman of the Presbyterian, Baptist, or any other persuasion, could celebrate marriage, not only between two of his own flock, but between one of his own flock and one of another persuasion, or between two strangers who did not belong to his flock at all. Roman Catholic priests ought at least to be placed upon the same footing as other Clergymen. According to the law in Ireland, any man and woman who declared themselves to be legally married before a

831
Protestant clergyman, ipse facto became so; but if they (being each of a different persuasion), called upon a Roman Catholic priest to perform the ceremony according to the rites of his religion, it was no marriage at all, and the parties were held to be living in a state of concubinage. He would rejoice to see a general marriage law passed for England, Scotland, and Ireland; but, in the mean time, he could not object to apply a remedy to a specific evil. Upon that principle he gave the present Bill his support. He hoped that it would be carried into a law, and that it would be the precussor of a general law which would remove all the evils connected with the subject.
The House divided on the original question; Ayes 100; Noes 92.—Majority 8.
Bill read a third time.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Viscount

Macleod, R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Macnamara, Major

Angerstein, John

Mangles, J.

Baines, Edward

Marsland, Henry

Baring, Francis T.

Maule, hon. Fox

Barnard, E. G.

Morpeth, Lord

Benett, J.

Mosley, Sir O., bart.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Musgrave, Sir R. bart.

Bernal, Ralph

O'Brien, Cornelius

Bewes, T.

O'Brien, W. S.

Biddulph, Robert

O'Connell, D.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Connell, J.

Bridgman, H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, Morgan

Byng, G. S.

O'Conor, Don

Cave, R. O.

O'Ferrall, M.

Chalmers, P.

O'Loghlen, M.

Clive, Edward, Bolton

Pechell, Capt. R.

Codrington, Sir E.

Pendarves, E. W.

Collier, John

Philips, G. R.

Crawford, W. S.

Potter, R.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Poulter, John Sayer

Dundas, J. D.

Power, James

Ebrington, Lord

Price, Sir R.

Ewart, W.

Pryme, George

Fazakerley, N.

Pusey, Philip

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Fielden, J.

Rooper, J. Bonfoy

Gillon, W. D.

Rundle, J.

Harcourt, G.

Russell, Lord John

Hawes, Benjamin

Russell, Lord Charles

Hay, Sir A. L.

Ruthven, E.

Hector, C. J.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Hindley, C.

Scott, James W.

Hodges, T. L.

Scrope, George P.

Horsman, E.

Seymour, Lord

Howard, P. H.

Sharpe, General

Hume, J.

Stanley, E. J.

Hutt, W.

Steuart, R.

Lee, John Lee

Strutt, Edward

Lefevre, C. S.

Stuart, V.

Lemon, Sir C.

Talbot, J. Hyacinth

Lennox, Lord G.

Thompson, Col.

Lennox, Lord A.

Thorneley, T.

832

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Wilbraham, G.

Tulk, C. A.

Williams, W.

Villiers, C. P.

Wrightson, W.

Wakley, T.

Wyse, Thomas

Warburton, H.

Wason, R.

TELLERS.

Westenra, H. R.

Campbell, Sir J.

White, Samuel

Lynch, A. H.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Hawkes, Thos.

Ashley, Lord

Hayes, Sir E. S. bart.

Bagot, hon. W.

Jackson, Sergeant

Bailey, J.

Jones, Theobald

Baillie, H. D.

Irton, Samuel

Baring, F.

Kearsley, J. H.

Barneby, John

Kerrison, Sir Edwd.

Bateson, Sir R.

Lawson, Andrew

Becket, Sir J.

Lefroy Anthony

Bell, Matthew

Lefroy, Thomas

Bonham, R. Francis

Lewis, Wyndham

Bramston, T. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bruce, Lord E.

Longfield, R.

Bruce, G. L. C.

Lygon, Hn. Col. H. B.

Calcraft, J. H.

Manners, Lord C.

Chandos, Marq. of

Maunsell, T. P.

Chaplin, Col.

Miles, Philip J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Mordaunt, Sir J. bart.

Compton, H. C.

Nicholl, Dr.

Conolly, E. M.

Packe, C. W.

Corry, hon. H. T. L.

Palmer, Robert

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Parker, M.

Dottin, Abel Rous

Patten, John Wilson

Duffield, Thomas

Peel, Colonel J.

Dunbar, George

Plunkett, R.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Pollen, Sir J. bart.

Eastnor, Viscount

Praed, James B.

Egerton, Wm. Tatton

Praed, W. M.

Elley, Sir J.

Pringle, A.

Elwes, J.

Richards, J.

Entwistle, John

Ross, Charles

Estcourt, Thos. G. B.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Fleming, John

Sanderson, R.

Forbes, Wm.

Sheppard, T.

Freshfield, James W.

Smyth, Sir G. H., bart.

Gaskell, J. M.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gladstone, Thomas

Stanley, Edward

Gladstone, Wm. E.

Thomas, Colonel

Goodricke, Sir F.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Tyrrell, Sir J.

Greville, Sir C. J.

Vivian, John Ennis

Hale, Robert B.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Halford, H.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Halse, James

Young, J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

TELLERS.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Shaw, Frederick

Hardy, J.

Perceval, Col.

OYSTER FISHERIES.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Oyster Fisheries' Bill.
On the First Clause no oysters to be taken between the 12th of May and the 4th of August.
Captain Berkeley, for the purpose of

833
giving greater protection to the fisheries, moved as an amendment, that dredging for oysters should henceforward cease on the 30th of April, and not commence until the 1st of September.
The Committee divided on the original clause.—Ayes 38; Noes 14—Majority 24.
Mr. B. Hoy Mr. B. Hoy moved, that the whole of the proviso to the First Clause be omitted.
Mr. Bernaldeclared, that if that amendment were carried the Bill would be rendered worse than useless, and he should, therefore, use every exertion in his power to defeat the Bill altogether, if the hon. Member for Southampton were successful. The Committee divided on the original clause.—Ayes 28; Noes 15—Majority 13.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 3,
Mr. Bernal Mr. Bernal moved, that the proviso at the end of the clause, which subjected the nets of the fishermen to forfeiture, who should be found dredging for oysters within the prohibited time and distance, should be omitted.
The Committee divided on the original clause.—Ayes 24; Noes 21—Majority 3.
The proviso was struck out, and the clause as amended agreed to. The remainder of the clauses were agreed to.
The House resumed: the Bill to be reported.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND).
Mr. William Smith O'Briensaid, that he had frequently stated to the House, that he thought it was absolutely necessary to pass a Bill to relieve the poor of Ireland without delay. As a measure, therefore, was not to be brought forward this session by his Majesty's Government, although it was a case of the greatest importance and of pressing emergency, he felt it to be his duty to press forward the Bill he had introduced. He was of opinion that the Government were anxious to postpone bringing forward a measure on the subject for as long a period as they could, and when they brought it forward, they would give as little as they could in the shape of relief. The measure before the House embodied the chief of the recommendations of the Commissioners on Poor-laws for Ireland. [The hon. Member was interrupted with cries of "Move, move!"] As it appeared to be the wish of the House, he would at once propose the second reading of the Bill, and would be prepared to discuss it at a future stage.
Bill read a second time.
The second reading of Sir Richard Musgrave's Bill on the same subject was postponed.
Mr. Poulett Scrope Mr. Poulett Scrope moved the second reading of his Bill on the same subject.
Viscount Morpethsaid, that though he permitted the Bills to be read a second time, he begged, on the part of Government, to enter his disclaimer against his being thereby held pledged to sanction either of these Bills. He would add, however, that he was not unwilling to hold himself pledged to some measure for the relief of the poor in Ireland, whenever Government could think itself justified in bringing forward a well-digested measure upon the subject.
Bill read a second time.

POOLE CORPORATION BILL.
Mr. Poulter Mr. Poulter moved the second reading of this Bill.
The Solicitor-Generalstated, that although a Bill on the subject of the late election of municipal officers in the borough of Poole had been recommended by a Committee of the House, he felt it to be his duty to object to this Bill, as it involved principles which he could not help considering of a dangerous tendency. The proper tribunal to decide upon a case of this kind was a court of law, and the House was aware that to such a tribunal had the case been submitted. The trial was now-pending the judgment of the Court of King's Bench. He could not but express his objection to the Bill, because it involved a principle which he thought it would be very dangerous to admit—the interference of the Legislature in a question which was still awaiting the judgment of a proper tribunal, a court of law. Suppose the judgment of the Court of King's Bench should be, that these councillors had been duly elected, in what a position would Parliament have placed itself by agreeing to such a Bill as this? The legal right of the parties was in course of inquiry before the fitting tribunal; and he trusted the hon. Member would not seek to commit the House by any precipitate legislation upon this question.
Mr. Poultersaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to understand the principle of the Bill. If a decision upon the question were delayed till a court of law gave its judgment upon the point, the councillors in question would be out of office long before the decision was given. The whole town government of the borough of Poole had been built up on a gross and

835
scandalous fraud, and the Legislature was bound to take cognizance of the subject for the protection of the interests of the borough. He came to the House because there was no remedy in law for the grievance of which he complained.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that though he should not oppose the second reading of the Bill, he reserved a full right to state his great objections to the Bill at a future stage, and before a fuller House.
Bill read a second time.

CIVIL BILL COURTS (IRELAND).
The House went into a Committee upon the Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Bill.
On Clause 2—New jurisdiction as to lands.
Sir R. Fergussonobjected, and stated that the greater part of Londonderry was held under the London company. One-third of the city stood on ground the yearly rent reserved for which did not exceed 10 l.
Mr. Lynchadmitted, that inconvenience might arise in some cases, but not sufficient to counterbalance the good effects which he anticipated from the clause; and which would arise from giving jurisdiction to the assistant-barrister in cases of dispute between the lower classes, as to leasehold interest in land.
Mr. Frenchdid not consider this clause sufficiently extensive. There were several cases unprovided for, such as "squatters," and persons holding possession, without ever having had a title. He would wish to know why the jurisdiction proposed to be given was limited to cases where the rent did not exceed 10 l. By the 1st George 4th., chap. 41, the jurisdiction in cases of ejectment was extended to cases where the rent did not exceed 50 l. Why not extend the jurisdiction in this, which seemed a similar case, to the like sum?
Mr. Lynchstated, that this was an experiment, giving barristers the power of trying ejectments of this nature. He thought it right to limit it to a small sum at first, but if it worked well, he could see no objection to extend it as his hon. friend wished.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 8—Mode of proceeding in replevin cases,
Mr. French Mr. French moved the insertion of a few words in the fourth line; he did not anticipate any objection to the introduction of them, as it was evident from the preceding clause, regulating the appointment of repleviners, that the object of the framers
836
of this Act was to convenience the people as much as possible. The object of appointing a repleviner for each division seemed to be to have them within a reasonable distance of any tenant, and so to save him trouble. But this object would be defeated if he were compelled to travel first to the county town, to the clerk of the peace; he might have to travel a journey of forty miles, and back—in all, eighty or ninety miles, before he could have a replevin. The object of this amendment was, that the Civil Bill should be lodged with the repleviner of the district, when the distress was made, by whom it should be forwarded to the clerk of the peace.
Mr. O'Loghlenobjected to the Amendment, considering, that the business must be done by some one, and he thought it as well it should be done by the party, as by the repleviner.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 12, directing the Assistant Barrister to hear and determine such Civil Bills,
Mr. Frenchwished to call the attention of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to this clause, and to the three which immediately followed. It appeared to him there ought to be a decree against the obligors of the bond, at once, with stay of execution for a certain time, say ten days. Why, he would ask, after a full hearing, should the defendant, or person distraining, have to wait till the next Sessions, generally a period of three months, and then have to commence a fresh suit against the obligors of the bond; if they agreed to be answerable, why should they not be made so at once, without the trouble and expense of a new suit, in a case where, in fact, there was nothing new to litigate? The amount of debt and costs was decided by the first suit, the mere form of a decree against the obligors was all that was required, and this might and ought to be had in the first trial, with such stay of execution as might seem reasonable. The obligors should have leave to prove the goods distrained were not worth the rent and costs, and a decree should only go against them to the value so proved. He doubted very much the option of returning the goods ought to be given to them. Several months might intervene between the seizure and payment; in that time the value of the article distrained might be entirely changed. Goods of a perishable nature might be spoiled, and the value of five stock might, from neglect or otherwise, be reduced to half of what it was when the security was given.
Mr. O'Loghlenadmitted, the necessity of a second suit against the obligors ought to be obviated, and if the hon. Member would leave it to him, he would, on the Report, bring up a clause to that effect. He did not, however, concur with his hon. Friend in the expediency of striking out the 15th Clause.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 17—Legacies and distributive shares payable out of assets of any deceased person (when such assets shall not exceed 200/.) recoverable by civil Bill.
Mr. Shawdid not object to the principle of this clause, but he thought in practice that there would be considerable difficulty in ascertaining whether all just debts had been paid, and in putting the assets in a due course of administration. He was apprehensive that no machinery would be found sufficient for the purpose in the courts of the assistant-barristers.
Mr. Lynchadmitted, the want of machinery in the assistant-barristers' courts was the difficulty in this case. He had before endeavoured to remedy that, by introducing a machinery which he afterwards abandoned; but he understood, that such accounts were in some cases taken by the assistant-barristers. A gentleman had been sent from Ireland on behalf of the assistant-barristers, and he understood from him that this difficulty was not insuperable.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonadmitted, that in some instances assistant-barristers did take such accounts, and he conceived on the whole, it would be an improvement in the administration of justice in Ireland, to give assistant-barristers jurisdiction where the assets did not exceed 200 l. The House was, however, then exceedingly thin, and he thought it would be better to postpone the consideration of so important a subject until a future occasion, particularly as a gentleman, on the part of the assistant-barristers, had that day arrived in town, who could give some important information on the subject. The Committee were then entering upon an exceedingly important class of clauses. Neither side of the House were actuated by party views with respect to this measure, and the object was to make it as perfect as possible; he would, therefore, put it to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Lynch) whether he would, under the circumstances, press the consideration of those clauses in the then state of the House?
Mr. O'Brienhoped his hon. Friend would not listen to the suggestion, but proceed with the Bill.
Mr. Lynchsaid, he had had a conversation with the gentleman who had arrived on behalf of the assistant-barristers, and he did not understand him to object to this clause.—Clause agreed to.
On Clause 39, regulating hours of silting of Courts of Quarter-sessions,
Mr. Shawapproved of the hour stated in the clause as an excellent general rule for the practice of the assistant-barristers, but he considered it should rather be directory than mandatory, otherwise the validity of the decrees might be affected to the great prejudice of the suitors; and with respect to Civil Bills, he had learned from some assistant-barristers, that great inconvenience might accrue to the poorer suitors of the court, if there was a peremptory rule, that no business should be proceeded upon after six o'clock. The convenience of the public, and not of the assistant-barrister, should be the consideration.
Mr. Lynchsaid, that this clause had been much discussed before the Committee, and it was deemed advisable to retain it.
Mr. Inghamthought, that no peremptory rule should be fixed; the adoption of such a course would be attended with great public inconvenience.
Mr. O'Loghlenshould not have the slightest objection to add a provision according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, to prevent the validity of the decree being affected, so as the suitor should not suffer, but he thought some rule ought to be laid down, regulating the hours of sitting. He knew cases in districts where the Insurrection Act was in force, in which great inconvenience arose from late sittings. The Insurrection Act compelled all persons residing in the district to be within doors from sun-set to sun-rise, and the assistant-barristers were in the habit of sitting so late as nine or ten o'clock at night.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksoncoincided with his right hon. Friend, (Mr. Shaw) in thinking that the public convenience ought to be consulted in preference to that of an individual. He thought it would be a hardship upon poor suitors who might live at a great distance, where, perhaps, there were few cases undisposed of; if, suppose, on a Saturday evening, sitting an hour longer

839
would dispose of all the cases, they would have to go home thirty or forty miles, and return again on Monday morning. As a general rule, he approved of the hours prescribed, and in all criminal cases he thought no new case ought to be entered upon after six o'clock.—Clause agreed to.
The House resumed.—Committee to sit again.