Sitting of 3 July 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Imprisonment for Debts Bills of Exchange; Coroners of Durham; Sheriff's Courts (Scotland); China Courts.—Read a second time:—East India Postage.—Read a first time:—Central Criminal Court Assimilation; Slave Trade; Treaties Act Continuance; Bank of Ireland Postponement; Militia Ballot suspension; Assessed Taxes Act extension.
Petitions presented. By Lord MORPETH, from Dublin, against any alteration of the Reform Acts against the Irish Poor-law Bill; and for the better Observance of the Sabbath.

PROTECTION TO DOGS.
The House went into a Committee on the Cruelty to Animals (Ireland) Bill.
Lord D. Stuartwould take that opportunity of saying, that he thought some measure should be adopted for the protection of that most useful animal, the dog. It was revolting to see the enormous weights they were made to draw, and, in his opinion, the names of the owners ought, as in other cases, to be painted on the carts, in order that there might be no difficulty in ascertaining the owners of any dog who might be cruelly treated. He did not know whether it was possible to introduce a clause for the protection of these animals into the present Bill, but if it could be conveniently done, he trusted the noble Lord (Morpeth) would not object to the insertion of such a clause.
Viscount Morpethwould have been glad
1762
to have done so, but as the present Bill was merely an extension of the English Act to Ireland, and as there was no clause in the original Bill for the protection of the dog, he was afraid such a clause as had been proposed could not be inserted.
Lord D. Stuarthoped, that in the next Session the Government would introduce a general measure on the subject, and he might mention that he had in the Vote-office a petition signed by upwards of 4,000 persons praying for protection to the dog.
The clauses of the Bill were agreed to. House resumed.

COUNTY TREASURERS (IRELAND).
House went into Committee on the Treasurers of Counties (Ireland) Bill.
Sir R. Fergusonobjected to the Bill, as the machinery it created was entirely new, and likely to prove expensive. One of the clauses was particularly objectionable. In that clause it was proposed to charge 5s. upon every 100 l. collected in the different counties, while there was no information given how the sum to be thus raised was to be expended, although it was perfectly clear that the amount would not be sufficient for the purposes of the Act. A great many persons in Ireland thought the office of Treasurer in the Irish counties ought to be abolished altogether. The mode in which the balances were deposited was also objectionable; and as there was no opportunity of sending the Bill over to Ireland to ascertain the opinions of those who were best acquainted with the subject, it would be better to postpone it till another Session.
Mr. Sergeant Woulfesaid, the Bill would not deprive the grand jurors of any power which they at present possessed, and he could see no good reason for postponing it. The treasurers in Ireland had, in some instances, been the cause of great loss to the country. He did not blame the grand juries, but they had not attended with sufficient vigilance to the accounts of the treasurers, and in his opinion those accounts could not be properly and satisfactorily inspected, until placed under the control of a public officer responsible to Parliament, and it was the object of this Bill to effect that desirable end.
Mr. Lucasallowed that some alterations in the system of inspecting the accounts of the treasurers of counties in Inland was necessary. He did not however, deem

1763
the Bill adequate to that purpose, and he trusted that Government would not press it at this late period of the Session.
Mr. O'Connellconsidered the present mode of inspecting the accounts of the county treasurers extremely unsatisfactory. There was one case in which a treasurer had died with a large sum belonging to one of the Irish counties in his possession, and left no proof that that money was due; and it was but too probable that larger losses would be sustained, should the present Bill not pass, as the amount of securities was in many instances not sufficient to cover the sums which the treasurers often had in their possession. They were, however, discussing the principle of the Bill, which had been agreed to, and as the House was in Committee, they ought to proceed with the details. He entreated the Government to press the Bill as one highly essential to the protection of the public interests in Ireland.
The clauses were agreed to. House resumed.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
The House went into a Committee of Supply.
On the vote of 34,000 l. for defraying the expenses of the sheriffs (Scotland),
Mr. Wallaceobjected to the vote, and said, that he had inquired into the nature of their courts, and into the conduct as well as the duties of the judges, but without receiving satisfactory information. He could, however, state, that there were three judges not only useless, but injurious to the country, and their services ought to be dispensed with. They never attended the court. No witnesses were examined, no counsel pleaded. It was gross absurdity and injustice to continue the system, and he would move, as an amendment, "that 24,000 l. be substituted for 34,000 l., until the said judges comply with the existing law, which entitles them to salaries."
Vote agreed to.
On the proposal to grant 88,000/. towards defraying the expense of erecting new Houses of Parliament,
Mr. Humeobjected to vote any money under this head until more accurate estimates, sanctioned by a Committee of the House, had been submitted to Parliament. He should move that the vote be postponed till next Session.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid,
1764
it was a matter of more immediate concern to the House than to the Government. If they were content the House should remain in the present state another year, he could have no objection. At the same time, he did not think it would be very creditable, after the report of a Select Committee, and the other preliminary steps which had been taken, if the vote should be delayed for another year.
Sir George Stricklandthought the general opinion out of doors was unfavourable to Mr. Barry's plan. He strongly objected to the style of architecture which had been adopted, and concurred with the hon. Member for Middlesex, in thinking that the vote should be postponed till next Session.
Sir Robert Inglisreminded the Committee that the present question was not at all with respect to the merits of Mr. Barry's plan. That had already been decided. After being engaged two years and nine months in preliminaries, he could not conceive a greater waste of time than would be occasioned by another reference of this matter to a Committee up stairs.
The Committee divided on the grant, Ayes 100; Noes 20: Majority 80.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Donkin, Sir R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Dundas, hon. T.

Alford, Viscount

Dundas, J. D.

Alsager, Captain

East, J. B.

Archdall, M.

Elley, Sir J.

Bagot, M. W.

Estcourt, T.

Baillie, H. D.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Barclay, C.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Baring, F. T.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R.C.

Baring, F.

Ferguson, It.

Baring, H. B.

Forster, C. S.

Baring, W. B.

Gaskell, J. M.

Barnard, E. G.

Geary, Sir W.

Biddulph, R.

Gresley, Sir R.

Blackburne, I.

Grey, Sir G.

Bowring, Dr.

Grimston, Viscount

Brocklehurst, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Brotherton, J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Buller, C.

Hastie, A.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hector, C.

Burrell, Sir C.

Hind, J. H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Hogg, J. W.

Chalmers, P.

Hope, H. T.

Chelwynd, Captain

Howick, Viscount

Colborne, N. W. R.

Humphery, J.

Corbett, T. G.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Dalmeny, Lord

Jervis, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Kirk, P.

Divett, E.

Lennox, Lord G.

1765

Lushington, C.

Seymour, Lord

Mangles, J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Sheil, R. L.

Morpeth, Viscount

Sheppard, T.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Smith, R. V.

Packe, C. W.

Stanley, E. J.

Parker, J.

Stanley, Lord

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Stuart, Lord D.

Patten, J. W.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Pease, J.

Townley, R. G.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Tracy, C. H.

Price, Sir R.

Tulk, C. A.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Warburton, H.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Richards, R.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Robinson, G. R.

Wyse, T.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Young, G. F.

Ross, C.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord J.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Seale, Colonel

Wood, C.

List of the NOES.

Baring, T.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Bateson, Sir R.

Maxwell, J.

Becket, rt. hon. Sir J.

Mosley, Sir O.

Bridgeman, H.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Brownrigg, S.

Strickland, Sir G.

Codrington, Admiral

Thompson, Colonel

Dick, Q.

Wakley, T.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Wallace, R.

Evans, G.

TELLERS.

Gillon, W.

Hume, J.

Knight, H. G.

Hawes, B.

Mackenzie, T.

Vote passed.
On a sum of 114,160 l. 14 s. 6d. being proposed for advances on account of arrears and charges for the administration of justice and the civil government of the province of Lower Canada,
Mr. Humeobjected to the vote, which was nothing but a fine imposed on the people of England for the bad government of the colonists.
Mr. Robinsoncomplained that the resolution affirming the principle of discharging all arrears of salaries from the Canadian exchequer as well as the other resolutions agreed to by the House with respect to the colony, had not been followed up by a legislative enactment, and that the people of England should now be called on to vote so large a sum. The amount of the vote might have been applied, but for the remissness of Government, reduce nearly the whole of the duty on marine insurances, or to give relief to other important interests which required it.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the House had, in conformity with the message from her Majesty, agreed not to proceed with any measure likely to give rise to much
1766
discussion. Ministers had by no means abandoned the principles of the resolutions, though they were precluded by circumstances from introducing a Bill founded on them; and should he have the honour of holding the office he now filled in the next Parliament, he would feel it his duty to endeavour to give effect to them by legislative enactment.
Lord Stanleysaid, that Government were highly censurable in delaying to bring in a Bill immediatly after the resolutions had passed. Such a step would have been most valuable as an evidence of their sincerity to that portion of the community of Lower Canada which they had by the resolutions declared it to be their intention to protect, and for the suppression of those indications of discontent and partial disturbance which now appeared. Admitting that Government had no other course to take at present than that which they had adopted, he must regret they had not at an earlier period manifested their determination to act up to the resolutions. If this vote were a fine upon the people of England, as the hon. Member for Middlesex had termed it, no power on earth would induce him to consent to it, but he consented to it because it held out the most solemn pledge which, under present circumstances, Government could give to the people of England and of Canada, that they would act up to those resolutions. They had been pledged over and over again in that House, and now they gave security to keep their pledges in the sum of 140,000 l. It was absolutely essential that this advance should be made as a guarantee to both nations that Ministers should not shrink, if they were desirous of shrinking, from the declarations they had made. It had given him great satisfaction to hear the frank declaration of his noble Friend, that should he continue to hold his present office in the next Parliament, he would endeavour to give effect to the resolutions, whatever party might oppose him.
Mr. Humeadvised the noble Lord not to take counsel from an enemy. It was vain to talk of giving effect to the resolutions. A bill for such a purpose would be mere waste paper, unless Government were prepared to send an army to Canada to compel its people to obedience.
Lord John Russellmight deny entirely the justice of the charge which the noble Lord opposite had brought against the Government. He did not think it would

1767
have been right in Ministers to abandon every other measure for the sole purpose of carrying a Bill regarding Canada. He did not at all believe in the existence of general discontent in that country, nor did he anticipate that it would be necessary to have recourse to any measures of harshness or severity to give effect to the line of policy laid down in the resolutions.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 10: Majority 33.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Bannerman, A.

Murray, rt. hon. J.A.

Baring, F. T.

Palmerston, Viscount

Barnard, Edward G.

Pease, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Pechell, Captain

Dalmeny, Lord

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Richards, J.

Donkin, Sir R.

Robinson, G. R.

Dundas, J. D.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Estcourt, T.

Russell, Lord J.

Ferguson, rt. ht. R. C.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Gladstone, W. E.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Gore, O.

Smith, R. V.

Grey, Sir G.

Stanley, Lord

Hawkins, J. H.

Stanley, E. J.

Hector, C. J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Vivian, J. E.

Howard, P. H.

Walker, R.

Howick, Viscount

Wood, C.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Young, G. F.

Lefevre, C. S.

TELLERS.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Seymour, Lord

Mangles, J.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Thompson, Colonel

Bowring, Dr.

Tulk, C. A.

Brotherton, J.

Warburton, H.

Fenton, J.

Gillon, W. D.

TELLERS.

Humphery, John

Hume, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Elphinstone, H.

Vote agreed to. House resumed.

FREEMEN AND ELECTORS.
On the motion that the Report on the Parliamentary Electors Bill be brought up,
Sir R. Inglissaid, that the attempt to proceed with this Bill was a violation of the pledge given by the Ministers, that no measure of importance should be proceeded with except such as were essential to the furtherance of the public service. The Bill had been introduced so long ago as the 12th of May, at two o'clock in the morning, when there were only forty-one Members in the House, and from that time until Thursday last, it had been allowed to lie undisturbed on the table. Its purpose was to alter the constituency,
1768
as established by the Reform Act, and was, consequently, a violation of the principle of that measure, verifying the declaration made by his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), that the first attempt to alter the Reform Bill would be made, not by its enemies, but by its friends.
Mr. W. Gladstonesaid, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, had given as distinct a pledge as it was possible for a man to give, that all questions likely to lead to any great difference of opinion should be deferred; it therefore did appear to him that the pressing forward of the present Bill was in direct violation of that pledge.
Mr. Hawessaid, that on the occasion when hon. Gentlemen opposite assumed that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had given the pledge of which they had spoken, it so happened that the right hon. Member for Cumberland adverted to the Bills under consideration, and the noble Lord expressly excepted the present Bill from those measures that he proposed to defer. What, then, became of the charge that the pressing forward the present Bill was a violation of the noble Lord's pledge? The real objection which hon. Gentlemen opposite felt to the measure was, that it was a popular one.
Mr. Hodgson Hindethought, that the Ministers must be much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for replying to the questions which had been addressed to them. The present Bill, if not brought forward with the intention, had the effect of preventing those who were willing to do a service to the class of freemen from carrying their views into effect. He maintained that the Bill was an essential alteration of the Reform Act, and he only did his duty in opposing this first Ministerial attempt to violate that measure.
The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 30: Majority 25.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Donkin, Sir. R.

Angerstein, J.

Dundas, J. D.

Baring, F. T.

Elphinstone, H.

Bernal, R.

Fielden, J.

Bowes, J.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Brotherton, J.

Gordon, R.

Buller, Charles

Grey, Sir G.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Hastie, A.

Callaghan, D.

Hawes, B.

Chalmers, P.

Hawkins, J. H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Hay, Sir A. L.

Dennistoun, J.

Hector, C. J.

1769

Hindley, C.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Howard, P. H.

Ruthven, E.

Howick, Viscount

Seale, Colonel

Hutt, W.

Thomson, rt. hn. C P.

Lefevre, C. S.

Townley, R. G.

Lennox, Lord G.

Tulk, C. A.

Lushington, C.

Wakley, T.

Lynch, A. H.

Walker, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Wallace, R.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Warburton, H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wilson, H.

Palmerston, Viscount

Wood, C.

Parker, J.

Pease, J.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Captain

Seymour, Lord

Robinson, G. R.

Smith, R. V.

List of the NOES.

Baillie, H. D.

Lewis, D.

Barclay, C.

Lowther, Viscount

Brownrigg, S.

Lowther, J. H.

Chandos, Marquess of

Lygon, hon. General

Dick, Q.

Meynell, Captain

Duffield, Thomas

Nicholl, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Palmer, G.

East, J. B.

Richards, J.

Elley, Sir J.

Richards, R.

Geary, Sir W.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Gladstone, W. E.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Gore, O.

Stewart, J.

Halse, J.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Herries, rt. hon. J, C.

TELLERS

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Hinde, H.

FINAL REGISTRY OF ELECTORS.
On the motion for the third reading of the Final Registry Bill,
Mr. Sergeant Goulburnsaid, he should lake the sense of the House on the question. It was not fair to press this Bill; it was contrary to the message from the Crown, and for election purposes only. He moved, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
Lord J. Russelladmitted, that there was no absolute necessity for pressing the Bill at present, yet it was a measure of considerable consequence; and as it was not likely to lead to any lengthened discussion, and would not prolong the Session, he trusted the House would allow the Bill to pass.
The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 41: Majority 21.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Brotherton, J.

Baring, F. T.

Buller, C.

Bernal, R.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Bowes, J.

Callaghan, D.

1770

Cavendish, hon. C.

Morpeth, Viscount

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Murray, right hon. J. A.

Chalmers, P.

Chichester, J. P. B.

O'Connell, M. J.

Codrington, Admiral

Palmerston, Viscount

Dalmeny, Lord

Parker, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Pease, J.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Pechell, Captain

Donkin, Sir R.

Robinson, G. R.

Dundas, J. D.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ebrington, Viscount

Russell, Lord J.

Evans, De Lacy

Sanford, E. A.

Evans, G.

Seymour, Lord

Fielden, J.

Smith, R. V.

Fergusson, right hon. R. C.

Stanley, E. J.

Thomson, right hon. C. P.

Gordon, R.

Grey, Sir G.

Thompson, Colonel

Hastie, A.

Tulk, C. A.

Hawes, B.

Wakley, T.

Hawkins, J. H.

Walker, R.

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Wallace, R.

Warburton, H.

Howard, R.

Williams, Sir J.

Howard, P. H.

Wood, C.

Hume, J.

Young, G. F.

Hutt, W.

Lennox, Lord G.

TELLERS.

Lushington, C.

Elphinstone, H.

Lynch, A. H.

Hindley, C.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Herries, right hon. J. C.

Baillie, H. D.

Barclay, C.

Hinde, J. H.

Blackburne, I.

Hope, H. T.

Borthwick, P.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Brownrigg, S.

Lowther, Viscount

Burrell, Sir C.

Lowther, J. H.

Chandos, Marquis of

Lygon, hon. General

Chaplin, Colonel

Meynell, Captain

Dick, Q.

Nicholl, J.

Duffield, T.

Palmer, G.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Perceval, Colonel

East, J. B.

Richards, J.

Elley, Sir J.

Richards, R.

Forster, C. S.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Gaskell, James Milnes

Shaw, right hon. F.

Geary, Sir W.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Gore, O.

Wilde, Sergeant

Grimston, Viscount

Grimston, hon. E. H.

TELLERS.

Halse, J.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Hardinge, right hon. Sir H.

Gladstone, W.

Bill read a third time.

CONSTRUCTION OF MEN OF WAR.
Mr. G. F. Youngsaid, that notwithstanding the lateness of the hour and the opposition he was likely to meet with, he felt it his duty to persist in calling for the returns of which he had given notice. In the first place, he complained of the present system on which our ships of war

1771
were constructed. The construction of those vessels ought not to be confined to one particular person, but the nation ought to have the benefit of the general talent of the country. At present such was not the case, as the Surveyor of the Navy had the sole power of selecting the plans submitted to his inspection. Such a system, in his opinion, produced a bad description of ships, and besides every new surveyor had a new plan of his own, and the ships constructed on the old system were laid up in ordinary, or broken up and sold, while still in sound condition. The old ships were thus destroyed, and with every new surveyor new vessels were constructed at an enormous expense to the country. Since the present Surveyor of the Navy had been appointed upwards of half a million of money had been expended in constructing ships upon his plan, and we were suffering ships built by former surveyors to rot in ordinary, while ships were building upon the plans of Captain Hayes and Admiral Elliott, in order to ascertain which plan was the best. Now, the Admiralty ought by this time to have determined whether the plan of Sir William Symonds ought to be adopted, and if it was good, they ought not to have put the country to the expense of building ships on other plans which could not be adopted. But if Sir William Symonds' plan was bad, then it ought at once to be discontinued, and some other system at once adopted instead. He objected to the system of experiments which had hitherto been pursued, as entailing an enormous and useless expense on the country. He had every respect for Sir William Symonds but, not having been educated for his present situation, he could not think Sir William Symonds the most proper person to decide on the system which ought to be pursued in the construction of ships. The duties of the surveyor were to draw plans for ship-building, to decide on the qualities of timber and iron, and on the reports of those persons who were appointed to ascertain the condition of ships; and he would ask, how the present surveyor, who was not a professional man, could possibly perform such duties? All he wished for by these returns was to enable him to make out a primâ facie case for the appointment of a Committee, and he could not see any reason why he should meet with the opposition which he under-Stood he was to receive. The hon. Mem-
1772
ber concluded by moving for a number of returns.
Mr. C. Woodthought it was incumbent on the hon. Member to show some better reason than a mere assertion for the production of such voluminous and, in some instances, expensive returns. The hon. Member defended the conduct of the Admiralty in the course they had pursued, and supported Sir William Symonds, as having contributed most essentially to the improvement of the British navy. If any blame attached at all, it was to be attributed to the Admiralty, and not to the Surveyor of the Navy, than whom a more able or better public servant could not be found. The hon. Member for Tynemouth had been rash in some of the assertions he had made; for, speaking upon official information, he could state, that so far from the absence of any opportunity of rivalry in the building of ships for the British naval service, Sir W. Symonds had only built one ship of the line and one frigate, and of small vessels only nine out of eighteen had been built by other individuals. On the whole, he submitted, that the hon. Member for Tynemouth had laid no sufficient grounds to be furnished with these returns, which would be both voluminous and expensive.
Captain Berkeleybore his testimony to the professional merits of Sir William Symonds, and added that, from his experience of the labours of that Gentleman, he could state, that the navy were deeply indebted to him for his public services.
Captain Dundassaid, he had no wish to depreciate the merits of Captain Symonds, but he must observe, that there were many other individuals whose talents in the same capacity well deserved the attention of the Admiralty.
Sir C. Adamconcurred with the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Captain Berkeley) in the opinion that the ships constructed by Sir W. Symonds were at once an ornament and an improvement in the British navy. He knew no ships at all equal to those which Sir W. Symonds had produced.
The motion negatived.

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent:—Wills; Sugar Duties; Limitation of Actions; Dublin Police.—Read a third time:—Foreign Officers; Commissioners of Bankrupts (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Military Commissioners; Metropolis Police Offices.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from Gloucester, that measures should be taken for the security of the Established Church.—By the Earl of CHICHESTER, and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, from various places, for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Lord BELHAVEN, from Kinross, and other places, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.

CHURCH ACCOMMODATION, (SCOTLAND).
Lord Belhavenhad to present a petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, praying for the extension of Church accommodation in Scotland. In the prayer of this petition he cordially concurred; and he was exceedingly gratified to learn that means would soon be taken of disposing of this subject in a manner that would afford general satisfaction.
Viscount Melbournehad been glad to observe, that the discussion at the meeting of the General Assembly from which the petition proceeded was characterised by good temper, great candour, and abstinence from the topics which at former meetings had been urged with great hostility of feeling. He was glad to find that it was no longer said that his Majesty's Government had taken an erroneous course on the subject. He was glad to find that there was no longer any condemnation of

1747
the manner in which the Commissioners had executed their duties. Undoubtedly many observations had been made on what was supposed to have fallen from him in that House in discussions on the subject. It had been supposed that he had made a severe attack on the clergy of Scotland; that he bad charged them with using their pulpits for the purpose of attacking his Majesty's Government, and for political objects. Now, he did not know whether any thing had actually fallen from him which warranted the statement that he had made so general an accusation. If it had, it certainly was not justified. The fact had been distinctly denied; and one individual particularly, of high character, Dr. M'Leod, had challenged him to show a single instance in which such practices as he had imputed to the clergy of Scotland had obtained among them. All he could say was, that he hoped Dr. M'Leod was borne out in his statement by the fact. The assertion certainly differed from the information which he had received, but he should be much more happy to find that he had been in the wrong, and that the charge was wholly unfounded, than that it should prove that the charge was true. He would not, however, pursue that point further; he accepted with pleasure the entire disavowal of the practice by the clergy of Scotland, and their condemnation of it. He undoubtedly thought that the subject of extending Church accommodation in Scotland was one which Government ought to take into speedy and serious consideration. At the same time, it was undeniable that the question was not a single one, or a question which could be considered abstractedly. Care must be taken that the measures adopted were measures calculated to remedy the evil. They must be certain that the neglect of public worship and of pastoral instruction in Scotland arose from a want of church room before they proceeded to the extension of church room as a remedy. He could scarcely help thinking that if a man in Scotland were really desirous to go to Church, he would not find any difficulty in finding a church to go to. But he was ready to consider the subject. He was ready to go further. He would promise the assistance to the object of the petitioners which had before been promised, if the property which was the property of the church was now at the disposal of the down and Parliament—the hereditary
1748
revenues. He would be ready to consider whether these funds were not available for the purposes in view, and whether these could be effected in the manner in which it was now supposed they could. If these funds were found insufficient, and it was reported to be wise and expedient, then he for one would go farther upon the subject, and say that the subject ought to be immediately taken up and receive serious consideration.
The Earl of Aberdeenwas very sorry that the noble Viscount had not said a little more upon so important a matter. He had now only repeated, nearly word for word, what he had said three years ago. For when he was pressed upon the subject at that time, the noble Viscount had declared that it should receive the immediate and serious consideration of his Majesty's Government. What the noble Baron who presented the petition could mean by speaking of the great gratification which he felt at what was going to be done, he was at a loss to conjecture. All that the noble Viscount now said was, that if the measure should be found wise and expedient (on which the noble Viscount gave no opinion himself), he would be disposed to look at the funds derived from the bishops' rents and teinds for the purpose of carrying the desired object into effect. He wished, however, to press upon the noble Viscount's attention, that in the recent discussions at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, it was held that those funds were inviolable. He could assure the noble Viscount that there was no political feeling on this subject. It was a question on which all parties in Scotland were unanimous. The General Assembly, it must be recollected, was not composed entirely of clergy. A great part of the body consisted of laymen, and of laymen whose constituents were favourable to the political opinions of the noble Viscount, for they were the reformed town-councils of boroughs. When the General Assembly, therefore, unanimously pressed this subject upon the attention of Parliament, the noble Viscount must admit that the opinion was an impartial one. He begged to remind the noble Viscount, that by her oath her Majesty was bound to preserve and protect the Established Church of Scotland. He had had the honour to see her Majesty take and subscribe to that oath. It depended upon the noble Viscount whether that oath

1749
should be kept in spirit and sincerity. For that, as well as for other matters of great importance, the noble Viscount was responsible. Under those circumstances, and when it was evident that the people of Scotland were unanimous in their opinion on the subject, he trusted that the noble Viscount would do something more than declare that the matter should be taken into serious consideration; and that, if it were found wise and expedient, the people of Scotland should enjoy the great favour of having their wishes attended to. He believed that the noble Viscount would find the extension of Church accommodation in Scotland desirable even as a question of economy. There was no doubt in that country that there had been a great increase of crime of late years, in consequence of a deficiency of spiritual instruction. Five-and-twenty years ago, the whole annual expense of criminal prosecutions in Scotland was 5,000 l.; it was now 30,000 l. He trusted the noble Viscount would be induced to take a more favourable view of the question, for he must say that the statements which the noble Viscount had just made, did not satisfy him.
The Earl of Camperdownsaid, the question was one which required their best consideration, not only from the weight of a petition coming from such a body as the General Assembly, but also from the great importance of the subject. He agreed with the noble Earl opposite, that the people of Scotland took great interest in it. He knew that the question occupied the attention of all classes in that country, but he was chiefly anxious to express his opinion respecting it generally, because his opinion differed from that of the noble Earl opposite. Attached as he was to the Church of Scotland, in which he had been born and bred up, he would say, if her Majesty's Ministers had shown any negligence or remissness with regard to its interest, he would have been the first to come forward and reprobate such conduct. But he did not think the Government was chargeable with either remissness or negligence. The question was one of a local nature. It related entirely to the Church of Scotland, which was an establishment altogether different from the Church of England and Ireland, and he could not see the expediency of taking a sum out of the Consolidated Fund for the support of that Church, because they would thereby lay a burthen on the
1750
whole country. He could not, therefore, see how his noble Friend would be justified in calling on the other House to grant money for that purpose. But, besides, in his opinion, it had not been made out that a grant for the endowment of churches would do away with the evils complained of, and Government would not be justified in doing any such thing. If the question were to be taken up, it must be taken up as a general question. Having read the Report with attention, he was sorry to say, (and it was impossible to deny the fact) that great numbers of the inhabitants were not in the habit of attending the Church, and therefore great doubts arose as to the necessity for additional Church accommodation. It was a fact stated in the Report, that at present there were 25,000 seats unappropriated. Denying the propriety of going down to the other House for a grant, he thought the noble Viscount had pursued the only course open to him, by recommending the Commissioners to investigate other sources for supplying the deficiency in Church accommodation. From a memorial laid on the table three years ago, it appeared that there was an annual income from bishops' rents of 2,717 l., and it was therefore right to call the attention of the Commissioners to that subject. It had been stated, that politics were mixed up with the question; and he was sorry to find that such was the fact. Such was not in general the character of the Scotch clergy. The Scotch clergy had formerly abstained from politics, and devoted themselves to the sacred duties of their office, thereby setting an example worthy of imitation by the clergy of other parts of the country; and though some had come forward in support of episcopacy, which in that country had passed away, yet there were others who conducted themselves better as clergymen, who did not mix themselves up with politics, and thereby secured the love and affection of the people.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that his noble Friend had done the clergy of Scotland much injustice in his remarks upon their conduct, which he felt bound to justify. He denied that they had pursued a political course. They had felt it their duty to come forward, perhaps in consequence of the impolicy of supporting an establishment by heavy blows and great discouragements. The clergy of the Church

1751
of Scotland had not sought for the franchise, before it had been conferred on them, and had distinctly abstained from all interferences in political matters. The Legislature, however, having granted them the franchise, thereby imposed upon them a duty, in the discharge of which they should necessarily vote at elections for boroughs and counties; and this they had done in order to maintain an establishment which they conceived to be essential to the peace and well-being of the country. He thought, therefore, that the attack which had been made on them had come rather ungraciously from one who professed himself to be a zealous and sincere member of the Church of Scotland. As to the want of Church accommodation in Scotland, he thought there could be no doubt, Two years and a-half ago this subject had been laid before the two Houses of Parliament in the speech from the Throne, and strongly recommended to their consideration. A Commission had been appointed, who had made their first Report to Parliament in the following Session, and the sum of 50,000 l. had been voted for the Church of Scotland, which was a new admission of the want of accommodation. Another sum of 50,000 l. had been voted by the House of Commons for churches in other parts of Scotland. The people of Scotland themselves, who were not very fond of unnecessary subscriptions, had subscribed 150,000 l. for the same purpose, and they had done so upon the representation of the clergy that this destitution existed. He held in his hand a copy of the memorial which had been presented on this subject in 1834, so that it was now three years since there had been laid before her Majesty's Ministers the most conclusive evidence of the want of Church accommodation, and as yet nothing had been done. He, however, was ready to take as an earnest what was proposed by his noble Friend, and he hoped it would be the beginning of great and important benefits to the people of Scotland.
Petition laid on the table.

CROWN SOLICITORS, (IRELAND).
The Earl of Wicklowrose to move, in conformity with the notice he had given on a former evening, for certain documents connected with the administration of justice in the courts of quarter sessions in Ireland, It was very well known, that
1752
there were few institutions in Ireland which had been productive of more good, and subject to less evil, than the courts of quarter session. They had been conducted upon a system which had given universal satisfaction; in fact, amongst all the complaints that had been made against various institutions in Ireland, he had not heard one against the court of petty sessions. Notwithstanding this, her Majesty's present Ministers had thought it necessary, so great was their passion for reform, to interfere with the manner of conducting business in these courts; and accordingly, in the course of the year before last, had introduced a new system, to which was appended a considerable share of fresh patronage. Under the pretence of assimilating these courts to the courts of assize, they created a new class of officers, in number altogether thirty-four, called quarter session Crown solicitors, for the purpose of conducting the criminal business in these courts. He should not now consider whether that was an improvement or not. In his opinion it was not; and to be so would mainly depend on the qualification of the persons appointed to the office. He had no hesitation in saying that those who had been appointed by her Majesty's Ministers were not persons that ought to have been appointed. He did not say that, on the ground that they were all, or nearly all, of the Roman Catholic persuasion, because he was one of those who considered it the duty of Government to follow up the act of emancipation by carefully avoiding to make religion a cause of exclusion. Neither did he say so on the ground that they entertained the same political opinions as the present Ministers, who had every right to choose persons of their own principles; but he did object to them as being notoriously opposed to the institutions of this country, as well-known public agitators in their respective counties, and members of that party in Ireland whose object was the separation of the two countries, and who were the instigators of a great portion of the crime committed in that part of the kingdom. The paper for which he was about to move was a copy of a circular addressed from the Attorney-General for Ireland to the Crown solicitors in each county, requiring them to forward to him all the informations taken by the magistrates, which were to be brought before the quarter sessions, in order that he might

1753
judge if they were fit cases for trial. He believed it had been found that the system did not work efficiently, and it therefore became necessary to establish this check. Another question upon which he wished to be informed was, in what manner was the Attorney-General to be remunerated for this new duty imposed on him. During the assizes the Attorney-General was paid a fee of fifteen guineas, being thirty guineas a-year for the whole batch of cases in each county. If that were to be the scale of payment, their Lordships would see that it would give an immense revenue to that officer; inasmuch as the assizes were held but twice, while the quarter sessions were held eight times a-year. There were four quarter sessions, and two places at which they were held in each county, so that the Attorney-General would be furnished with eight batches of cases. If he were not to be paid the same sum for these, he should like to know why; for, on looking at the Parliamentary Returns, he found the number of cases tried at the assizes in 1835, to be 6,000, while those at the quarter sessions amounted to 21,000. Last year the number tried at the assizes was upwards of 6,000, and at the quarter sessions 24,000. The Government had taken great credit to itself for having created so much tranquillity during that year, and for having established order and regularity under the benign reign of the noble Earl, and for having cleared all the gaols, as the noble Earl was well aware of, notwithstanding that the number of cases tried at the quarter sessions exceeded that of the preceding year by nearly 4,000. If, then, the same scale of payment to the Attorney-General was not adopted in reference to the business of the quarter sessions, he should he glad to be informed why? If it were not to cost the nation any thing, he protested against such a course, for no Government had aright to expect its officers to perform very onerous duties without being fairly remunerated. The fees which were paid to those thirty-four Crown solicitors came out of the Consolidated Fund; so that in proportion as this country contributed to the Consolidated Fund, in the same proportion did it contribute towards the expenses of this Irish job. Thus jobs of the kind were matters of no difficulty in that country, and if it were the object of the Government to increase the fees of the Attorney-General or any other public officer, nothing
1754
was more easy, because no application was necessary to Parliament on the subject. It might be said that they appeared in the miscellaneous estimates, but it was well known that many of them, from the late period of the Session at which they were brought forward, and the smallness of their amount, often escaped the vigilance of Parliament. The noble Earl concluded by moving for a copy of the letter addressed by the Attorney-General, dated the 5th of May last, to the several Crown solicitors in Ireland.
The Earl of Mulgraveagreed with the noble Earl that it was more convenient that he should have sought for information on this subject by making a motion, than by putting a question; and he was the more convinced of it since the noble Earl, by having done so, enabled him to bring before their Lordships, proofs of how completely mistaken the noble Earl was in his remarks and inferences upon the subject. The noble Earl had moved for a letter of the Attorney-General's, and in reference to it, stated, that the management of the quarter sessions had either answered or failed. If it had answered, he said, what was the necessity for this circular letter? Now, perhaps their Lordships would be surprised to hear, that there was no novelty whatever in this document. It was precisely and technically the common form of a circular which had been addressed to those counties in which public prosecutions had taken place, to the clerks of the assizes, and clerks of the peace, ever since the alteration had been made. It was, in fact, coeval with the alteration. That he thought met at once the question of the noble Earl. The letter to which the noble Earl alluded, might appear more stringent in its terms to some clerks of the peace than others. The general form was this:—The first Crown solicitor wrote for those informations to the clerk of the peace, and if he did not receive them, a small cogent letter was despatched, in which the Attorney-General's name was brought in. Indeed, he believed the name of the Lord-lieutenant was sometimes mentioned, when the informations were not forwarded on the first application. The Attorney-General had thought with him, that by establishing a more efficient mode of prosecuting at the quarter sessions, they would be enabled to put down those brutal and ferocious crimes which arose principally from faction fights, and which

1755
tended so much to demoralise the lower classes of that country. He was happy to have by him a letter of the assistant-barrister of Tipperary, where these faction fights existed perhaps to the greatest extent, which he thought would show at once what had been the result of this alteration, and more efficient mode of prosecution. The noble Earl read the letter, which was dated April, 1837, and stated, that within the last twelve months, crime had undergone great diminution in that county; and after enumerating several offences, such as faction fights at fairs and markets, taking forcible possession of lands, &c., added, that not a single occurrence of that kind had taken place in the county during the previous year, although before that there was scarcely a fair or market held at which some of them were not perpetrated. On coming down to the House, he had met a noble Lord, not a Member of that House (Lord Bloomfield), who said that he could never sufficiently thank him for the boon he had conferred upon the county of Tipperary, in having appointed Mr. Hanley as assistant-barrister, so that the House might safely rely upon any statement that gentleman put forward. With regard to what the noble Earl had said about patronage, he had only to observe, that before the appointments had been regularly made, the fee to the solicitor was two guineas; it had since been reduced to one; and he could further state, that the utmost extent of fees received by any of these officers in the year, was 50 l., which went down to so low a sum as 10 l. He was perfectly ready to take upon himself the full and undivided responsibility of the general distribution of patronage in Ireland. It had been made a matter of complaint against the Irish Government, that they had appointed to the office of Crown solicitor, none but attornies of inferior practice. To this charge, the obvious answer was, that from the very necessity of the case, they were compelled to choose from amongst professional gentlemen practising in the court; that what were called bar attornies were the class of lawyers who chiefly attended at the sessions courts, and if they did not form the most eminent members of the profession, he was unable to see how the Government could be held responsible for a circumstance of that nature. It had also been made a matter of accusation against his
1756
learned Friend, who then was Attorney-General for Ireland, that he had recommended for Crown solicitors, hardly any, except Roman Catholics. To that the reply was equally simple and conclusive, as in the preceding case—namely, that in a great number of places, none but Roman Catholics were to be found. A third subject of complaint was, that these appointments were bestowed upon persons who had rendered themselves remarkable as political agents and agitators. Now, that was a grave and serious charge, which, if made at all, ought to be seriously preferred at a time and under circumstances when it could be fully and fairly met. It should not be incidentally introduced amongst a variety of other matters. He begged to know, why it had not been brought forward that time last year. If there had been any real unfitness in the persons appointed, any substantial abuse of the powers of the Crown, why had not the subject been separately and substantively brought under the notice of Parliament? He was in London at that period of the year, and so was his learned Friend by whom those appointments had principally been advised; then would have been the fitting time to have brought them openly and manfully forward, and not thus in an indirect way use them, as it were, for the purpose of hinting away men's characters. In the course of the observations made at different times upon the state of Ireland, there had been frequent reference to the state of the county of Tipperary; but from the communications which he had received from the assistant-barrister of that county, as well as from various returns to which it was not possible for him on so short a notice to have access, he was enabled to say, that there was a great deal of exaggeration upon that subject, that the condition of the county was very much improved, and that it enjoyed, not only comparative, but a great deal of positive tranquillity. He conceived that there existed the most conclusive and satisfactory evidence, that the system now in use at the quarter sessions was one which had worked well, and which if continued would produce the best effects—such as all persons interested in Irish affairs could not but admit to be beneficial. As to the emolument derivable from it to the Attorney-General, he had only to observe that he had declined to accept any remuneration,

1757
and even if he had agreed to accept it the amount would be very little. On the authority of the Crown solicitor for the Munster circuit, he could state that the fees to the Attorney-General from that division of the island, would not amount to more than from 30 l. to 40 l. Some allusion had been made to an act of clemency exercised in the case of prisoners who had been discharged from confinement in Ireland. He had since then obtained some returns on that subject, and he was therefore in a condition to state, that not above two or three of those prisoners had been recommitted under any serious charge. It might be said, that that had happened fortuitously, but he might be allowed to reply, that it was a very remarkable coincidence. It was, he conceived, a most extraordinary circumstance, that out of the number discharged only nineteen in all should have been recommitted, every one of whom, with the exception of two or three, was for offences of the most trifling description. From the time that he had been concerned in the government of Ireland to the present moment, he had endeavoured to discharge the duties of his office with strict fairness, and in the spirit of the Emancipation Act, which was intended to put an end to all religious distinctions.
The motion was withdrawn.

SUCCESSION TO THE THRONE.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the second reading of the Succession Bill. It was the duty of Parliament to provide for every event, however remote, which might affect the administration of the Government of the country. The object of this Bill was, to provide in case of the demise of the Crown, and in case the heir presumptive to the Crown should at that time be out of the country, for the carrying on the business of the Executive Government, as without such provision it would be difficult, indeed impossible, to carry on the Executive Government, until the next heir to the Throne arrived in this country. The precedent followed, on this occasion, was that of the Act of Queen Anne. There was, at that time, a disputed succession, which was not the case at present, but nevertheless, the possible and very remote contingency of having the machinery of Government stopped, if the demise of the Crown should take place while the heir presumptive was in a foreign kingdom,
1758
should be provided for, and in this provision, the Act of the 6th of Queen Anne was followed. The Bill provided that certain great officers of state—namely, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord High Chancellor, or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, the Lord High Treasurer, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord High Admiral, and the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, at the time being respectively, should act as Lords Justices to exercise all the powers and authorities of the successor to the Crown as he or she would exercise them if present, until his or her arrival in this kingdom, or until he or she should otherwise order. The Bill also provided, that the heir or heiress presumptive to the Throne might at any time deposit a list (which list was revocable at pleasure) of such persons as he or she might appoint to act with such justices, and to be considered as part of them, with the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord High Chancellor or Keeper of the Great Seal, or the representative of such heir or heiress presumptive at the Court of Great Britain, and the persons named in that list were to exercise in common with the Lords already named the functions of royalty, until the successor of the Throne should otherwise determine. There was, however, a provision in the Bill which restricted the powers of the Lords Justices to the exercise of all the functions of royalty, save only those which were necessary to carry on the Government of the country. For example, they were not to have the power of dissolving Parliament, nor giving the Royal Assent to any Bill for altering the succession to the Throne, nor to any Bill for changing the established religion of England, Scotland, or Ireland. They were also restricted in their power so as not to be able to grant peerages, or in any way to interfere with the privileges of the Sovereign, save and except such Acts as were necessary for carrying on the Government. In the second section of the Act, he should propose, when the Bill was in Committee, so to alter it as that the heir presumptive should have the power of nominating, not seven persons, to which by the Bill, as it now stood, he was restricted, but any such numbers, to act with the Lords Justices already named, as he might think proper.
Lord Broughamadmitted, that the pre-

1759
cedent of the Act of Anne was followed in this instance; but in the Act of Anne, it was stated that any appointment of such additional Lords Justices which had been already made would be valid, which was not the case in the present Bill. But there was another circumstance connected with the Bill to which he was anxious to call the attention of their Lordships, and though he was aware that the present was not the proper time for bringing it forward, he felt it necessary to mention it as a sort of caveat against one of the principles of the Bill. When the Act of Anne was passed, the royal family of England were very differently circumstanced from what they were at present. At that time, the succession was confined to the Electress Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants. But there were other members of the royal family, to assert or recognise whose title would then have been high treason. He had no wish to follow the precedent established by the Act of Anne out of respect to those great and eminent men by whom the Act had been framed—he more particularly alluded to Lord Godolphin and Lord Somers; yet he was greatly disposed to think that those eminent statesmen would not in the present day, and under the present circumstances, take the course of which they at that time established the precedent. Whether they wished to establish Lords Justices or a custos regni, or a regent, he was sure they would not pass over the members of the royal family who were of full age and resident within the realm at the time. He thought, therefore, that some portion of the royal family, he meant, of course, those who were of full age and resident in the kingdom, should be named as amongst the Lords Justices. He felt it necessary to call the attention of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to this, which he wished to be taken as a sort of caveat against the Bill, for unless he saw very good reason for altering his opinion on the subject, he would, at a future stage of the Bill, embody his objection as a substantive motion.
Lord Wynfordthought, that if any portion of the royal family were to be included in the Bill, all of them ought to be. He, however, thought it would be the much better and more simple course to follow the precedent of the Act of Anne, which appointed certain great
1760
officers of state for the time being, to whom were to be added certain other individuals appointed by the heir presumptive. The precedent of Anne had been since that period twice followed in the appointment of Lords Justices, but in neither case had members of the royal family been included. He, therefore, thought it would be much better to leave the Bill as it now stood, following as it did the precedents already established.
Lord Broughamthought, that the Bill should recognise the right of the heir presumptive, or heir apparent, as much as the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Lord Chancellor, or any other of the Lords Justices. There was a great difference between Lords Justices appointed by an Act of Parliament, as in this case, and Lords Justices appointed by the Crown. In the latter case, the power of the Lords Justices was limited by such rules and regulations as the King might please to fix until his return to the country. In the reign of Geo. 1st he appointed the Prince, who was afterwards George 2nd, as custos regni; George 2nd, during his absence, appointed Queen Caroline Regent, and after the death of Frederick, Prince of Wales, he appointed Lords Justices. As to Queen Anne not being named in the Commission of Lords Justices in the absence of King William, the reason was obvious; she was then Princess of Denmark, a married woman, and being under the influence of her husband, who was a foreigner, it would not have been proper or constitutional to have named her in it.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it appeared to him that the object of the Bill was to secure the succession in the absence of the Sovereign, and to carry on the Government between the demise of one Sovereign and the arrival here of the other, that other being then in a foreign country. It appeared to him that the Sovereign, before his arrival in this country, might appoint members of the royal family or others to carry on the Government until his return. They should not be imposed upon him, for it was clear that on his accession to the Throne, he might appoint whom he pleased to carry on the Government of the country in his absence. It should, therefore, be left to him to give instructions to the Lords Justices to exercise such functions in his absence, and with such limitations as he should direct.
Lord Broughamcontended, that

1761
there was no instance in which Parliament had left out members of the royal family in a case of this kind, where they were of full age, and resident within the realm. The great officers of state were not more known in the country than the members of the royal family of full age. The Bill, however, only provided for a bare possibility, for the exercise of the royal authority in case of a demise of the Crown, and should that event take place in the lifetime of the King of Hanover, Duke of Cumberland in England, and before her Majesty had an heir apparent to the Throne. It was, in fact, for the exercise of the royal authority for some ten or twelve days before the arrival of the new Sovereign, but even in providing for this barely possible contingency it behoved Parliament not to depart from principle. In all such cases, Parliament should take into consideration and include in the commission members of the royal family of full age, resident within the realm.
Bill read a second time.