Sitting of 5 August 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3° Duchy of Lancaster (High Peak Mining Customs and Mineral Courts.

PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read. House in Committee.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9.
The ATTORNEY GENERALstated that as this clause originally stood, a person who applied for a patent would be entitled to protection for six months on depositing a specification, and obtaining a certificate from an Examiner that it was a true description of the invention, and no one would have an opportunity of opposing it until the period of provisional registration had expired, and the inventor applied for his patent. It had, however, been said, and he thought there was a good deal in it, that it would be objectionable to prevent a party whose rights would be interfered with by the new patent, from opposing it until six months after provisional registration. He therefore proposed to amend the clause, so as to direct the Commissioners to cause every application made for provisional protection to be advertised in the London Gazette, so that any person having or claiming to have any interest in the intended patent should give notice to the Examiner, within fourteen days after such advertisement, of any objection he might have; and protection should not be granted until the Examiner had certified both that the specification correctly described the invention, and that the objections made to the grant ought not to be allowed.
Clause, with amendment, agreed to; as were also Clauses 10 to 13 inclusive.
Clause 14 (Law Officer to refer specification and objection to an Examiner for his Report).
MR. MUNTZsaid, he should like to know what was the meaning of the word "utility" in the clause? Did it mean that the invention was to be useful to the public before a patent would be granted? He did not think that any one or two individuals could decide as to the utility of an invention. He thought it would be better if the word were omitted altogether, and he should take the sense of the Committee upon it.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the "utility" contemplated by the clause was public utility; the word had been introduced at the suggestion of the Manchester Association, in order to prevent absurd and trifling inventions obtaining a protection, which might stand in the way of subsequent and really useful inventions.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISdiffered from his hon. and learned Friend, and thought that the "utility" referred to was private utility—utility to an individual from an object which had an exchangeable value.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that the difficulty was as to the construction to be put on the word "utility." On the one hand it might be understood to mean public utility, while on the other it might be regarded in the sense of utility to the person who sought to obtain a patent for his private gain; and it was one of the inconveniences arising from proceeding with such a measure at so late a period of the Session, that there could be no opportunity of discussing points of such nicety. He entertained objections to this measure, because it proposed to create a set of new officers, designated Examiners, who, it appeared to him, were to perform the functions which had hitherto been performed under the responsibility of the law advisers of the Crown. It was impossible to believe that the law officers, before they formed a judgment upon an application, and advised the Crown to grant a patent, did not satisfy themselves that the invention was likely to be useful, and was of such a character as to justify them in recommending the Crown to allow an exclusive right to be exercised against the community for a limited period. He wished to ask what had been the principle upon which the law advisers of the Crown had hitherto recommended patents, with regard to the two points—novelty and utility? He

1897
had no doubt, although the law officers of the Crown were accomplished gentlemen, and had an opportunity of informing themselves with respect to improvements in trade and commerce, that before advising the Crown to grant exclusive patents as against the public, they had called to their aid persons who had really performed the functions of the proposed Examiners. The law officers had heretofore covered all these inquiries, but now it was sought to relieve them altogether of the responsibility. It appeared from this Bill that they were to delegate the inquiry to Examiners, on whose report—without exercising any judgment of their own, except within the limits of such report—the law officers were to ground their recommendation to the Crown.
The ATTORNEY GENERALbelieved that since he had been in office no patent had been granted for any invention the usefulness of which was not apparent. [An Hon. MEMBER: To the public, or to the individual?] He meant to the public—that was always his first consideration; for, so far as the individual patentee was concerned, he must take his chance. As the existence of a patent right sometimes prevented others from embarking in the same course of invention, he (the Attorney General) did not think that a patent for an invention that would be absolutely useless to the public, ought to be granted. He did not consider that under this Bill the legal advisers of the Crown would be bound by the report of the Examiners, who, in his opinion, would act, as it were, as the pioneers of the law officers, and direct their attention to the different points of each case. In many cases which had occurred under the existing law, the legal advisers of the Crown had called in the assistance of scientific gentlemen, who had made reports to them, or aided them by personal suggestions. The advice thus obtained, however, was a sort of private assistance; and he thought it would be better that such assistance should be rendered by persons before the public, who were clothed with a certain official character, and who were responsible to the public, which was the course proposed by this Bill. Still he must say, that he would never consider himself bound by the report of the Examiners; and indeed the 15th section of the Bill provided that if any person deemed himself aggrieved by reason of any report of the Examiners, such person might
1898
claim to be, and should be, heard before the law officers themselves.
MR. HENLEYthought that it was still a question whether the Examiners would not discharge to a great extent the duties of the law officers; nor did he see the good of appointing them, when it appeared that such assistance of this kind as was required was already provided by the law officers of the Crown. He thought that the word "utility" would be better out of the clause.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he had no objection to strike out the word "utility."
MR. RICARDOopposed the Motion, because, although all the gentlemen examined before the Committee concurred in the, opinion that no tribunal could decide upon the utility of inventions, still he thought they had no excuse for granting these monopolies, except on the ground that the inventions were beneficial and useful to the public. At the same time he did not think it possible for any person to determine in all cases whether an invention would be useful to the public or not—that was evident to any person who read the evidence taken before the House of Lords.
SIR DE L. EVANSthought it better that the word should be left out. The great merchants of Manchester were desirous that the word should be left in. That made him more suspicious of the word.
The ATTORNEY GENERALmoved that the word be struck out.
Amendment proposed, page 5, line 26, to leave out the words "and utility."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the further they got into the Bill the more evident it was that they were proceeding in the dark. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General), who defended the word "utility," now moved its omission.
MR. J. GREENEsaid, that if the invention was useless, it did not in the least concern the public; but an invention, though useless in itself, might contain the germ of future utility. He thought that it would be better to leave out the word.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, that what he meant by private utility, was utility which would be useful to the individual in exchange. That could not be, of course, unless it was useful to the public.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo), who had the advantage of reading the evidence taken before the House of Lords on this subject, which he (Sir J. Graham)

1899
had not, had stated that no person could read that evidence without feeling that no tribunal could decide on the utility of an invention. That being so, he came to a different opinion from the hon. Member, and would vote against the retention of the word. At all events if it was retained, the word "public" should be put before it.
MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, that there was no excuse for patents at all, unless their utility was taken into consideration. A patent in old times, for instance, had been granted for a fish-call, by which fish were to be induced to enter the nets of fishermen. That was undoubtedly quite a new thing; but would the Attorney General grant a patent for such a thing as that? Then, again, a patent had been taken out for making people go to sleep to the sound of soft music. That was not only novel, but useful; but would the Attorney General grant patents for such things as these? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman grant a patent in such a case?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the hon. Gentleman's objections and most of the objections which bad been urged, applied to the question whether there should be a patent law at all. That was to discuss the principle of the Bill. They had now arrived at a very late period of the Session, and their object should be to extract all the good that was possible from this measure, the House having decided that the principle of patents should be adhered to, at least for the present. He had been asked to leave in the word utility, particularly by the manufacturers of Manchester; hut, from the discussion in that House, he was of opinion that it would be better to omit it.
Question put, "That the words 'and utility' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 1; Noes 48: Majority 47.
Words struck out; Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 15 to 17 inclusive.
Clause 18, which limits the operation of the Bill to the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man.
MR. LABOUCHEREstated (in reply to a question from (Mr. Spooner), that the present state of the law produced a great deal of complication and difficulty; for while it was one of the prerogatives of Her Majesty to grant patents extending over the whole British empire (with the exception, perhaps of India, about which there was
1900
some doubt), the local Legislature of a colony had also power to grant a patent for that colony; the consequence was, that patents were granted by both the Crown and the local Legislatures, and the greatest difficulty and confusion arose. It had, therefore, been thought best to confine the patents granted here to the United Kingdom, and leave the Colonies to deal with the matter as they thought fit. And, in fact, this was now practically the case. For seeing the great confusion that resulted from this double granting of patents, the Secretary of State for the Colonies intimated to the Attorney General, about six months ago, that he wished no patents should be issued for a colony without consulting him; and without a special case a patent would not be issued.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMthought this discussion became more complicated as it proceeded. Here was another most important question incidentally raised. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had now gone to the root of the whole question of patents, and, in the exercise of the large powers entrusted to him, said, that in future no patents should be granted which should extend to the Colonies. The Government had, therefore, virtually decided that any invention perfected and patented at great cost here, should be used freely by the colonists. He could not conceive a stronger argument against the principle of the patent law, or one that more showed the necessity of postponing this Bill. There really was not time now to give due consideration to a measure involving such interests as this did. It came down but lately from the House of Lords, and already thirty new clauses had been introduced into it in the House of Commons. Besides the provisions respecting compensation, those with regard to fees were changed; but there were still great objections to be urged to them; there ought not to be a farthing paid for the establishment from the public purse; the fees should be so regulated as to pay the whole expense of compensation to the old, or of salary to the new officers; the system must be made to pay its own way. Clause by clause the Bill would be found to touch important principles not yet fully discussed; and the further the House proceeded, the more they would become aware of the importance of the subject, the insufficiency of the time they could now devote to it, and the inadequate attendance of Members re-

1901
presenting the great commercial and manufacturing interests. He would not interrupt the progress of the Bill by making a speech; but he did not see how justice was to be done to so important a subject within the time that could now be given to it.
MR. LABOUCHEREwas very sorry to find the right hon. Baronet casting the weight of his great authority into the scale of the objectors, hitherto very few in number, to the passing of this Bill in this Session. The disappointment on the part of the public, and the inconvenience sustained if it should not pass, would be so great, that nothing on his (Mr. Labouchere's) part should be spared to prevent its postponement, nor would he be responsible for its being deferred—but of course he was in in the hands of the House. It would be very inconvenient to be discussing continually whether there should be a patent law or not; the Bill had been read n second time, proceeding as it did upon the principle of maintaining the patent law, but removing glaring defects in it; and Gentlemen opposed to any patent law might be willing to amend palpable defects. As to new clauses, the Attorney General had recast the Bill, and split up clauses, and multiplied their number; but it had not been done by introducing new matters and making substantial alterations. The money clauses were, of course, for the House of Commons to settle.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Labouchere) had thrown this new apple of discord amongst them; and it seemed to him that a more important question could not have been raised than that which related to patents in the colonies.
MR. FORSTERwas surprised at the opposition this Bill met with. He thought that it was settled that it should he passed without opposition, and that the principle should be discussed next Session. He thought the Government ought to receive the greatest indulgence from the House.
MR. J. L. RICARDOcould not imagine what degree of indulgence the Government expected when they brought in a Bill of 51 Clauses at this period of the Session on so important a subject, and wished to pass it without fair discussion. This question of the Colonies opened up the whole principle; and, not content with that, an hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had raised also the question of sugar re-
1902
fining. In the colonies sugar was refined without any patent, whereas in this country the refiners had to pay enormous royalties, He knew one house which paid 20,000 l. a year; and if the system was good for anything, it was surely as good for the Colonies as it was for this country.
MR. LABOUCHEREassured the hon. Gentleman that the Bill did not alter the law one tittle with respect to sugar refining.
MR. CARDWELL, notwithstanding this assurance, would remind the House of the case of the sugar refiners of Liverpool, who complained of this part of the Bill, and from whom he had presented petitions to the House to that effect.
MR. LABOUCHEREexplained, that in times past, patents did extend to the colonies, and that it was only in future that patents with such powers would not be granted.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had raised a question not only of fiscal importance, but one of great constitutional moment, and one that affected in the highest degree the prerogatives of the Crown. It appeared from the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, that the Crown had the prerogative of granting patents in the Colonies. This prerogative had been been restricted by Her Majesty's Ministers; and now the House of Commons was called upon to give legislative effect to this restriction. There was also evidently great division of opinion amongst Her Majesty's Ministers upon this subject. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade in the House of Lords (Earl Granville), when introducing this Bill, expressed a decided opinion adverse to the principle of patents altogether. The noble Secretary for the Colonies (Earl Grey) agreed with the Vice-President of the Board of Trade; and now it was found that the advisers of the Crown had put an end altogether to patents in the Colonies. Was it right, then, to continue a system in England which had been condemned in principle by the advisers of the Crown? And were they to legislate upon a question which the divisions in Her Majesty's Council rendered still more doubtful?
MR. LABOUCHEREassured the right hon. Baronet that he was mistaken. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Earl Granville) had certainly expressed an opinion, shared by the majority of the Lords'

1903
Committee, that the principle of patent laws was vicious, and ought to be discarded; but he and all the Committee held it most desirable that this Bill, remedying monstrous and glaring evils in the present system, should pass into a law at once; and they thought that the public opinion of this country was not ripe for so great a change as the abolition of patents. He (Mr. Labouchere) had not thought it right to express any opinion to the House upon the subject, not considering it to be fairly before them. The Secretary for the Colonies had expressed no opinion upon the principle of the patent law; all he had said was, that there should not be two ways of granting a patent for a colony—by the Crown here, and by the local Legislature; and that it should be left to the local Legislature, and not granted by the Attorney General here, at least without reference to the Secretary of State, and special ground laid. But patents were not done away with in the Colonies, or forbidden to be granted by the local Legislatures. If the right hon. Gentleman had determined to oppose the Bill passing this year, it would he vain to contend with him; but such a result would be a great disappointment to very many persons, and the law would be left in a most scandalous state.
MR. HENLEYapprehended that the House was asked to confirm the decision of the Secretary for the Colonies, and to restrain the exercise of the prerogative as to the Colonies in future; and this was to be done with great haste and little consideration, because some five hundred people had got things locked up in a glass house, and wanted to take out patents, and it was desired to give them an improved mode of doing it. Why not strike out this clause, and leave this question open?
SIR J. GRAHAMobserved, that this clause altered the law materially, and yet did not appear necessary for the objects desired by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere).
MR. LABOUCHEREwould deeply regret if he should not be able to pass this part of the Bill, but certainly felt the great importance of passing as much of it as he could secure. He must consider the point in conjunction with the Attorney General, and let progress be reported now.
House resumed. Committee report progress.

THE ST. ALBANS BRIBERY COMMISSION BILL.
Order for consideration of Lords' Amendment read.
MR. BOUVERIEmoved, that the House should disagree with the Amendments which the House of Lords had introduced into the St. Albans Bribery Commission Bill. The first seven or eight Amendments had the effect of restricting the inquiry to the last election; while the Bill as passed by that House proposed to extend the inquiry to previous elections, at which it appeared by the report of their Committee, that bribery had been practised. The Amendments introduced by the House of Lords would also be inconsistent with the preamble of the Bill, which alleged that the practice of bribery had prevailed in the borough long previous to the last election. The second class of alterations were such that whereas the Bill, as it left that House, contained strong provisions to compel persons to give evidence (preserving them from any inconvenience by a proviso), the House of Lords had provided that no party should be compellable to give any evidence or produce any document which might tend to criminate him.
Motion agreed to; others of the Lords' Amendments disagreed to; and a Committee appointed "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords, for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed."

THE MILITARY KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR.
COLONEL SALWEYthen brought forward the Motion of which he had given notice for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the case and claims of the Military Knights of Windsor, as set forth and referred to in their two petitions presented to the House upon the 7th day of August, 1846, and 23rd day of February, 1847, and which were further set forth and referred to in the petition of the 20th of April, 1849, by several electors, tax and ratepayers of the borough of New Windsor. The hon. and gallant Member had proceeded to some length in his statement, when
Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at half after Six of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Crown Estate Paving; Collection of Fines, &c. (Ireland); Constabulary Force (Ireland); Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland); Petty Sessions (Ireland); Canterbury Association; General Board of Health (No. 3).
Reported.—Metropolitan Interment; General Board of Health (No. 2A); Emigration Advances (Distressed Districts, Scotland); New Zealand Settlements; Coal Duties (London and Westminster and adjacent Counties).
3a Lunatics (India); Metropolitan Sewers; Battersea Park Amendment and Extension; General Board of Health (No. 2); Lands Clauses Consolidation (Ireland); Merchant Seamen's Fund; Appointment to Offices, &c.

GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH (No. 2A) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEmoved the omission of certain words in the first clause, which related to the confirmation of the provisional orders of the General Board of Health for applying the Public Health Act of 1848 to the towns included in the Bill. The words of the clause said, that the provisional order "shall be, and the same is hereby confirmed, so far as it is authorised by the Public Health Act." He wished to expunge the words, "so far as it is authorised by the Public Health Act." These words led to endless litigation, and rendered it impossible in many cases to carry into effect the intentions of the Legislature. This remark particularly applied to the town of Reading, where the Commissioners under the Act of 1848 found themselves completely paralysed.
The EARL of CARLISLEdid not then intend to oppose the principle of the Amendment of the noble Duke; but he put it to his noble Friend whether, looking at the lateness of the Session, and the state of public business, he would not withdraw his proposition for the present, in order not to endanger the passing of sanitary Bills for another year.
After a few words from the Earl of SHAFTESBURY,
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEconsented to withdraw his Amendment, and trusted that the Government would consider the whole subject in the interval before another Session. The present mode of bringing in so many separate Bills of this character in a single Session, was highly unsatisfactory, and calculated to bring the General Board of Health into disrepute. It was plain that unless that Board was to be swept away entirely, its powers must be placed on a different footing. The Government must either repose implicit confidence in the Commissioners, or the functions of the Board must undergo a revision.
LORD BEAUMONTthought the Amendment of the noble Duke would enable the Board of Health to make provisional orders without confining themselves (as required by the original form of the clause) within the limits prescribed for them by the law. He was certainly not inclined to assent to any such proposition; and, indeed, after what had taken place the other night with respect to that very sensitive body, the General Board of Health, he was rather disposed to keep a sharp look-out upon them, to see that they did not go beyond the bounds of the law.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEwas surprised that the noble Lord could be so grossly ignorant (if he would excuse him the expression) of the state of the facts as to suppose that the Board of Health were entitled, unless these words were retained, to act contrary to the law of the land. They were just as much bound, without the insertion of the words he had proposed to omit, to act within the limits of the law, as they could be if the words were retained. In fact, the words were perfectly useless, except in producing endless litigation. In the case of the General Enclosure Act, which he had the honour of introducing into the other House seven years ago, and which had since worked very satisfactorily, the Enclosure Commissioners had kept within the law, without the restraint of these words, and they had avoided the litigation which had so embarrassed the General Board of Health.
Amendment withdrawn; Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

REMOVAL OF DOUBTS AS TO PENALTIES ON ASSUMPTION OF ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MONTEAGLErose to move the Second Reading of a Bill which he had introduced, for the purpose of removing doubts as to the penalties attaching to the assumption of Ecclesiastical Titles under the Act which had recently engaged so much of the attention of Parliament. The noble Lord said, the object of the Bill was exactly the same as that of the clause which he had proposed a few nights ago as an addition to the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill. That clause had been introduced in the spirit of peace, in order to prevent the mischievous consequences which he considered might arise under the Bill as it then stood. During the recent discussion only one feeling had been manifested on all sides, namely, that of extreme regret that any circumstances should have occurred to render legislation of such a description necessary; and it had also been admitted in the debate that if all that the Roman Catholics of England professed to seek by the recent act of the Pope had been asked for in what was called a reasonable manner, no objection could have been offered, and the Government might have acceded to the demand. But there were three points of view in which the Rescript of the Pope had been made the
1892
subject of animadversion, namely, first, because it claimed territorial authority by establishing prelates terming themselves bishops or archbishops of particular sees in this country. Nobody had denied the power of the Pope to send bishops to this country in a spiritual capacity, if they did not take territorial titles. The next objection was, that the Papal Rescript put forward a claim to authority as it were over the whole of the Queen's subjects, and not simply over the members of the Roman Catholic Church; and the third objection was, that the prerogative of the Sovereign had thereby been invaded. After what had transpired, he wished distinctly to state (and he particularly called the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack to this fact), that the clause which he had proposed for the removal of doubts as to the exercise of rights to which nobody had objected, had been twice printed in the Votes, and it remained on the notice paper from the 25th to the 29th ult., so that there was not one of their Lordships who was not in possession of its precise purport; and the House had therefore been fully forewarned that it would come under its consideration. The noble Lord went on to say that he thought the people of Ireland ought, at all events, not to be left in doubt and uncertainty respecting the operation of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Act, and therefore he hoped their Lordships would give a second reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he felt bound to oppose the Bill on the same grounds as those which he had stated on a former occasion, when he entreated their Lordships not to admit into the Bill, which had now become law, the clause proposed by the noble Lord. He moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill he read a second time that day three months.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this day three months."
The LORD CHANCELLORobserved that the Bill, as framed, instead of removing doubts, tended to create a great deal of doubt and ambiguity.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSinquired whether, in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, an indictment would he against a Roman Catholic bishop for collating a priest to a benefice, which was strictly a matter of jurisdiction within his diocese?
The LORD CHANCELLORreplied, that any act done by virtue of the spiritual office of bishop would not he an act of jurisdiction in the sense intended by the noble Earl; and the act referred to he conceived to he such a one as the bishop would discharge in his spiritual character.
On Question, that the word "now" stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this Day Three Months.

ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLORmoved, that the Commons' Amendments to this Bill be considered. He would advise their Lordships to agree to the Amendments which had been made, with one exception. The Commons had struck out the clause which gave the Judge, when he directed an amendment in an indictment, to be made on the trial, the power of discharging the jury, and postponing the trial of a prisoner, so that no one might be taken by surprise. The Commmons had struck out this provision, thus leaving the law in a state which he was satisfied would frequently work injustice, and therefore he recommended their Lordships not to assent to that alteration.
The Motion was agreed to.
Some Amendments agreed to, and others disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare Reasons, to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to one of the said Amendments.

LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL.
The Commons' Amendments considered.
The LORD CHANCELLORmoved, that their Lordships should dissent from the Amendment introduced by the Commons enabling wives to be examined in civil suits for or against their husbands. He said that this question had, when the Bill was originally before their Lordships, been very much discussed, and that he believed the unanimous decision arrived at was, that it would not be advisable to alter the law with respect to the admissibility of wives as witnesses. He contended that any clause which should render their testimony admissible, would be a direct violation of the confidence necessary to domestic life; that if such a law were to prevail, there would no longer be that unrestrained and familiar intercourse between husband and wife, which was essential to real happiness; that an attorney is not permitted
1894
to disclose his client's secrets, much less ought a wife to be compellable to betray her husband; and that if a wife were competent to be examined on her husband's behalf, she would constantly be liable to undue solicitation and pressure on his part, in order to induce her to overstep the boundaries of truth. He also moved to reject the Amendment of the Commons which had struck out from the Bill the clause requiring notice to be given whenever any party desired either to give evidence himself, or to call his opponent. He said that this was a most beneficial clause, which would save much expense, by absolving parties from the necessity of attending in court from day to day, in the event of no notice being sent, and that otherwise they would always have to attend lest their opponents should give some testimony which they could either contradict or explain away.
LORD CRANWORTHdiffered from his noble and learned Friend on both points. As to the examination of wives, he originally thought, and he was still of the same opinion, that a middle course ought to be adopted between the extreme views of the Commons on the one hand, and the extreme views of his noble and learned Friend on the other, and that wives ought to be competent to give evidence for their husbands; but not compellable, except in due course of cross-examination, to testify against them. There were many cases, especially among the humbler classes, where the wife acted as the husband's agent, and where to exclude her testimony, would be to deprive the husband of the power of establishing a just, or defeating an unjust, claim. He felt as forcibly as his noble and learned Friend, the expediency of preserving inviolate the sanctity of domestic confidence; but this argument did not in any way apply where the husband voluntarily tendered his wife as a witness. His noble and learned Friend's illustration with respect to attorneys was, in fact, his argument. He would place the wife in a position analogous to that which an attorney occupied, who might be examined for his client, but could not be forced to betray his secrets.
The EARL of MINTOstrongly urged his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack to yield to his noble and learned Friend's suggestion, contending that it was of the greatest importance to avoid any hazard of losing so inestimable a Bill as that before the House.
The EARL of CARLISLEmade a si-

1895
milar application, saying, that in order to render quite safe a Bill of such paramount importance, it was advisable to meet the Commons half way.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, however, declined to yield.
LORD CRANWORTHthen said, that he would not divide the House.
Amendment respecting competency of husband and wife, disagreed to; that as to notice, agreed to; other Amendments, disagreed to.
House adjourned till To-morrow.