Sitting of 9 June 1857

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Leeds, George Skirrow Beecroft, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Ecclesiastical Commission, &c.; Reformatory Schools; Grand Juries (Metropolitan Police District); Inclosure Acts Amendment; Highways; Charitable Uses; Militia (Ireland) Act (1854) Amendment.
2° County Cess (Ireland); Court of Exchequer (Ireland).
3° Joint-Stock Companies.

LOCAL CONSTABLES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MILESsaid, that seeing the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, he should put to him the question of which he had given him notice; but, perhaps, it was first necessary fur him to state that by the 3 & 4 of Vict. cap. 88, sec. 16 it was imperative upon chief constables of counties to bring before the magistrates at petty sessions a list of local constables recommended by themselves, and on the magistrates appointing such constables, an order was simultaneously made that a scale of fees should be made out for their payment. The Act, however, unfortunately omitted to state how those fees were to be raised, for although in the case of individuals there was no difficulty whatever, in the case of the arrest of thieves or felons there was no fund available for the payment of the fees. He therefore begged to ask the light hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill for the payment of local constables appointed under the Act 3 & 4 Vict., cap. 88, sec. 16, during the present Session?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was perfectly true that the Act which authorized the appointment of those local constables did not specify the fund out of which they were to be paid. The Act had been in operation some seventeen years, and he had not up to that time heard of any inconvenience arising under it. The men were strictly speaking not local constables, although generally their employment was of that character, for they could be employed beyond the limits of a county. In case of their being employed, he apprehended they should be paid by the person at whose instance the summons was served or the arrest made. However, he would
  1422
  look into the Act, for at present he must confess he did not see out of what fund the men were to be paid in the cases supposed by the hon. Gentleman.

TRAFFIC THROUGH PARK LANE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Metropolitan Improvement Committee of 1855, he has been able to devise any plan for relieving the great increase of traffic which now passes through Parklane, and has become so dangerous to the public? Also, whether there would be any objection to open to the public the road through the park from Stanhope-street-gate to Hyde Park corner?
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the Committee of 1855 had recommended that one of the first openings which should be made for facilitating the traffic of the metropolis should be a road from Piccadilly through Hamilton place and on to Stanhope-street-gate. In consequence of that recommendation, he, in the course of last year, had proposed to take some steps with the view of carrying if into effect; he had, however, been at once met by an objection to his scheme upon the part of eight or nine persons residing in Hamilton-place. To test the validity of that objection, the case was laid before the law-officers of the Crown, and they had given it as their opinion that it was valid. He had, therefore, been unable to take any further steps in the matter. In reply to the second question, he might state that, in his opinion, there was serious objection to throwing open the road from Stanhope-street-gate to Hyde Park-corner. If it were open for traffic by day, it was equally necessary that it should be open also by night, and the result would be, that the whole of the park would be open by night—a state of things which he felt assured no hon. Member would wish to have brought about. He should add, that it was quite obvious that great inconvenience arose from the narrow state, of park-lane, but under the Act of 1855 power was vested in certain local authorities to purchase land, with the view of widening thoroughfares, and if that were done in the present instance he should not hesitate to say that a great improvement would be effected.

  AUDITORSHIP OF THE POOR LAW BOARD—QUESTION.
  MR. CRAUFURDasked the President of the Poor Law Board whether the hon. Member for Boston still continues to hold the office of auditor under the Poor Law Board.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. W. H. Adams) was one of the auditors of the Poor Law Union accounts. He was elected last year, under the operation of an Act of the reign of Her present Majesty, by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Poor Law district in which he acted as auditor. He was only one of forty-nine other Poor Law officers who discharged duties of a similar character, and whose appointments wore under the immediate control of the Poor Law Board, because they were elected in the manner which had just been stated. The hon. Member for Boston, however, was paid out of money taken by Vote in that House on account of the Poor Law Board, and was liable by statute to dismissal by that Board in the case of his being incompetent to the discharge of his duties. The fact of his having been elected to represent Boston did not, he (Mr. Bouverie) believed, render him incapable of occupying his present position. He consequently retained the office of auditor; and, so far as his experience of the Poor Law Board went, he had every reason to think him a most useful officer.

  FIRING ON A BRITISH SHIP AT BELLEISLE.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information respecting the circumstances attending the death of James Williams, a seaman on board the John and Edward schooner, of Aberystwith, who was killed in the harbour of Belleisle on the 24th day of May last, by a shot fired from the French war schooner Maratch. He would, if the House would permit him, briefly state the circumstances of this case, as they had come to his knowledge from the reports in the newspapers, and from a letter written by the captain of the schooner. The facts appeared to be these:—On the 24th May the John and Edward schooner, put into the roads of Sarzeau, a small town on the north-east of Belleisle. Having been driven in by stress of weather, she was not prepared with the necessary signals; she brought up and came to an anchor within a cable's length of the stern
  1424
  of a French man-of-war—the Maratch schooner. A shot was fired at the John and Edward to hoist her colours, and her captain sent a man up to reeve the pennant halyards for the purpose of doing so; but before the man came down another shot was fired from the vessel of war, and while the men in the John and Edward were hauling up their ensign, and when it was about a couple of fathoms above the boom, a third shot was fired, which killed one of the men who were engaged in hauling it up. He thought the House would agree with him that if these facts were correct—which, however, it was but right to say were wholly ex parte—["Order!"] he had to apologize to the House for going beyond the strict rule of asking questions by making this statement, but he thought the peculiar nature of the case in some degree warranted his observations.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received full information of the lamentable occurrence to which the hon. Gentleman's question relates. The statement he has made conveys to the House pretty nearly the exact course of the transaction. The schooner John and Edward entered the roads of Belleisle without having any colours flying. I think the commander was wrong, for of course no ship ought to enter the harbour of a foreign country without colours to distinguish her nationality. Still, the conduct of the officer in command, for the moment, of the French vessel of war, was quite unjustifiable, because, although his having ordered two blank musket shots to be fired could not be complained of, yet he was not justified in the precipitation with which he ordered a shotted musket to be discharged in the direction of the vessel. His allegation is, that the man was ordered to fire high and that the ball glanced, but unfortunately the shot took effect, and resulted in the death of one of the seamen. It is but justice to the French Government to say, that no opportunity was given to Her Majesty's Government to make any remonstrance to the French Government on the subject, because Count Walewski, of his own accord, volunteered to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris a communication of the most satisfactory and handsome kind. He expressed the deep regret of the French Government at what had taken place, stating that orders had been given to dismiss from the French service the officer who had given orders to fire the fatal musket shot; and added, that the

  1425
  French Government were about to institute inquiries to ascertain in what way and to what degree they might mitigate the affliction of the family of the unfortunate seaman. Therefore, however lamentable the accident was, and however blameable the officer by whom the order was given, yet, as far as the French Government are concerned, nothing can be more honourable and proper than the manner of their proceeding towards the English Government on the subject.

TENURE OF LAND IN INDIA.

  BETURN MOVED FOR.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, it was his intention to make a Motion on this subject, but as he understood a Motion of a more comprehensive character would be brought before the House in a few days, he would at present simply move for a Return, showing on what tenure land is allowed to be held by Europeans in India, whether in fee simple, for life or lives, or for years; and, if so, for what terms of years, and whether renewable on payment of fines or otherwise; also, a corresponding Return showing to what extent ownership of land or settlement by Europeans has taken place in India, and under what tenures?
  Motion agreed to.

GRAND JURIES (METROPOLIS.)

  BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR FREDERIC THESIGER,in rising for leave to bring in a Bill to dispense with the attendance of Grand Juries at the Central Criminal Court, and at Courts of General and Quarter Sessions, holden within the metropolitan police district, except in particular cases, said, that in proposing a measure of this kind, he was prepared to expect that those who had not had their attention called to the subject might regard with some apprehension an interference with a venerable institution, which they were accustomed to regard as essential to the fair administration of criminal justice, and one of the most important safeguards of the liberty of the subject. No doubt in its origin the system of grand juries attained these objects, but by recent changes in the criminal law, and an improved system of preliminary investigation of charges in the Metropolitan Police Courts, its usefulness had been considerably diminished, and the necessity of continuing
  1426
  the system in the metropolis became extremely questionable. The question was by no means new, for the subject of grand juries had attracted public attention for many years. A great deal of evidence in reference to it was taken before the Commission appointed in 1845, to inquire into the state of the criminal law, and afterwards the question of grand juries was again investigated by a Committee of that House. Observations had since fallen from Judges on the bench, complaints had been made by advocates, which had been echoed through the press, and year after year the grand juries of the Central Criminal Court and the Middlesex Sessions had been in the habit of presenting themselves, not only as of no utility, but as being an absolute impediment to the administration of justice. Nor had legislative attempts to abolish the system been wanting, although they were unsuccessful. In 1849, the late Sir J. Jervis brought in a Bill to facilitate the administration of justice in the metropolitan districts, which contained provisions rendering unnecessary the intervention of grand juries in criminal trials, That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, of which he Sir F. Thesiger had been a member, and by which a great number of experienced men had been examined. Amongst others, they examined the Clerk of the Central Criminal Court, the Common Serjeant of that day, Mr. Humphreys, a solicitor practising in the Central Criminal Court, and who had written an excellent pamphlet on grand juries, an alderman of the City of London, the Chairman of the Newington Sessions, and a merchant of the City of London, who had been foreman of grand juries for a great number of years. These witnesses expressed an unanimous opinion that it was desirable that grand juries should not be assembled within the metropolitan districts, and this opinion was supported by reasons which seemed to him to be unanswerable. Nothing, however, was done on this subject. But in the year 1852, the then Recorder of London, whose unfortunate illness was deeply to be deplored, and whoso high character and sound judgment it was to be hoped would yet be useful to his country, in a charge to the grand jury of the Central Criminal Court, after considerable experience of the working of this system, spoke in the following terms:—
  "The great mass of the cases were, as usual, of the ordinary description, and many of their predecessors in that box had expressed an opinion that

  1427
  it was unnecessary that they should be called together for the purpose of considering such cases. With regard to the great body of them, which bad previously undergone full inquiry by magistrates of great experience and legal knowledge, he (the learned Recorder) entirely concurred in the opinion of the grand jury, that their services in this district were perfectly useless. He was afraid that the grand jury not only occasioned a very great loss of time, but that they also were the means of increasing very considerably the expenses of criminal prosecutions, and that in some instances the grand jury also afforded an opportunity for parties to defeat the purposes of justice by tampering with the witnesses, and that in others they were made the medium of occasioning great injustice, by affording vindictive persons an opportunity of preferring unfounded charges behind the backs of those they accused."
  The grand jury at the same sessions made the following presentment:—
  "The grand jury of the fifth session of the Central Criminal Court of the year 1852, beg leave to express their unanimous opinion that a grand jury within the limits of the jurisdiction of the stipendiary magistrates is wholly unnecessary. It increases the expense and adds to the delay of criminal prosecutions. It affords an opportunity for corruption and for tampering with prosecutors and witnesses. It enables an evil-disposed person to throw his victim into prison by a false ex parte statement made behind his back and without any previous notice. It is, in fact, an instrument of extortion and of oppression, and as it frustrates the ends of justice it is worse than useless, and ought to be immediately abolished. The grand jury having been informed that, presentments to the same effect have been made by other grand juries; that copies of several of these presentments have been laid before the House of Commons on the motion of Mr. Matthew Forster, the Member for Berwick; that a Committee of the House of Commons appointed to investigate the subject reported that such a tribunal had become unnecessary; that a Bill was introduced into Parliament by the present Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Right Hon. Sir John Jervis, to abolish it, but which Bill was allowed to be dropped by the late Ministry; they consider that to suffer its continuance in opposition to the often recorded opinions of those best qualified to judge of its utility has a tendency to bring into contempt not only the administration of justice, but the laws of the country. The grand jury, therefore, request that a copy of this presentment may be forwarded to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of Her Majesty's new Ministry, and they hope that a Bill to abolish the grand jury of the Central Criminal Court and of the Middlesex Sessions, will form a part of their earliest measures of law reform."
  In that year (1852) he (Sir F. Thesiger), as Attorney General under Lord Derby's Government, introduced a Bill to dispense with grand juries within the metropolitan district, but he was compelled to withdraw it in consequence of the dissolution which shortly afterwards took place. These facts showed that this question was not a new one, and also furnished the reason
  1428
  why he, a private Member, now brought forward this measure. He had not, however, presumed to interfere in the matter without previous communication with the Government; and from what had taken place he did not believe that Her Majesty's Ministers were at all dissatisfied with the Motion. On the contrary, he anticipated the cordial support of the law officers of the Crown on that occasion. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Hear, hear!] His observations might be supposed to apply to grand juries in general; but he wished it to be understood that he was not prepared to prevent the assembling of grand juries in the provinces. He deemed it advantageous to the public that magistrates and gentlemen of the enmities should be associated with the Judges in their periodical administration of criminal justice throughout the country. The appointment of a public prosecutor or the adoption of some improved system of preliminary investigation into offences might hereafter render it necessary to consider the whole subject of grand juries; but he strictly confined himself at present to the case of the metropolitan district, to which any sound arguments against grand juries in general would apply with peculiar force. It was superfluous to employ any antiquarian research in now discussing this question. Suffice it to say that grand juries were originally clothed with the character of public accusers—they presented crimes to the Justices in Eyre and had the power of committing prisoners; but in the reign of Edward III., when justices of the peace were introduced, their functions underwent a change. Ultimately, instead of possessing any original jurisdiction, a grand jury became merely a tribunal to receive evidence and decide whether there was a primâ facie case for sending accused persons to take their trial. This was a most important duty which could be safely and conveniently superseded only where a better system had been provided. This was precisely the case of the metropolitan police district, where magistrates of great experience and legal talent acted continually in the face of the public. Their principal functions consisted of receiving charges against alleged offenders, and of examining witnesses in the presence of the accused, who was confronted with his accusers, and had an opportunity of cross-examining them and the rest of the witnesses, and giving any explanation he thought right to offer. After a careful investigation, conducted

  1429
  under the most favourable circumstances for arriving at a correct decision, the magistrate determined whether there were sufficient grounds for sending the prisoner to trial. The depositions originally taken were transmitted to the court to which the offender was committed, and every formality essential to the protection of the public and to the prevention of unfounded charges was completed; and one would certainly suppose that, under these circumstances, everything had been done that could be required, and that the court might immediately proceed with the trial. But another preliminary ceremony had to be gone through before the trial. Twenty-three gentlemen, generally unaccustomed to legal inquiries, were collected together in a private room, where, with closed doors, under an oath of secrecy, and in the absence of the accused, they proceeded to reinvestigate the very point already determined by the committing magistrate—namely, whether there was a primâ facie case for putting the person charged upon his trial. With nothing to guide them but the indictment containing the accusation and a list of the names of the witnesses on the back of it, they had to grope their way in the dark, frequently through a labyrinth of complicated facts, and this after the whole matter had been decided for them by the police magistrate. If the grand jury, under these unfavourable circumstances, found a true bill their labours were perfectly supererogatory. If, on the other hand, they threw out the bill, their interference was often purely mischievous. Justice in their hands was liable to miscarry, either from a misconception as to their own functions, some jurymen imagining that they had to decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused; or from the witnesses being tampered with and induced to suppress the evidence they had previously given when before the magistrates. This the witnesses could do in perfect security, because their examination before the grand jury was conducted in secrecy. In fact, the grand jury system multiplied the chances of escape for the guilty to such an extent that it was called "the hope of the London thieves." The innocent would be benefited by the change he proposed, because, after such a person had been once committed by a magistrate, his innocence would be established in the face of the country if he took his trial; whereas a suspicion would probably still attach to him, even though the grand jury had
  1430
  thrown out the bill against him, owing to the reasons for their decision being unknown to the public. As an illustration of the present system, he thought he could not mention anything more forcible than a case which occurred last year in his own experience. The medical attendant of a county lunatic asylum, after having been assaulted by a patient, directed him to be taken to a shower-bath, to be kept there for half an hour, and afterwards to have a dose of tartar emetic. The unfortunate man was placed in the shower-bath, and after having been kept there for twenty-eight minutes he was removed, the medicine which had been prescribed was given to him, and in half an hour afterwards he died. He (Sir F. Thesiger) did not venture to express any opinion with regard to the conduct of the medical man. The treatment which he ordered might have been necessary to his patient; but nobody could doubt that that was a subject which ought to have undergone a most searching public investigation. And so thought one of the most able, intelligent, and experienced of the police magistrates (Mr. Henry) before whom the charge was made against the medical man; for, after having carefully examined the whole of the case, he thought it was his duty to send the patty for trial. The grand jury, however, for reasons which were unknown, chose to think that it was not a case for inquiry, and they threw out the bill. He (Sir F. Thesiger) could multiply these instances if necessary; but he thought that the illustration which he had given was sufficient to show the mischief which might arise from allowing a grand jury to interfere between the public investigation before a magistrate and the trial in the Superior Court, which was not only a protection to the party accused, but also to the public against the possibility of the accused party escaping from justice. But the mere throwing out of bills by grand juries in such cases was not one half of the evil consequent upon this system within the metropolitan district. He believed that there was hardly a Session of the Central Criminal Court or a Middlesex Session held without persons preferring indictments for different classes of misdemeanour for the purpose of revenge or extortion. The particular misdemeanours which were generally made the subject of these accusations were conspiracy, perjury, keeping gaming or disorderly houses, and obtaining money under false pretences.

  1431
  It was not at all necessary that the parties should go before a magistrate to prefer accusations of that description. If a person was desirous of gratifying his malice or extorting money he might wait for the assembling of the grand jury, and then, without the slightest notice to the party, he might prefer his indictment. The proceedings were altogether secret. If the party got his bill, application might be made at once for a Bench warrant; and Saturday was the day generally selected for that purpose, because then the party must remain in custody for nearly two days before bail could be given. Having secured that engine of extortion, it was set to work, and the accusing party had good grounds for hoping that the accused would compromise the matter with him, rather than submit to the exposure of a public trial. Provision was intended to be made against such cases by the Central Criminal Court Act, and the manner in which that provision was defeated was a curious instance of the subtlety and evasiveness of fraud. That Act provided that no indictment for misdemeanour, except for perjury, should be presented at the Central Criminal Court unless the party was in custody, or unless the prosecutor was bound in recognizances. That of course was to necessitate the intervention of a magistrate, but, inasmuch as the Central Criminal Court was the only Court mentioned, parties had been in the habit of going to the Middlesex Sessions, and of there procuring the grand jury to find bills of this description. They then removed them to the Central Criminal Court. No recognizances at all were entered into, and so they evaded the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Misdemeanours were still presented to the grand jury without any previous investigation before a magistrate. With regard to recognizances the course which they pursued was this—they went to a magistrate and said, "We want to prosecute A B for fraud or conspiracy; bind us over in recognizances;" and without any investigation of the facts the magistrate bound them over. Now, the consequence of these proceedings were most alarming, find he could not help giving one or two instances which had occurred within his own knowledge. A lady of undoubted respectability was indicted in this secret manner for keeping a brothel by a person who, as was afterwards ascertained, had been under sentence of transportation.
  1432
  She appeared on the day fixed for the trial, but neither the prosecutor nor his witnesses attended. She had the owner of the house in court to show that her apartments had always been occupied by families of the highest respectability. Of course an acquittal took place immediately, but it was impossible for that lady to avoid the suspicion which was excited in many minds that the prosecutor and his witnesses had been bought off. In another case, a person of great respectability, a banker and solicitor in the county of Surrey, had two indictments preferred against him—one for forgery and one for conspiracy. The party who preferred them had made three similar experiments at the Central Criminal Court and one at the Middlesex Sessions, but without success. But by perseverance he obtained his bills of indictment, and the trial came on before Lord Campbell. The result was an acquittal, accompanied with the applause of the persons in court, Lord Campbell stating to the jury that he had no doubt they would feel that there was not the slightest imputation upon the gentleman's character from the proceedings. He offered these instances as samples, not of what might take place, but of what actually did take place under the present system. Whether a party so accused were innocent or guilty the effect was much the same. Many an innocent party might not not have the nerve to stand a public trial. It might be that he was accused of some infamous offence without the slightest foundation. He shrank from the idea of appearing in public, and was therefore willing to pay a very large sum in order to induce the withdrawal of the prosecution. If the party was guilty there was an additional motive for making a compromise with his prosecutor in that manner, and persons had been found to make a trade of preferring indictments in order to convert them into instruments of the most infamous extortion. Now, the remedy which he (Sir F. Thesiger) proposed was very simple. He proposed that no charge should be tried in the Central Criminal Court, or in the other courts within the metropolitan police district, without a previous investigation before a magistrate. When that had taken place, no inquiry before a grand jury would be necessary, and he therefore proposed to dispense with the attendance of a grand jury at the sessions in the metropolitan districts altogether in such cases. Various subordinate advantages would arise from

  1433
  the measure. In the first place, there would be a very considerable saving of time and expense. Under the present system prosecutors and their witnesses were bound to attend in the first place before the clerk of indictments, for the purpose of being examined with a view to preparing their depositions and the indictment. They Lad then to go before the grand jury; but it frequently happened that they were obliged to remain for two or three days before their case came on. Then the grand jury examined the witnesses; but if a bill was found, they had to wait a day or two more for the trial, so that, in fact, four or five days were consumed, during which parties were neglecting their business, while several hundred persons of different sexes were thus collected together under circumstances which were certainly not advantageous to their morality. The inconvenience, expense, and delay arising from these circumstances were so great that many persons were deterred from prosecuting. Then, again, the expense was no inconsiderable element for consideration. No doubt the witnesses were paid small sums, ranging from 1s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. per day, but when this was multiplied by several days, by hundreds of offences, and by twelve Sessions a year, it would be found that the aggregate amount was a very considerable one, and a large saving would necessarily take place by the plan he proposed. Under the new system the clerk of indictments would prepare a list of cases, so that persons would be able to ascertain when their cases were likely to be tried, and would only attend on that day. The business of the Session might be thus most conveniently arranged, a great saving of time and money would be effected, and public justice in this district would undoubtedly be greatly facilitated. He felt that he need not occupy any longer the time of the House. It was quite sufficient to say that all those whoso attention had been called to this subject—whether Judges of the Superior or of Criminal Courts, grand jurors, barristers, solicitors, or magistrates—all concurred in the opinion that within this particular district there was no necessity whatever to continue the assembling of grand juries, but that the present system was rather detrimental than conducive to the administration of justice. He was sure that after the observations which he had addressed to the House, hon. Members would not wonder
  1434
  that he had interfered in this matter, but would rather be surprised that the existing system had been allowed to continue so long, and that it had not long before been put an end to. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to dispense with the attendance of grand juries at the Central Criminal Court, and at Courts of General and Quarter Sessions holden within the metropolitan police district, except in particular cases.
  MR. HENLEYseconded the Motion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:My hon. and learned Friend is quite right in his anticipation that he will not only have the concurrence, but the cordial support, of the Government in the measure which he has asked leave to introduce. I can only mention, by way of apology for such a measure not having at an earlier period been brought forward by the Government, the circumstance that we were desirous of introducing it, together with some largo and comprehensive plan on the subject of the approintment of a public prosecutor, which has been so long a matter of general deliberation and necessity. I cannot, however, be sorry that the measure falls into the hands of my hon. and learned Friend, to whom I may say, having regard to his former efforts in this matter, it may be regarded as legitimately belonging. It is, indeed, a matter of melancholy reflection that under cover of respect for what is commonly deemed one of our venerable institutions, a system should have so long been continued which is proved by the speech of my hon. and learned Friend to be the source of mischief, of obstruction to justice, and even an instrument facilitating corruption in the administration of justice. I am very glad, therefore, that the House has heard the statement made by an authority of the experience of my hon. and learned Friend. I should only weaken the force of that statement if I attempted to add instances which have occurred within my own observation, necessarily limited as that has been so far as regards the administration of the criminal law. I can only assure the House that the subject of the appointment of a public prosecutor (I use that phrase, not as binding myself to the appointment of any officer answering to that title, but as the denomination merely of some system for the regulation of prosecutions throughout the country) is one still under the consideration of the Government; and if it had not been for the lamented

  1435
  circumstance to which my hon. and learned Friend has so feelingly referred—I mean the unfortunate manner in which we were deprived of the services of the late Solicitor General—a plan upon that subject would have been some time since laid before the House. In conclusion, I can only again promise my hon. and learned Friend every opportunity for facilitating the progress of his measure.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but at the same time, admitting the force of many of the arguments which had been urged as to the inconveniences attending the system of grand juries, it behoved the House to consider very seriously and with the utmost possible care a change in a fundamental principle of the law of England, and so great an innovation as that which would allow a man to be put on his trial for felony or treason [Sir F. THESIGER: No, not for treason!] well, for felony, without a bill found by a grand jury, and merely at the will of a magistrate removable at the pleasure of the Grown. He did not mean to say that magistrates would not do their duty honestly. Under ordinary circumstances, undoubtedly they would. But it was very easy to conceive circumstances arising in which the safeguard afforded to the subject by the institution of grand juries might be of essential importance. If, too, it were important generally, the grand-jury system was particularly important in London and Middlesex, where cases of a political nature were, perhaps, more likely to arise than in almost any other part of the kingdom. The very exception with regard to treason which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made was an admission of the force of the arguments which he (Mr. Bowyer) was urging upon the House. In cases of treason the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to preserve the grand jury, because he felt that in political trials the safeguard afforded by that system was essential to the liberty of the subject. But might not other cases, not of treason, but bearing the same political complexion, easily arise? He need not go back to past history to prove the possibility of this. An indictment for assault or for murder, a riot, or a case in which the rights of the subject were thought to have been invaded by an officer of the Crown—all these might involve political questions, in which it was most important that the people should have
  1436
  every protection from the danger of unfair bias, and yet a magistrate removable at the pleasure of the Crown, in communication with the Home Office, and acting, probably, under instructions from the Secretary of State, would have it in his power to put a man on his trial in these cases. Let him remind the House with what care the constitution of this country had fenced round the trial of prisoners. The only instance in which a man could be put on his trial on indictment without a grand jury was for misdemeanour, upon a criminal information. Now, criminal informations were sometimes laid by the Attorney General, who was conspicuously responsible to the House and to the country for the manner in which he discharged his duties; in other cases application must be made to the Court of Queen's Bench, the highest criminal court in the country, except the House of Lords. Again, when a coroner's inquest was held, and a verdict of murder was returned, a person might be brought to trial without the intervention of a grand jury, but even then it was always usual to go before a grand jury before the prisoner was put on his trial. All the greatest legal authorities of England had declared that no man could be put in jeopardy for life or limb otherwise than by the finding of twenty-four jurors—the finding of a bill by twelve jurors, and the conviction by twelve others. It had been said that in the case of proceedings before a grand jury corruption was used to prevent witnesses from appearing; but might not the same thing arise in proceedings before magistrates? The only way of preventing such corruption was the appointment of a public prosecutor, whose duty it would be to see persons brought to justice, and that no tampering took place. He acknowledged that the issue of bench warrants against men who had no previous notice that an indictment was preferred against them was a grievance. But it was one that might be obviated by enacting that no indictment should be presented in London until a charge had been previously preferred before a magistrate. He trusted that the House would not sanction a departure from principles which were essential to the liberty of the subject, and which formed a fundamental portion of the constitution of the country.
  Leave given.
  Bill "to dispense with the attendance of Grand Juries at the Central Criminal Court, and at Courts of General and Quarter Sessions holden

  1437
  within the Metropolitan Police District, except in particular cases," ordered to be brought in by Sir FREDERIC THESIGER, MR. WALPOLE, and Mr. HILDYARD.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

LAND TRANSPORT CORPS.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBE, on, rising to move that the petition of the members of the Land Transport Corps presented on the 12th of May last be referred to a Select Committee, expressed his regret that he was obliged to ask the House to reappoint the Committee upon this subject to which the late Parliament had assented. He regretted it, because he had hoped that in the lapse of time which had occurred since the House had agreed to his original Motion, justice would have been done to the Land Transport Corps by the Authorities themselves, and he had reason to believe it, because, when the day arrived for the appointment of the Committee he was asked by the then Under Secretary for War to explain to him what it was exactly that these persons required, and he then informed the Under Secretary that they required, as stated in their petition, that the conditions of their original enlistment should be strictly fulfilled. After that he attended, by invitation, at the Ordnance-office. Many of the members of the Land Transport Corps attended also, and he brought them face to face with the Director General of the Corps, Colonel M'Murdo. The Under Secretary for War was also there, but as he did not appear to know much about military matter he was assisted by Sir Henry Storks, and he must say that he never saw a department in a greater state of confusion in his life than that same War Department was upon that occasion, Those gentlemen heard what the men had to say, and, so far as he could judge, they seemed to think there was some justice in their complaints. The interview ended by Sir Henry Storks taking down their names and addresses; he stated that he could give no answer in the absence of his superior, but that either he (Mr. Duncombe) or they should hear from him shortly on the subject. He was satisfied with that assurance, and he thereupon withdrew the nomination of the Committee. The general election followed, and from that day to the present the War Department had made no communication to him upon the subject, and had taken no
  1438
  notice whatever of the claims of those men. Nothing remained for him, therefore, but to ask the House to reappoint the Committee, and to allow these claims to be investigated. No doubt the Government had discovered in the meantime that rather awkward disclosures would be made if the Committee were allowed to sit, but that was no fault of his; they should have kept their faith with these men. Now, what the petitioners required was that the conditions on which they had enlisted should be fulfilled. They had enlisted for ten or twelve years, as Her Majesty should think fit, with the option of terminating their engagement at the expiration of five years, or at the end of the war. They had been promised free clothing and free rations, but both had been stopped out of their pay. They had also been promised fifty days' pay in advance on their embarkation, in order that they might make some provision for their families, but it had not been given them. About 2,100 of these men received no bounty and 2s. 6d. per day, and 7,000 of them received a bounty and 1s. 8d. per day. They had served in the Crimea nearly twelve months; many of them had died there; those who survived had discharged their duties well and had obtained the Crimean medal, and some of them might now be seen begging or selling pencils about the streets in a state of penury, with the medal on their breasts, while £10, or £12, or £14 of pay was still due to them. The first notice that they had upon their landing was that they were disbanded—they were just told in so many words, "Go about your business; here's your discharge, and 20 s. to get home with as you can." It should be observed that there was no complaint with respect to those who were ill when they landed, and who were taken to Chatham and placed in the hospital, for they had been discharged in regular form; but there could be no doubt that that the other men had been improperly discharged. By the rules and regulations of the service it was provided that before a soldier should be permitted to leave the corps to which he belonged, preparatory to his removal from the service under any circumstances whatever, a regimental Board should be assembled to investigate, certify, and record as to his services, ability, character, accounts, and claims; and it was further provided that every soldier on being finally discharged should be furnished with a parchment certificate according to the

  1439
  prescribed form, which was to be confirmed in the Adjutant General's Department before being delivered to the man. But, instead of giving these men a parchment discharge, an old-looking paper was furnished to them all scratched over, so that no one could tell whether or not it was a legal document, or that the men had not made the alterations in it themselves. The men had a right to insist on receiving the prescribed parchment form of discharge, but that had been refused to them, and they had been told that this scratched paper was quite a sufficient protection to them. It was not, however, a protection to them, because many of these men had gone to firms and houses in the metropolis and been refused employment, being told that they had not got a legal discharge. Some had tried to emigrate, but had been refused permission to go on board the emigration ships, on the ground that it could not be told whether or not they were deserters. Thus the men could not obtain an honest livelihood by their industry, because they had been deprived of the legal document testifying their discharge to which they were entitled. Now, let the manner in which Englishmen, who had served the country well for twelve months in the Crimea, had been treated be contrasted with the conduct pursued towards the Foreign Legions. The men of the Land Transport Corps asked, at all events, for some gratuity if they were turned adrift. Well, the Turkish Contingent got six months' pay, and the Swiss one year's pay. The Italian Legion also got one year's pay and the offer of a free passage to South America. Look again at the German Legion—they got one year's pay and a free passage for themselves and their wives to the Cape, and a grant of land on their arrival. Yet not one of those parties ever set foot in the Crimea, while the Land Transport Corps had been there for twelve months. It was time that justice should be done to our own countrymen, and these German and other foreign predilections put an end to. This was partly the case he stated to the last Parliament, and he would not weary the House by going further into it now. He could not believe that a rumour he had heard was correct, that this investigation, which was granted in the last Parliament, was now, as it was likely to be inconvenient to certain parties, to be opposed, but, as he would not believe that the House would so stultify itself as to refuse
  1440
  now what it had granted in the last Parliament, he should therefore conclude by moving, That a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the allegations contained in the Petition of the Land Transport Corps presented on the 12th day of May last, complaining that the War Department had not fulfilled the conditions under which they had enlisted.
  MR. TOWNSENDseconded the Motion. He said the question was worthy the consideration of the Government and the House. It involved the case of men who suddenly left their homes for foreign shores in the service of their country. A portion of these poor men, whose services were called for at a time of emergency, went to the Crimea, and others went to Varna, and had undergone great hardships. Their pay was not large—certainly not large enough to cover the risk of a specific contract not being carried into effect. According to the memorial, the contract made with them on quitting England was, that they were to have either a gratuity of three months' pay on dismissal or three months' notice of discharge. But these arrangements had not been carried out, and he thought it was only fair to the members of the Land Transport Corps that they should have an opportunity of stating their case, while he had sufficient confidence in the noble Lord, and the Government generally, to believe that they would do justice to them, and that that contract would be strictly carried out.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONcould not admit that these men had any just ground of complaint, because he thought that the mere difference between a paper and a parchment discharge was not a material point, and he understood also that in any case when application was made for a parchment discharge, instead of a paper one, the application was complied with. This question was discussed in the last Session of the last Parliament, and his right hon. Friend the then Under Secretary for War explained to the House the grounds on which the Government thought that these men had really no just or well-grounded cause of complaint. Nevertheless, the Government then consented so far to the Motion that they agreed to the appointment of a Committee, and that Committee would have sat, but for the early dissolution of Parliament. As the Government at that time consented to refer the question to a Committee, he did not feel, though his hon. Friend the Member

  1441
  for Finsbury had allowed a good deal of time to elapse before moving again for the Committee, that the question stood now on different grounds, sufficient to justify the Government in objecting to the appointment of a Committee they before agreed to. He only hoped that his hon. Friend and the House would not found any false or exaggerated expectations on the consent of the Government, who retained their opinion, but, having agreed to the appointment of a Committee before, they were prepared to agree to it now.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to examine into the allegations contained in the Petition of the Members of the Land Transport Corps, presented on the 12th day of May last, complaining that the War Department had not fulfilled the conditions under which they enlisted."

WILLS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD.

  LEAVE.
  SIR FITZROY KELLY SIR FITZROY KELLY rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to give validity and effect to the wills of British subjects made abroad. He said that it might not be known to the Members of the House generally, or even to some of the legal profession, that by the law, as it stood at present, if a British subject, after making his will in strict conformity with the law of England, went permanently, and without any intention of returning to the United Kingdom, to reside in any foreign country or colony the law of which differed from the law of this country, the result would be that after death his will, though it might be attested and drawn in all respects in conformity with the statutes of wills and the law of this country, would be set aside and his intentions defeated. His personal property would pass to the next of kin, or whoever according to the law of the foreign country in which he was held to be domiciled at the time of his death, would be entitled to it. Any subject of the realm, it was well known, might make his will, provided it were executed by himself and attested by two witnesses, disposing of his whole estate, real and personal; but this law, allowing an Englishman to dispose of his property at his own free will and pleasure, was most unduly controlled by certain decisions pronounced by courts of law which had introduced a state of things that, in his humble opinion, loudly called for alteration and remedy. The first decision on the point occurred in the case of Stanley v. Bernes,
  1442
  the facts of which were as follows:—An Irish gentleman, who was a British subject, went to Portugal during the late war, and under the political circumstances of the time, and in order to protect his property, he became naturalized in that country. In the year 1827 he died, leaving a considerable amount of personal property, both in Portugal and in Ireland. With regard to the property in Portugal, he had executed a will according to the form required by the Portuguese law, and no question arose upon that; but in order to dispose of his personal property in Ireland, he had sent for an English attorney to execute a will according to the English form, and that will was executed in strict conformity with English law. The property thus bequeathed was left partly to a legitimate son and partly to a natural child, and, after the death of the testator, upon probate being applied for the application was opposed by the legitimate son, who insisted that the will was void in law because it had not been made according to the law of Portugal, in which country he insisted that his father had become domiciled. Now, the question of domicile was one which always gave rise to the most serious difficulties, nor was there any point in the law of England which was involved in greater doubt or created more litigation. Whether a person went to a place animo manendi or animo revertendi was always a difficult thing to prove, and all kinds of witnesses—chambermaids, servants, and people of that sort had to be brought forward to repeat all the gossip they had ever heard fall from the testator or from anybody in his presence without contradiction from him, with respect to his intentions. If it was not clear that he intended to return home, and had made his will according to the English forms, that will would be disentitled to probate, and would be set aside. This was settled by the case to which he had referred. That case was first brought before the Prerogative Court in this country, and a very learned and elaborate judgment was pronounced by Sir John Nichol to the effect that, inasmuch as a British subject could not throw off his allegiance to the British Crown, no matter where he resided or intended to reside, even if he had sworn allegiance to a foreign country, he was competent to make a will according to the forms of England and English law, and probate was decreed. This case was then carried to the Court of Delegates, on appeal, and was heard by

  1443
  Lord Wensleydale (then Baron Parke) and other judges. After an elaborate argument, judgment was pronounced, overruling the decision of Sir John Nichol, and holding that by the law of England, Mr. Stanley, from having found a domicile in Portugal, had become incapacitated to dispose of his personal property by will otherwise than according to the law of Portugal, and by reason of that incapacity the will was disentitled to probate, was void in law, and was accordingly set aside. From that time, such had been the law of England, but although that judgment was pronounced move than twenty-seven years ago, it had never acquired general notoriety, and was scarcely known beyond Doctors' Commons, and perfectly unknown to the great majority of British subjects residing abroad. The mischievous consequences of that decision were, however, limited, if not obviated, a few years after, in the case of Collier v. Rivaz. In that case a British subject had acquired a domicile at Brussels, and made a will according to the English form, disposing of some considerable property in England. On his death, probate was applied for. It was held that the executors under the will were entitled to probate, because it appeared that, although the testator had become domiciled in Brussels, yet by the Code Napoleon, which then prevailed in Belgium, the will of a foreigner, if made according to the forms of law in his own country, was a valid will. That decision remained in force until within the last few weeks, when the case of Bremer v. Freeman came before the Privy Council. In that case it appeared that a lady named Calcraft, who had been travelling about the Continent, ultimately went to Paris, and resided there for some time with her sister, who afterwards died, and was buried in Père la Chaise. The surviving sister remained some time in France, and while residing there sent to England for an attorney of eminence to make her will. The lady died a few years subsequently, and the executors of her will had applied for probate in the Prerogative Court in this country. The granting of probate had, however, been opposed on the ground that the will was void, inasmuch as at the time at which it had been drawn up the testatrix had been domiciled in France. The answer to that objection had been that, in accordance with the French law itself, the instrument was valid, as being made by a
  1444
  British subject resident in France in accordance with the law of England. In order to establish that proposition a great deal of evidence had been adduced, and the case had been submitted to the consideration of no less than five of the most eminent French jurists, who had arrived at the conclusion that the will was valid, and, as a consequence, entitled to probate. Three eminent French lawyers had, however, come to an opposite decision, stating it to be their opinion that the instrument, in order to be of force, should have been drawn up in accordance with the law of France; and one alarming consequence of the application of the law of France to British subjects, if this opinion were correct, was that a British subject could not leave his property according to his own free will and pleasure, but a person making a will there must suffer a certain proportion of his property to go to certain near relations, who, by the law of France, could not be disinherited. These gentlemen gave the still more alarming opinion, that if the lady had not been permanently domiciled in France, but had merely taken up her residence there temporarily, the rule locus regit actum would prevail, and that her will, though framed in strict accordance with the law of her own country, would still be ineffectual. The question had finally been submitted to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Unhappily—he meant unhappily unless through the interposition of Parliament it should lead to an alteration of the law—a majority of the Privy Council supported the opinion of the three lawyers, and set aside the opinion of the five eminent jurists in France. The Privy Council had given a decision different from that which had been pronounced in Collier v. Rivaz, and had determined that the will must, in accordance with the English law, be held to be invalid. This decision had excited the greatest alarm among English residents abroad, as well as persons in this country. Now, since he had given notice of the Motion which he was about to submit to the House, he had received numerous letters from British subjects resident in Paris and elsewhere, from attorneys practising in various parts of France, and diplomatists of eminence and great experience; and he felt bound to say that neither in those letters nor from the communications which he had held with several members of the legal profession in this country had he been able to ascertain a shadow of a reason why the will of a

  1445
  British subject, executed in compliance with the forms which English law required to be observed in the framing of such instruments, was to be regarded as invalid because the testator happened to reside in Paris or at Rome, or at Constantinople. Among its many mischievous results, it occurred forcibly to his mind that one of the most mischievous was, that in every case in which probate of the will of a British subject domiciled abroad was sought to be obtained, and the validity of the instrument was disputed, it became necessary, besides establishing that the testator was of sound mind and had complied with the necessary formalities, to resort to that most perplexing, expensive, and tedious process of endeavouring to ascertain where the testator had been domiciled at the time when the will had been executed. That was a feature in these cases which had of late years led to a greater amount of litigation than any other with which he was acquainted. And in addition to this, the fact of it being held that a permanent residence created a domicile in a foreign country would necessitate in any case where such residence was shown, an inquiry as to the law of that foreign country in which the will was made in respect to testacies and intestacies. In the case of Lord Hertford, on the other hand, it had been proved that he had resided in France for some time, that he had afterwards gone to Milan, thence to Naples, and subsequently had been said to be domiciled in more than one of the German States. Now, in order to establish the validity of a will made under such circumstances it became necessary to inquire into the law, not of one alone, but of all those several countries; and the House, he thought, could scarcely fail to be of opinion that the existence of such a state of things was productive of enormous evil. It was in order to provide a remedy for that evil that he proposed in the Bill which he was about to ask for leave to introduce to enact that all wills, codicils, and testamentary papers duly executed and attested by a British subject in accordance with the prescribed forms as laid down by the law of England, and duly attested, should be held to be valid in this country, no matter where the testator might have been domiciled at the time at which the instrument happened to have been drawn up. But he begged to be distinctly understood that he did not propose to interfere with the subjects or
  1446
  the law of any foreign country, nor with the jurisdiction of foreign courts over the property of Englishmen in foreign countries. If a will were made by a Portuguese in Portugal or by a Frenchman in France he did not wish to interfere with the testamentary disposition of either of these testators. His Bill did not go to invalidate the wills of the subjects of any country made in their own country. These were the main features of the Bill which he asked permission to lay on the table of the House. In conclusion, he would also observe that the Bill contained proviso which he had introduced into it after considerable doubt, the object of which was that the measure should not affect any wills which now formed the subject of judicial investigation, or which, owing to the decease of the testator, were already in full legal operation. He now felt that inconvenience would arise in the cases of wills made in foreign countries, and which were still to be carried into effect, the testators being dead; but on the whole he had arrived at the conclusion that he could not make the Bill retrospective in such cases, and had therefore inserted the proviso the nature of which he had just stated. Should his Bill pass into a law, it would have the effect of restoring that liberty to British subjects of which they had been deprived by a series of decisions utterly unfounded upon any principle of justice between man and man. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to give validity and effect to the Wills of British subjects abroad.
  MR. MALINSseconded the Motion. The evil which the Bill was designed to correct was one of immense magnitude, and he regretted that in the late case of Bremer v. Freeman—a decision which had taken the profession by surprise—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could not find reasons for coming to an opposite conclusion. That decision, so far from furthering the intention of the testatrix, went to disappoint it. The testatrix had done nothing to shake off her right as a British subject. She had, it was true, for several years resided abroad; but the effect of the decision of the Privy Council was, that while in every other respect that lady must be considered a British subject, in the disposition of her properly she must be regarded as a foreigner. Seeing that many thousands of our countrymen resided on the Continent it was a serious thing

  1447
  that in the disposal of the property or such persons a question such as that now under discussion should arise. The question of domicile which was raised in such cases was one of the most difficult as well as expensive that could come before the courts. A case was now going on in the Court of Chancery in which a gentleman of very large property, of peculiar and eccentric habits, who died four or five years ago, left the bulk of his property, amounting to about £100,000, to found a charity in the town of Southampton. It was supposed at first that the only question for the court was whether the words were sufficient to found a charity, but as it appeared in the progress of the suit he had resided in France for many years, at first at Boulogne and then at Paris, though having all his property here, and coming occasionally to see it, the question was suggested whether, although his will was made according to the English form, he had not acquired a French domicile. A special examiner was appointed to take the evidence on this subject, and to illustrate the difficulty and expense of these inquiries he might state that the examiner had been engaged for fourteen days in England and forty-two in France in taking evidence on the question whether that English gentleman, who had resided in France for a number of years, had not thrown off his English and acquired a French domicile, and the case still stood for decision. He rejoiced that his hon. and learned Friend had brought in a Bill on the subject, and he trusted that every facility would be afforded him by the Government in passing it through Parliament. He was afraid that, after the decisions of the Privy Council declaring some of these wills invalid, it would be going too far to say that the Bill should be retrospective in its operations, yet it might be worthy of consideration whether Parliament could not justly go even to this extent, and he should greatly rejoice to see the measure made retrospective if it could be justly done.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the subject to which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Suffolk had invited attention was one of no common importance, and he trusted that it would not be treated by the House as a legal question, but one of general importance, which every Member of that House was competent to appreciate and form an opinion upon. He did not intend to oppose the introduction of the Bill, coming,
  1448
  as it did, from such high authority, and also because the subject itself was unquestionably one deserving of discussion, but he must entreat the attention of the House to the difficulties of the subject and the qualifications with which his vote in favour of leave to introduce the Bill must be given. They would all agree with him that it was extremely desirable for the jurisprudence of every country to preserve untouched and unimpaired those maxims of law which were common to the jurisprudence of all civilized countries. Nothing could be more important than that there should be a community of thought between the civilized nations of Europe on questions of perpetual recurrence. Not only would there be the greatest inconvenience, but the greatest amount of distress, if the rule in one country were different from that which prevailed in another. The origin of the rule which had been impugned by his hon. and learned Friend was a general maxim that had prevailed in Europe from the earliest time—namely, from the earliest establishment of the principles of Roman Law. That maxim was expressed in the words—mobilia sequuntur personam, which meant that the personal estate of the testator accompanied him wherever he might reside and become domiciled, and thence he acquired the right of disposing of it and dealing with it according to the law of that country. In consequence of that rule of law, if a man died in a foreign country, in which he might be domicile, the distribution of his personal property fell naturally within the jurisdiction of the courts of that country in which he was domiciled at the time of his death. This was a universal rule in all the countries of civilized Europe, and they had conceded to us, and we had conceded to them, that the judges of the country in which the testator was domiciled at the time of his death became the persons to determine the question of testacy or intestacy. They could not withdraw the question of testacy or intestacy from those judges without impairing the force of the maxim to which he had referred, and this he (the Attorney General) thought was a dangerous step to take. If there were a common consent on the part of all the nations of Europe to adopt the rule recommended for England by his hon. and learned Friend, there might be less objection to his proposition; but, while there was a want of that common consent, the making of an exceptional experiment

  1449
  in England was much to be deprecated. He (the Attorney General) was opposed to the introduction into this country of a rule peculiar to itself that would derogate from the universally recognized maxim of jurisprudence handed down to us through a long succession of ages, and which undoubtedy had the great advantage that every nation in Europe knew with certainty the principle that governed this particular case. There was an inconvenience which his hon. and learned Friend's Bill would not in the smallest degree touch he meant the present uncertainty of the law in determining questions of domicile. He agreed that the question of domicile of necessity entered into the application of the rule of jurisprudence to which he had alluded; but the difficulty to which the attention of the Legislature ought to be directed would be the furnishing of a rule by which questions of domicile might be decided, rather than to the making of any attempt to engraft on the jurisprudence of this country an exception to the general maxim above described. Some cases of hardship would always accompany adherence to a general rule; but, on the other hand, would there be no practical inconvenience attending the introduction of exceptional legislation? Assuming that we adopted for ourselves a different rule from that followed by other nations, if a person domiciled in France died possessed of property in the French funds and also in the English funds, the result would be that we should be claiming the right here to give effect to a will operative according to our exceptional law, but of no validity according to the French law; and tenfold the amount of difficulty and inconvenience at present experienced would ensue from the conflict between the institutions of the, two countries. Thus the evil which this measure sought to remedy would only be aggravated by its adoption. He regretted that his hon. and learned Friend who had striven with all his great abilities to enforce his views on the Privy Council but without success, should not have allowed a longer time to elapse before he appealed to that House; because the decision of the Privy Council was in strict conformity with the judgments of all the eminent men on the bench who were qualified to determine the question at issue. It was most inconvenient that a decision, which at the moment naturally appeared to be wrong in the eyes of the advocate against
  1450
  whom it was given, should be brought before Parliament while the excitement to which the subject had given rise still precluded the cool deliberation essential to wise legislation. He was sorry, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to introduce this Bill, contemplating, as it did, the establishment in this country of a rule that would not be common to the rest of Europe. It was most desirable, now that the interchange between different countries was so rapid, easy, and general, that there should be as few conflicts between their respective systems of jurisprudence as possible, and that the judgments of the courts of one nation should be readily accepted by the courts of another; but if they set up a peculiar law of our own in opposition to the law which generally prevailed, they should raise up a great obstacle to the attainment of that object. The Government were not, however, disposed to resist the introduction of the Bill, although, for the reasons he had assigned, they could not promise the hon. and learned Gentleman their co-operation in passing it through its subsequent stages. He should ask hon. Gentlemen to exercise their own opinions on this measure when it came before them, and not accede to it unless they were of opinion that it was required, not merely because inconvenience had been felt in a particular case, but as an improvement on that measure of jurisprudence which England had so long held in common with the other nations of Europe.
  MR. SLANEYasked the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved for leave to bring in the Bill for an explanation as to whether the measure proposed would in any way interfere with the jurisdiction of the legal tribunals of other countries in respect of property in those countries?
  SIR FITZROY KELLYwould ask the permission of the House to reply to the question just put to him, and to make a few observations in answer to some of the statements of his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General). He meant to have stated in introducing the Bill that he did not seek in any way to interfere with the jurisdiction of foreign countries in respect of property situate in those countries. It would not be competent to the British Parliament to legislate for foreign countries, and, therefore, he could not propose to interfere with the jurisdiction appertaining to the tribunals of those,

  1451
  countries. But with reference to the particular question, he conceived, however, that by the law of France, when a British subject, whether he happened to be residing there or not, made a will according to the forms of the law of England, and died possessed of property in France, if the probate of the will were taken to France, every Court in that country would give effect to it. There were instances of this being the case within his own experience, and he believed that by the comity of nations the Courts of every other nation in Europe would pursue a similar course. But if in France, or any other country in Europe where the property of the deceased person was found, whether by reason of the residence of the deceased there, or for any other reason, the law would not recognize and give effect to the probate of a will granted by our own Courts, then the Bill would not interfere with the law of that country. He might say in general that the measure would have no effect, and did not profess to have any effect, upon the law, or the administration of the law, in any foreign country whatever. He joined with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in appealing, not to members of the legal profession alone, but to every intelligent Gentleman who had a voice in either House of Parliament, upon the single, simple, and plain question which was raised by the Bill. It was a question, not of law, but of policy—a question of policy in which every subject of this realm who might by possibility go abroad, reside abroad, or even die abroad, possessed or might possess a deep personal interest. The question was, whether it was expedient, if a British subject residing abroad sought to dispose of his properly, and to provide for the different necessities of his family, by means of a British will made according to the forms of British law, that that will should be valid or void? And when the measure should have been discussed, and fully understood by all the Members of the House, he should be greatly surprised if it met with a single dissentient voice.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that responding to the appeal which the Attorney General had made to the common sense of the House, he would thus early in the debate make this one observation—that, after all, the gist of the matter was, what should define domicile, and did not so much turn on the comity of nations.
  1452
  He agreed with the Attorney General as to that; but surely there was nothing which could so clearly define the animus of domicile as the form in which the testator had made his will! An Englishman goes abroad, and lives there, say twenty years, but left his English will under lock and key in England. Surely there was the strongest proof in this that his animus was to continue a British subject, though he was not domiciled in his fatherland! It seemed to him (Mr. Hope) that on the principle laid down so ingeniously by the Attorney General the House ought to give to the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend that favourable consideration which the Attorney General seemed disinclined to give it, on the plain common-sense principle that the most convincing proof of domicile was formed by that document by which the testator left what belonged to him to his assigns for ever. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would pass the Bill through all its stages, and that ere long it would become the law of the land, and thus save the travel loving subjects of this country from the frightful danger to which they were exposed from the existing uncertainty on this subject.
  MR. BOWYERregretted that the Attorney General had given a merely qualified approbation to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend. The only fault which he (Mr. Bowyer) found with it was, that it did not go far enough; and he trusted that when the Bill was in Committee his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) would make it more complete. There were two principles of international law which governed this subject. One was expressed in the maxim, lex loci regit actum, or that the law of the locality in which the act was performed regulated the legality of the act there performed; the other was, that where an act was done to take effect in and having reference to another place than where it was done, it might be valid if executed according to the law of the place where it was to take effect. Now, this Bill proposed to deal with merely the second of those principles, which was only the exception, while the first was the rule. If a marriage were celebrated in a foreign country according to the forms required in that country, that marriage would be held valid in England and all the world over. Domicile had nothing to do with such a case, and the law with regard to a will ought to be the same as with regard to a

  1453
  contract. A person who had occasion to execute a testamentary paper abroad was in a manner compelled to have recourse to such legal assistance as the country in which he happened to be placed supplied. In the case of Lord Hertford, the Privy Council departed from the law of nations. Lord Hertford had executed a codicil to his will in Milan, in the Milanese form, and the Privy Council held that as his Lordship was an English nobleman, with large estates in this country, he could not be presumed to have abandoned the animus revertendi, and they therefore held that the codicil was invalid, Lord Hertford having retained his English domicile, and having executed the codicil in a foreign form. A will executed abroad, according to the law of the country where it is executed, ought to be valid by the law of England, whatever might be the domicile of the party. If they passed an enactment to that effect, they would put an end to two-thirds or more of the difficult questions of domicile which were constantly arising in our Courts, and the decisions upon which were so unsatisfactory. At the same time it would be very desirable and convenient, as his hon. and learned Friend proposed, that an English subject, when in a foreign country, should have the option of making his will according to the law of his own land. Now, how could this clash with the law of the country in which he resided? The will was not intended to take effect in that country; it would operate only in England, and with regard to English property, and it appeared to him that this would be a provision of great practical utility and convenience, and certainly not contrary to any rule of international law.
  Leave given.
  Bill "to give validity and effect, to the Wills of British Subjects made abroad," ordered to be brought in by Sir FITZROY KELLY and Mr. MALINS.

  LUNATICS (SCOTLAND)—LEAVE.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the laws respecting lunatics in Scotland, in pursuance of the undertaking given by the Government upon the discussion raised the other day by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. E. Ellice). The Report which had been laid upon the table of the House by the Commissioners contained unquestionably a great deal that had struck the public as both new and important, and a great
  1454
  deal which demanded the serious consideration of the Legislature. With respect to that Report, it was only due to the Commissioners who prepared it to say, that it bore the marks of great ability, industry, and research, and he thought those gentlemen had laid the country under a deep obligation for their services. As to the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Ellice), he certainly rejoiced that the subject had been brought before the House with so much ability and in so striking a manner; but there was one part of his hon. Friend's statement which he certainly wished had been omitted. The Report presented by the Commissioners was never intended as, and was not, a Report upon the conduct of officials or of public men. The subject of their inquiry was, as to the state and practice of the law of lunacy in Scotland, and the object of their Report was to amend that law—an object for which he thought their Report was most admirably calculated. To take that Report, however, and make it, as it stood, the groundwork of grave accusations against officials who might be referred to in it, without knowing what explanation or statement these officials might make, was to use it for an object for which it was never intended, and for which it was not adapted; because, while many of the statements contained in it were most valuable as a basis for legislation, if the Commissioners had intended to inquire into the conduct of officials then investigation must have been much more extensive and the examination of parties much wider than they had been. His hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's, however, led away a little probably by a pre-possession which he held very strongly, had made the Report of the Commissioners the groundwork of various remarks with regard to the Board of Supervision. He (the Lord Advocate) made no reply to those observations the other night beyond stating that only one side of the question was then laid before the House; but, having sat upon that Board himself for at least a year, and knowing the way in which it had been administered by the right hon. Gentleman who presided over it, he felt confident that the remarks of his hon. Friend would hardly be justified to their full extent by the facts; and he had now received a statement from Sir John M'Neill with regard to these matters, the substance of which he felt bound to submit to the House. One would have imagined from the statement of his hon. Friend the other

  1455
  evening that, while pauper lunatics in Scotland were grossly neglected, the Board of Supervision had represented the law as sufficient, and their administration of it as satisfactory. The very reverse was the case, for in the year 1846, in their very first Report, the Board stated that the accommodation in the asylums was not equal to that required for one-tenth of the number of pauper lunatics, and that they found a state of things existing in which it was utterly impossible to carry out the law, because there was no accommodation for the reception of the lunatics. That was the statement contained in the very first Report of the Board, and in consequence of it Lord Rutherfurd, the then Lord Advocate, moved in 1847 for Returns showing the number of pauper lunatics in Scotland and the accommodation provided for them; and, founded upon those Returns, the learned Lord introduced a Bill for remedying the law of lunacy in 1848. It was important, also, to call attention to the fact, that in the same year Sir J. M'Neill was examined before the Select Committee on Miscellaneous Expenditure, and in his evidence upon that occasion he went fully into the whole question of the treatment of pauper lunatics, and he stated in the strongest manner that until sufficient accommodation was provided it would be impossible to carry out the law as it stood, and still more to treat lunatics as they ought to be treated. He would not trouble the House by going through the whole of that evidence, but he might safely say that there was scarcely one of the recommendations made by the Commissioners in their recent Report which was not to be found in the evidence of Sir J. M'Neill in 1848. Lord Rutherfurd's Bill being lost in 1848, the learned Lord re-introduced it in 1849, but was obliged to withdraw it; and from that time to this he was not aware that the subject had ever been noticed in that House, not even by his hon. Friend, although the Board of Supervision in their Reports still continued to call the attention of the Legislature to the imperfect state of the law and of the accommodation provided for pauper lunatics. It was stated the other evening, that the Reports which were made by the inspectors and medical officers were not true or correct; but Sir J. M'Neill said that they were thoroughly and completely true; and he (the Lord Advocate) might observe that it seemed to have been forgotten, that the only lunatics over whom the Board of Supervision had any regular authority were
  1456
  those who, under the dispensing power of the Act, were not sent to the asylums, and that the lunatic wards of the poor-houses were not under the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervision, but were under the Sheriffs. With respect to these last, he had the authority of Sir J. M'Neill for stating that special half-yearly Reports were sent in to the Board, giving full particulars with regard to every lunatic under their charge, in addition to an annual return from the medical officer, giving a particular report of the state of every lunatic under his charge. With respect to the details of the cases mentioned by the Commissioners he (the Lord Advocate) had nothing to say. He was quite ready to accept them as perfectly well founded for all the purposes of legislation, and he had no doubt they were; but on the other hand, every one who read the Reports must see that they were altogether imperfect as regarded any blame to be attached to the officials, because no details and no names were supplied. Sir J. M'Neil, however, had applied to the Commissioners for the names in the different cases, in order that they might be investigated, He (the Lord Advocate) had also directed the attention of the Sheriffs to the observations made in the Report, and from those gentlemen he had received a great variety of replies. Many of them were very short, because they simply stated that there were no lunatic asylums, no private licensed houses, and no provision whatever for the reception of lunatics in their respective counties. In respect to other counties various explanations were made as to the matters contained in the Report. Sir Archibald Alison stated in his reply that he had ordered two inspections every year in Glasgow, but that he had been obliged to discontinue one of them because the Commissioners of Supply would not pay the cost of both inspections. It must not be supposed that he had said one word to disparage that most valuable document, the Report of the Commissioners, for he believed it to be fuller, more detailed, and to afford more information with regard to the state of lunatics in Scotland than had been produced with relation to any other part of the kingdom. Now, one word as to the state of matters when the Commission was appointed. It was well known that Lord Rutherfurd's Bill had been withdrawn in consequence of the strong opposition which it had met with in Scotland, and, whatever the ground on which it was based,

  1457
  he must say that he never recollected a more determined or general opposition to any measure. When, in 1853, he (the Lord Advocate) was appointed to the office, which he now had the honour to hold, he was not hopeful of being able to accomplish that which Lord Rutherford had so completely failed to do, but he resolved to wait and to seize the first opportunity of doing that which each day's experience told him was more than ever urgently required. In the meantime Miss Dix, whose name no one could mention in connexion with this subject without the most sincere admiration, went to Edinburgh, and wishing to visit the asylum at Musselburgh, requested him to interfere and obtain access for her, as she was desirous to visit them unaccompanied by the Sheriffs, and at a time when she was not expected. Her usual sagacity did not fail her in making that request. In consequence of that application, and not exactly seeing how he could authorize her visits under those circumstances, he addressed a letter upon the subject to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He received in answer a statement that it was proposed to appoint a Commission; and on the 1st of March, two days afterwards, he wrote stating that he should rejoice to see the Commission appointed for the reasons mentioned in his last; that it was very desirable that the smaller asylums should be suppressed, but that the way of effecting the suppression required consideration, and that inquiry was necessary respecting the outrages committed upon lunatics at large. He had referred to the two previous letters for the purpose of showing that he was now, on the Report of the Commission, to which he had looked for aid in legislating, only carrying out the plan sketched by his predecessor about ten years ago. He assumed that hon. Gentlemen were acquainted with the details of the Report which had been laid before the House, and he thought he need not advert to the former law, which was entirely and thoroughly imperfect. The safeguards were simply these:—The Sheriffs of the counties, the Justices, and some other parties had the power and duty of inspection once or twice a year; certain registers were, ordered to be kept and certain regulations made. But there was no uniformity; every Sheriff might interpret the Act as he pleased, and there was no obligation to erect asylums for the maintenance of lunatics. The duty was thrown
  1458
  on the Procurator Fiscal of seeing the Act executed, but no power was given him to ascertain whether it was executed or not, and there was no power of visitation. He need not say that those safeguards entirely failed, and the remedy he now proposed was that there should be appointed a Commissioner, an Inspector General, who should be a medical man, a secretary, and a clerk; and that these should constitute the Lunacy Board for Scotland, though not under that name. It was not proposed to make the Commissioner a member of the Lunacy Board for England to the full extent in which an English Lunacy Commissioner was a member; but it was proposed to make him a corresponding member with the power of sitting at the Board, of communicating with the Board, and of writing the part of the Scottish Board to the English Board for the purpose of making inquiries. It was also proposed generally to give the right of appeal, in case the combined counties differed from the Commissioner on certain points, to the Lunacy Commission in England. He had communicated to that Commission not all the details of the plan, but a general sketch of it, and he believed that that Commission concurred in it. These persons—the Commissioner, the Inspector General, the secretary, and clerk—being appointed, the Commissioner would have, in the first place, the power of granting and refusing licences for Lunatic Asylums, and the provisions would be as stringent as possible consistently with the public benefit. It was quite clear that the granting of these licences had hitherto depended on the view which the Sheriff for the time being might take of their duty. The Sheriff of Mid-Lothian had stated that it was not the case that licences had been granted as a matter of course, but it was obvious that the Inspector of Lunatics should, before licences were granted, have the power of inquiring into the nature of the building and the character of the person keeping it. The Commissioner would have the power of renewing and transferring those licences, and of revoking them, and also of making rules for the management of the asylums, and of inquiring into the conduct of the officers. These matters would be reported to, and subject to the control of the Home Secretary. The Commissioner would have a quasi-judicial power of inquiring into cases under the Act, of summoning witnesses, and generally superintending the district asylums. The Inspector General

  1459
  would be bound to visit the asylums at least twice a year, and to discharge other duties, the details of which would be set forth in the Bill, besides having the control of the medical department. The Sheriffs and the Justices would retain the powers conferred on them by the present Act of Parliament. The general expenses under the Act would be substantially provided for in this way:—The staff of Commissioner, Inspector General, secretary, and clerk, and the office expenses, would be defrayed by Parliament. The expenses of building and repairing lunatic asylums would be arranged in the following manner:—Scotland would be divided into eight districts, under the title of the Edinburgh, Inverness, Aberdeen (which would include Shetland), Perth, Dumfries. Glasgow (embracing the county of Lanark alone), Renfrew, and Stirling districts. In those eight districts the district lunatic asylums would be erected in the first instance by an assessment laid on for the purpose, and the district Boards would be formed by the prison Board within each county electing from itself the members of the District Lunacy Board. The Commissioner, however, would fix the number of the members of which each district Board should consist; the number of members to be elected by each county in that district being regulated by the amount of rate. The district Boards being thus formed, the Commissioner would inquire into the necessity of an asylum, and, if he thought an asylum required to be erected or repaired, he would communicate the matter to the district Board, which Board would have the power of assessing the district. Thus far, as to the erection of the building. With regard to their maintenance, it was believed that they would be self-supporting as far as the counties were concerned. The fees from private persons and the payments by parishes would, to a great extent, relieve the counties from the burden; and where funds were left for the maintenance of lunatics, there would be power to apply these to the purpose of each district asylum, so that to that extent the assessment would be diminished. Where there existed such institutions as those at Montrose and Aberdeen, a power would be given either for the Board to purchase them entirely, or to make an agreement with them for the reception and care of pauper lunatics. There were other provisions of a miscellaneous character. It was proposed that punishment should be
  1460
  enacted for the maltreatment of lunatics. The power possessed by the Board of Supervision to dispense with sending lunatics to asylums would be repealed, because the only necessity for that power arose from the circumstance that there was no proper accommodation in the asylums for them. He did not know that there was anything more he need trouble the House with. Much had been said of the abuses which had taken place in Scotland, but it should be remembered that it was not long ago since scenes such as were described in the Report of the Commissioners might have been witnessed in many parts of England. He trusted that he should be enabled to carry into effect a measure required by the necessities of the country to which it applied, and which would give to an unfortunate class of individuals that relief which was dictated by humanity.
  MR. BAILLIEsaid, a statement had been made on a former occasion, when he was not present, and repeated that night by the learned Lord, that the Bill of 1848, as introduced by Lord Advocate Rutherfurd, was withdrawn in consequence of the almost unanimous opposition which it had met with in that House. [The LORD ADVOCATE: In Scotland.] That statement, as far as the north of Scotland was concerned, was incorrect: on the contrary, that part of the kingdom was unanimously in favour of the measure. Long before Lord Advocate Rutherfurd introduced his Bill, in the year 1847, the gentlemen of the north of Scotland were so deeply impressed with the necessity for establishing a great public lunatic asylum, or asylums, that after repeated abortive applications to Government on the subject, they took the matter into their own hands, and collected a large subscription for the purpose—some of the great proprietors putting down their names for £500, and all of them contributing according to their means. Steps were then taken to secure a site for the building, whereupon Lord Advocate Rutherfurd gave notice of his Bill, and the immediate result was, very naturally, the withdrawal of the subscriptions, as the Bill had the same object in view as the subscribers. The northern proprietors looked anxiously for the passing of the Bill, and their surprize was great when they learned that it was withdrawn. He (Mr. Baillie) had received several remonstrances on the subject from his constituents at the time, and he had waited upon

  1461
  Lord Advocate Rutherford in relation to the subject; but he was assured that the Bill had only been withdrawn for a season, and that it would again be introduced. The north country gentlemen, therefore, were not liable to the charge of opposition to the Bill. But, even if they were—even if the whole of Scotland were opposed to it, that would be no justification of the Government for neglecting their duty, as the question involved was not local but general, casting, as the acts which were complained of did, discredit upon the whole empire. If the Government felt convinced that such a measure was necessary, it was their duty to force it through the House, whatever opposition they might have met with. The present Bill appeared to him to be, in most respects, the same as the Bill which had been introduced by Lord Advocate Rutherfurd. To that Bill he believed that some opposition had been made by Members from the southern counties of Scotland, because they had built asylums of their own; but he was sure that the general principle upon which the present Bill was founded would not meet with any opposition in Scotland.
  MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrew's)said, he was glad to see that the Government had taken up the question, and he would not have trespassed upon the attention of the House had not the learned Lord Advocate referred to certain animadversions which he (Mr. E. Ellice) had made upon a previous occasion upon the Board of Supervision. The Lord Advocate had stated that the object of the Report of the Commissioners was not to accuse individuals. Now, in his opinion, if any lawyer had to draw an indictment against the Board of Supervision, he could not wish, a more forcible document than the Report of the Commissioners, The whole of that Report was, in fact, a narrative of the law set at defiance, and of facts suppressed by the authorities to which the execution of that law was entrusted. He (Mr. Ellice), therefore, adhered to the remarks he had made on a former night; he reasserted the accusations he then made, and he repeated that if the question was put to a jury, they would come to no other decision than that gross culpability existed on the part of the authorities, and he only regretted that the Government had not had the courage to say, in introducing the Bill, that the Board of Supervision had neglected their duty and had deserved the condemnation of the
  1462
  House. He asked any one to read the statements in the Reports of the Board of Supervision to which he had called the attention of the House, and he would admit that the real facts of the case relating to the treatment of pauper lunatics in Scotland had been suppressed by the Board of Supervision, and that those statements were perfectly irreconcilable with the facts which had been set forth in the Report of the Commissioners, With regard to the out-of-door paupers, what was the language of the Reports? They say—
  "In all the cases in which we have dispensed with removal to an asylum we have provided against abuse, by taking care that there shall be medical attendance, and due attention to the wants and comforts of the patient."
  That was their language in Report after Report. What greater assurance could the House or the country have, that these lunatics were properly taken care of. But how was this statement to be reconciled with the Report of the Commissioners, which showed that uniformly the pauper lunatics in Scotland had been treated in the most disgraceful manner? What became of the case of the lunatic who was chained by a short chain, two yards long, for thirty years, and fed like a dog? It was impossible, therefore, to say that the Board of Supervision had not suppressed the facts in their Reports. He might have overstated the power of the law in such cases when he addressed the House on a former occasion, but he would still say that the law was humane, and provided that these poor lunatics should be cared for by the parish. At all events, it gave the Board the most ample power of supervision and inspection with reference to lunatic paupers of all descriptions, and that it had not been carried out as it ought to have been was, he maintained, owing to the laxity by which the proceedings of the Board of Supervision had been characterized. With respect to the custody of lunatic paupers in poor-houses, he had that morning read a document to be found in the appendix of the Report, containing the evidence of Mr. Walker the Secretary to that Board, which he must say was one of a most extraordinary nature, inasmuch as any one would be led, if he attached implicit credit to it, to imagine that no grievance whatsoever existed in connexion with the management of those lunatics. The Secretary to the Board of Supervision stated, that the pauper lunatics were well cared for, and that he did not think the Board would sanction their transfer, even

  1463
  in a single instance, from one place to another, merely for the sake of saving a few pounds. He (Mr. Ellice), however, should like to know how that statement was to be reconciled with the fact of lunatic paupers having been removed, for the sake of saving a few pounds, from the Murray Asylum in Perth to a licensed house in East Lothian, where they had very soon died off? The secretary went on to add, that those lunatics who were admitted to the poor-houses were either harmless, imbecile persons, or persons in whose case there was no chance of a cure being effected, and that they were not received into the poor-houses without a warrant from the Sheriffs. But did that evidence tally with the account which had been given by the Commissioners? Why, he held in his hand a list, from which he found that in almost every one of the poor-houses lunatics were confined without any legal warrant whatsoever. Such was the case, for instance, in the poor-house at Dunfermline. Again, in the poor-house at Dumfries there were no less than eight insane persons who had been turned loose among the rest of the inmates without the authority of a warrant, or even of a medical certificate. At Dalkeith two male and ten female paupers, who were insane, were confined, and no separate accommodation had been provided for their use. The charity workhouse of St. Cuthbert contained eighteen male and thirty-nine female insane paupers, who had been admitted into the establishment without any legal warrant, and yet all those places were in the immediate vicinity of the authorities, St. Cuthberts being only half a mile from the room where the Board assembles, and ought, one would suppose, to be under their direct and particular control. Here was a house in which insane paupers were confined indiscriminately with the sane in defiance of the law, and yet the Board of Supervision asserted that their supervision was perfect, and that these paupers were all visited by medical officers. Mr. Walker was a gentleman of high character, yet his statements were controverted and shown to be directly opposed to the fact. In a poor-house only a few hundred yards from his own door, either the members of the Board were sitting still and did not know what was going on, or they wilfully concealed the facts. The Lord Advocate might pass as many laws as he pleased to remedy the present state of things, but he warned him they would be of no avail unless the Executive took care
  1464
  that they were put in execution by the authorities. He had before him a return of the outdoor paupers who were directly under the Board of Supervision, because it was by their means they were allowed the exemption of not residing in the poor-house. It was thought he had some monomania on the subject of the poor law in Scotland; but his conviction was, that the allegations he had brought under the notice of the House were true, and, that if the law were put in force in the spirit in which it was agreed to by the Legislature, it would be sufficient. But his conviction was, that the law was not so put in force, and that the poor were in a different state from what the Legislature contemplated. He had moved for a return of the number of inspections made locally into the condition of the poor in the parishes of Scotland, and he found that, in most of the cases where the greatest grievances existed, the Board of Supervision took credit for visiting those parishes. In one parish in Argyllshire, which was visited by an inspector of the Board of Supervision, no remark was made; but he found that in this parish there were three cases reported on by the Commissioners, in two of which, women of thirty-two and thirty-four years of age respectively, who had been mad from birth, had each had an illegitimate child; and, in the third, a woman of forty-four, who had been fourteen years mad, was reported to be not properly clothed, and not taken care of. If such things could take place without remark, in parishes which had been visited by the Board of Supervision, their inspection was worse than useless—it was mischievous, because it led the public to believe that the lunatic paupers were taken care of, when they were neglected, ill-clad, and ill-fed. In another parish, seven cases of lunacy were reported by the Commissioners, the parties being great objects and very ill attended to. Sir J. M'Neill had himself visited that parish, and if the head of the Board of Supervision overlooked such cases, what security could there be that the poor law was put into proper execution in Scotland? In a Report made two or three years ago, Sir J. M'Neill stated that the whole system of the poor law in Scotland was a recognition of the right to relief, that the poor had a right to take statutory proceedings when they were aggrieved, and that they had facilities for claiming relief which were not known in England or any other countries. This was accepting, on the part of

  1465
  the Board of Supervision, a responsibility which they now had to answer for. He could only say, that if the poor of Scotland had such a protection, they had been most cruelly defrauded of it. He was sorry the Lord Advocate had attempted to defend a state of things that was indefensible. At present the administration of the poor law in Scotland was a mockery and a delusion. As to the Bill introduced that evening by the Lord Advocate, he wished for the present to reserve his Opinion as to its provisions. He certainly was of opinion, that a Board in Edinburgh was most objectionable, seeing what they had got from having a local poor law Board there. His own opinion, and he believed it was shared in by the majority of Scotchmen was, that the Lunacy Board of England, which did its work most admirably, ought to have its power extended to Scotland in the same way as to Wales, with, of course, the assistance of additional machinery. At the same time he was not in the least for relieving the local Boards of their responsibility. There was one point to which the learned Lord Advocate had not alluded, and upon which he hoped he would yet insist—namely, that the whole of those horrid receptacles of filth and oppression, the licensed houses, should be closed against the reception of pauper lunatics. The present horrible system could not be effectually uprooted unless they suppressed those abominations, and placed the whole of their patients in establishments under the direct control of the Board. With regard to the provision requiring the removal of pauper lunatics from their friends, he doubted whether that was a humane regulation in all instances. In many cases of idiotey, for example, where the patient was perfectly harmless, he might very well be left to the custody of his friends—proper care being taken, of course, that he should not be neglected. If the Lord Advocate succeeded in passing this Bill—and certainly the public demanded the introduction of a measure on this subject—he ought to take care that its provisions were put into strict execution.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that he had heard with regret the speech of the learned Lord. Its tone resembled the remark of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, who, in allusion to former Motions, of his own on this subject, said "that something occurred, and so the thing went on." Unless the English Members took the trouble to make themselves masters of
  1466
  the details of this Report, and insisted on justice being done to the pauper lunatics of Scotland, there was great danger that the provisions of this Bill never would be enforced, and matters would continue pretty much as they now stood. He (Mr. Drummond) had previously stated that there were ten cases mentioned in the blue-book of direct breaches of the law, which it came within the Lord Advocate's province to punish or correct; but the learned Lord hinted that this was an exaggeration. He had since taken the pains to read over again, not only the Report, but also the Appendix, and he found no fewer than fifteen cases of direct and wilful breaches of the law. He called attention to the Appendix, because, although it was said that these charges were not proved, there was not a single allegation in the Report which the evidence in the Appendix did not support. He had further said, on a former occasion, that the Board of Supervision were chiefly responsible, and that assertion he now repeated. The law directed that the parochial Boards should lodge pauper lunatics in suitable asylums; and when the inspectors reported to the Board of Supervision, the latter body were empowered to act where the local authorities refused to do their duty. The blue-book showed that the sole aim—especially in the houses where the patients were principally paupers—had evidently been to accommodate the greatest possible number at the smallest possible expense. The saving of money to the rate-payers, not the benefit of the poor, was the object sought; and that, among other reasons, made him distrust a separate Board for Scotland. True economy was, no doubt, a very right thing; but what was called economy in Scotland was a prolific source of insanity. He charged the Board of Supervision with being the creators of insanity, and the evidence before the House abundantly established that charge. Pauperism and under-feeding acted powerfully in producing certain kinds of insanity, and many instances might be cited in which the dietary of the poor, especially in the Highland districts, was miserably deficient. The patients in the Lily-bank Asylum, in the Lothians, were under-fed and badly clothed. There were numerous passages to the same effect scattered through the Report. He would quote another:—
  "It never should be forgotten that imperfect nutrition is one of the most frequent causes of insanity among the poor."

  1467
  Now, the dietary of the poor was exclusively under the direction of the Board of Supervision, and as that Board did give insufficient food, they were manifestly more to blame in this matter than any other person in Scotland. But the learned Lord said "True, the treatment of these poor creatures has been atrocious—nothing could be more dreadful; but then, there are doubts as to the construction of the Act, find everybody has done what was right according to the best of his judgment." Whatever their other differences, they were all united on two things—namely, in refusing to obey the law, and in starving the poor. It was all very well to talk of the success of the Lunacy Board in England. He had been in frequent communication with the Lunacy Commissioners in England, and they had informed him that many cases of improper treatment of lunatics existed which they could not correct, because they had no means of obtaining the necessary evidence. That that was a growing evil was apparent from the many advertisements they saw in the newspapers, in which persons offered to receive old gentlemen and ladies of weak minds. Many of these private establishments were unknown to the Lunacy Commissioners, or to the public. A principle totally opposite to that which had hitherto been practised must be introduced, if they wished to see the state of the Scotch lunatics remedied. It was the poor, and not the money of the rate-payers, that ought to receive the first attention. If the Board of Supervision, for the last twenty years, had allowed so many cruelties to be perpetrated, he feared that the present Bill would not be found so efficient as they expected. He owned he had little or no faith in whatever machinery they adopted; for, had there been any wish in the magistrates of Scotland to see the law enforced, the existing law was quite able to protect the poor, and none of these things need have happened.
  MR. COWANexpressed his thanks to the learned Lord Advocate for his prompt endeavour to remedy a state of things disgraceful to Scotland, and to the empire. At the same time, he must warn him to avoid the mistake of Lord Rutherfurd, and not attempt to confiscate all the existing private institutions, and appropriate them to the service of the State. He referred to those asylums where insane persons of a higher class of society were provided for, and which he believed were conducted in a
  1468
  most unexceptionable manner. This, unfortunately, had been done by his predecessor, and he had thereby raised up an opposition which was fatal to the Bill of 1848. He hoped that, under the Bill, some receptacle would be provided for the criminal lunatics, so as to keep them detached from the others.
  COLONEL CLIFFORDfelt grateful to the Government for the measure, and could assure them that the Lunacy Commissioners of England would use every endeavour to promote its successful working.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in reply to the observation, that he had not answered the cases of oppression mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's, said, that it was impossible to do so, because they were anonymous. The Commissioners had applied for the names for the purpose of investigation, but they were not given. If the inspectors and medical officers appointed by the Board of Supervision to report upon the state of these asylums had failed in the discharge of their duty and misled their employers, surely the whole of the blame of the present condition of Scotch lunatics ought not to be imputed to the Board. From year to year the Board had complained that the law was ineffectual, and it was therefore disgraceful to the Legislature, and not to the Board, that these lunatics were shamefully treated. Parliament was to blame for placing in the hands of the Lunacy Board a machinery which they were unable to work. They were required to see that the pauper lunatics were properly taken care of, and yet there was not accommodation for them provided. Bad as was the state of the lunatics in Scotland, it was a great deal worse when the Board of Supervision began its labours.
  Leave given.
  Bill "to alter and amend the Laws respecting Lunatics in Scotland," ordered to be brought in by the LORD ADVOCATE and Sir GEORGE GREY.

HIGHWAYS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. MASSEY MR. MASSEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the management of Highways in England and Wales. He said, that under the existing law that portion of the highway which was not regulated by special Acts of Parliament, was governed by the Highway Act of 1835, which was based on a

  1469
  system of parochial management, but which had resulted in the whole management of the highways being practically vested in the parish surveyor. This was an officer elected on a low pecuniary qualification, and at hap-hazard, and when he said that he was an unpaid officer, he need hardly add that he was an incompetent officer. This parish surveyor had not only to manage the highways, he had other duties to perform; besides calling vestries together, removing nuisances, and assessing the parish to the rate, he had to levy the rate, and to discharge other duties connected with the highways, which would occupy the time of competent and skilful men. The result of the system was to cause almost universal dissatisfaction, and create a desire to get rid of a system of management which was no management at all. The object of the Bill he was about to propose was directed only to the management part of the Act of 1835, with a view of doing away with the system, and substituting another for it. He should have said that the audit of the parish surveyor's accounts was a mere nothing. He had only to verify his accounts on oath, and there was no means of checking them—no power to make him produce his vouchers or to disallow or reduce any of his charges—in short, there was no power anywhere to see that he did his duty. He had the sole management of everything relating to highways, and was responsible to no one. The result was, that under the present system the roads had fallen out of repair—there had been a great deal of jobbery—and a large fund, amounting to nearly a million—which ought to have been employed in those repairs—had been misappropriated. It would be perfectly idle to propose any amendment of the present law, which was not based on a solid foundation, and accordingly he proposed to introduce a different system. In the first place, he proposed to relieve the parish surveyor entirely of the duties now imposed on him, and to substitute, with some alterations, a system which had been for some time in operation in South Wales. That system was rather complicated, but might easily be simplified. The highways were under the direction of County Boards and District Boards, the latter of which did all the work. He did not propose to retain the County Boards, but to constitute District Boards, and to apportion the county into districts for the purpose of highways. He meant to go on the principle of dealing
  1470
  with the system of highways generally, without making any distinction with regard to turnpike roads. Then came a question as to the area over which those Boards should have the superintendence. On the one hand, they ought to avoid the narrow area that now existed, and which did not give sufficient scope for management; and, on the other, it was desirable not to spread the area over so wide a surface that the benefits of good management would be lost. He had, therefore, endeavoured to attain as favourable a medium as possible. The hon. Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe), who held the same office under Lord Derby's Government that he (Mr. Massey) now did, left in his office a Bill on this subject, and, aware of the great knowledge which that hon. Gentleman possessed regarding it, he had endeavoured, as much as possible, to make the present Bill correspond with that of the hon. Gentleman. The opinion of the hon. Member for Petersfield was that the best mode of laying out the districts was not to follow the divisions of the Boards of Guardians but those of the petty sessions. This view he had adopted in the Bill. With regard to the constitution of the District Boards, he was desirous of having them composed of men acquainted with the local wants of the districts, and, therefore, he proposed that the resident magistrates of petty sessional divisions, and the incumbents of parishes should be ex officio members of the Boards. In order that the ratepayers should be represented, he proposed that every parish should elect a way-warden, whose qualification would be superior to the present parish surveyor, namely, that of a poor-law guardian. This, he believed, would give a Board composed of persons who took an interest in the district, and who would give their attention to the administration of the law. He next proposed that a surveyor with competent practical knowledge should be appointed by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and that he, under the control, direction, and superintendence of the District Board, should have practically the maintenance of the highways. Then, in order that the ratepayers should be satisfied that the funds were properly managed, provision was made for an annual audit of the accounts of the district, which would be examined and passed by the Boards. On the next point there might perhaps be some difference of opinion, because he proposed to make a material innovation in the present law. At present each parish

  1471
  assessed its own expenditure for roads, but he thought it would be more reasonable if the fund were a district than a local one, and, therefore, it was proposed that there should be a district rating. This part of the Bill applied to the rural districts only, but as a practice had lately grown up—a very salutary practice—of recognizing the efficiency and competency of corporate bodies to deal with matters of local interest, and, therefore, as regarded highways within municipal boundaries he proposed that the duty of superintending and managing them should devolve upon the town councils. He had carefully considered all the objections which had been urged to former schemes, had endeavoured to avoid them, and in this Bill had aimed at following what appeared to be the sense of Parliament and the exigencies of the case.
  MR. WATKINasked whether it was the intention of the hon. Gentleman to interfere with the management of those roads at present under the control of metropolitan trusts. [Mr. MASSEY: They will be excepted.] He would remind the hon. Gentleman that there were no less than 117 tollbars within six miles of the Post Office, and that £58,000 was thus collected in 10,000,000 separate sums. This was naturally felt to be a great grievance. The Legislature had been applied to to remedy a similar state of things in Dublin; and it was felt in London that the subject was one requiring the attention of the Government. He would press upon the hon. Gentleman the propriety of adding another service to those he was about to render, and to include the abolition of the tollbar nuisance in London in the Bill which he was now introducing.
  MR. ADAMSconcurred in thinking that almost any change made in the management of the highways must be for the better. There was no doubt that the present law required amendment, for the highway rate was now made subject to all sorts of irregular charges. The hon. Gentleman, however, would, he hoped, avoid one great error which had induced the failure of other propositions; he ought to make the Board really an elective one and not swamp it by the addition of too many nominated and ex officio members. The area of petty sessions adopted would in many instances be far too wide a one, and he would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should extend his inquiries into the management of highways under the Board of
  1472
  Health, when he would probably find quite as great a necessity for making alterations there as in the parochial districts. With regard to the great majority of corporate towns, the management of the highways was neither in the hands of the parochial nor of the corporate officers, but was vested in local commissioners appointed under the authority of local Acts of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman would probably find here also that there was as much misconduct among these commissioners as among parochial officers, and it would be worth considering whether it would not be necessary to interfere with such local Acts, and to take the management away from these commissioners.
  MR. SLANEYwished to thank the hon. Gentleman for having introduced the measure, and to express his sense of the defects of the present system, which he said was utterly powerless to secure the good management of the high roads. He hoped provision would be made for enforcing the construction of foothpaths by the side of the high roads, so that the poorer as well as the richer classes might be accommodated, and that it might be possible to remove the tollbars in London still further from the town.
  Leave given.
  Bill "to amend the Laws relating to the management of Highways in England and Wales," ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

  CHARITABLE USES BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    MR. ATHERTONasked for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the conveyance of land for charitable uses. The Bill he proposed was, with some alterations, and, as he believed, improvements, the same as those to which the House had agreed in 1855 and in 1856, but which had not received the assent of the other House. The importance of the measure and its peculiarity induced him to lay before the House a statement of the evils proposed to be remedied by this measure, and the nature of the remedies suggested. The title of the Bill showed that it was to be confined to lands given to charitable, including religious, uses. In ancient times perpetuity was attained by making over lands from a lay proprietor to a corporation, which had the effect of making land inalienable so long as the corporation remained

    1473
    in existence. In the hands of these corporations lands might be literally considered to be in mortmain, and it was against them that the statutes called the mortmain acts were levelled. Then followed the device of uses and trusts, by means of which lands were given to trustees for charitable or religious uses, the Court of Chancery enforced them, and perpetuity was attained by transfer of the land from one set of trustees to another in succession. Still there was no literal infringement of the mortmain laws. So matters continued until the passing of the existing Mortmain Act, the 9th Geo. II., c. 36. That statute had continued to the present time to be practically the mortmain law of the country. The main and primary object of that Act was to prevent those deathbed bequests of land to charitable and religious uses which were found to prevail at the time, and it provided in effect that no land should be dedicated to charitable uses except by deed. That part of the law he (Mr. Atherton) proposed to leave as it stood. The Act of George II, then proceeded to make certain provisions and to impose certain restrictions with reference to the dedication of land to those purposes by deed; but there was a difference between the case of a bonâ fide sale for a valuable consideration and the case of a voluntary gift, and the reasons which rendered restrictions necessary in one case did not universally apply to the other. In this view he was supported by the Report of a Select Committee which sat in 1852, and which recommended that all restrictions, except enrolment, should be abolished in the case of bonâ fide sales; and that a measure should be introduced to remedy any defects in the titles of lands already devoted to charitable uses where there was no question as to bonâ fide sales having taken place. In the present Bill he proposed to make a distinction between deeds relating to land conveyed for a valuable consideration already executed, and deeds hereafter to be executed. With respect to any past deed he proposed to dispense with the provision that it should have been executed in the presence of two witnesses—the provision which required that it should have been enrolled within six months after its execution—and with the provision that the deed should be without reservation, trust, or agreement, for the benefit of the grantor or person claiming under him. But he proposed to make it a condition
    1474
    that deeds already executed should have been, or should hereafter be, enrolled within twelve months after the Act coming into operation. It was of great importance that there should be some means of ascertaining how much land had been withdrawn from circulation, if the term might be used, and dedicated to charitable purposes, and also the object and nature of the trusts created. In the case of future deeds of that kind he dispensed with all the requirements of the old statute, except enrolment. With respect to the conveyance of lands not for a valuable consideration the requirements were much the same as those provided by the Act of George II., including the provision that the deed must be executed twelve months prior to the death of the grantor. But under the existing Act, the grantor or conveyor was prohibited from making any reservation for his own benefit. Suppose that in a mining district a site was wanted for a chapel, school, or church, it was not competent for the person granting the surface for a charitable purpose to reserve the minerals for himself, nor even a right of way. Stipulations also as to the formation of streets, or particular classes of buildings, drainage, and the like, were prohibited. It was his object to remove these restrictions in specific instances where he thought they produced inconvenience. Again, it had been the practice in many cases where persons were not disposed to make public the object of the charity to execute a deed conveying the property, and another declaring the trust. The deed enrolled was the conveying one, but he proposed that where deeds of that kind existed, the deed declaring the trust should be enrolled, and he proposed an analogous provision with respect to deeds already executed. Although it might seem easy to a lawyer to talk about Lord Hard-wicke's Act, it was found that, in fact, the titles to many charity properties were in a very unsettled state, through the non-compliance with the provisions of that statute. Those titles it was desirable to clear, and the clearance was therefore one of the objects of his Bill. Such were the main points of the Bill which he now asked the leave of the House to bring in. He believed it had been put in a shape to carry out creditably his intentions, and he had less hesitation in saying so, as he had had the advantage of some suggestions from the Attorney General, and also of two gentlemen

    1475
    connected with the Statute Law Commission.
    Leave given.
    Bill "to amend the Law relating to the conveyance of Lands for Charitable Uses," ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATHERTON, Mr. MALINS, and Mr. HADFIELD.
    Bill presented, and read 1°.

  NETLEY HOSPITAL.

    RETURNS MOVED FOR.
    SIR DENHAM NORREYS SIR DENHAM NORREYS rose to move for an Address to the Crown for returns respecting Netley Hospital, showing by whom the site was selected, whether any reports were made on its salubrity and general eligibility for its purpose previous to selection, and by whom. By whom the original plans were prepared, whether they were submitted to any medical authority for approval, by whom they were officially sanctioned, and whether any report was made upon them, and by whom, previous to their being sanctioned; statement of the alterations of, or additions to the original plans which have been detertermined on, by whom they were recommended, to whom they were referred for approval; and Copy of Correspondence, or Reports relating thereto, which have led to the adoption of the amended plan. He said that as he understood the Motion would not be opposed, it would be unnecessary for him to make any formal statement on a subject respecting which he personally knew nothing. He based his Motion on the assertion of an hon. Member a few nights ago, that the site of Netley Hospital was improperly chosen, being most insalubrious; that no reference had been made to the proper medical authorities; and that the plans had been so badly drawn up that the estimate of £150,000 originally laid before the House had been increased by £110,000. His object in making the present Motion was to give the Government an opportunity of removing that which was a most disgraceful imputation on the official departments of this country. He was informed that as far as the salubrity of the site was concerned the Government made every effort to be satisfied on the point. As to the plans there could be but one opinion, that whenever plans were laid before the House they ought to be carefully drawn up in order to avoid additions being made to the estimate.
    1476
    The Estimates for the public offices would soon be before the House, but as there were many new Members, he, as an old Member, would warn them that, according to the practice of all Governments, those Estimates would not be brought before them until the dog-days had come and nine-tenths of hon. Members had gone out of town. Then, when the House was nearly empty, supplemental Estimates would be brought in. He heard some hon. Gentlemen talk about a mediæval plan for Netley Hospital, but he trusted that those who had to sanction the plan for the Hospital, would not have the bad taste to caricature the ruins of Netley Abbey by placing a mediæval Hospital near it. The hon. Member concluded by proposing his Motion.
    SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, there was no intention on the part of the Government to oppose the granting of these returns, which he hoped would be the means of removing a misapprehension that prevailed with respect to Netley Hospital. To the report that the site for the hospital was chosen without proper consideration he could give the most decided contradiction. The site was not selected by any Government official at all, but by a gentleman of very high standing in the medical profession, who was directed to choose within certain limits the most eligible situation for an hospital. That gentleman made a Report, and the site was chosen in accordance with his recommendation. He had so recently explained the cause of the discrepancy between the original estimate and that now presented to Parliament that he should not be justified in wasting the time of the House by repeating the statement.
    MR. STAFFORDsaid, that the return moved for by the hon. Baronet was exactly the return which he could wish, and, if honestly prepared, which he had no doubt it would be, could not fail to afford some important information to the House. Upon a former occasion he had stated that certain extensive alterations were made, or attempted to be made in the hospital at Netley after the erection of the foundation and a considerable portion of the superstructure. That was a serious charge to make against the Government, and he felt it was necessary and incumbent on him to support it. If the House would permit him to read the grounds upon which he made that assertion, and upon

    1477
    which he now ventured to adhere to it, he would be glad to do so; but the document to which he had to refer was one of several pages (cries of"Oh!"), and there might be an impatience on the part of the House, after the varied and interesting subjects to which its attention had been called that evening, to enter so largely into the paper which he held in his hand. The document in question, of which he would merely state the substance, was forwarded to Lord Panmure by all the medical men of the Middlesex Hospital, an institution second to none for its management and its construction. It entered into details with respect to the construction of the Netley Hospital; it stated that every one of the wards had to receive the air either through the corridor or else through windows looking to the north-east, which was well known to be the aspect least favourable to the recovery of patients. It severely criticized the height and width of the wards, the position of the rooms assigned to the orderlies, the whole system of ventilation, and the confined court, not extending above 170 feet, into which the windows of all the wards looked. It described the system of latrines as so dangerous that there would be constantly throughout the building what was called "an hospital atmosphere," in which it would be impossible for the attendants to maintain their health, or for the sick to escape from fever, hospital-gangrene, and other diseases. He would move for a return of this document, in order that it might be laid before Parliament in extenso, or that Government might take the responsibility of refusing it. It was signed by gentlemen whose names commanded so much respect, and who were of such great celebrity, that it was fitting he should refer to them more particularly than he had yet done. They were Drs. Francis Hawkins, Seth Thompson, and A. P. Stewart, physicians to the Middlesex Hospital; Messrs. Alexander Shaw, Campbell, De Morgan, and Charles H. Moore, surgeons to the Hospital; Drs. S. J. Goodfellows and Henry Thompson, assistant physicians; Mr. Mitchell Henry, assistant surgeon; Dr. R. T. Frere, physician accoucheur; and Mr. George Corfe, apothecary. But, further correspondence had passed between these gentlemen and the Secretary at War. He held in his hand their last communication to Lord Panmure, which, he was sorry to say, had not been favoured with an answer. It was dated
    1478
    the 4th of May, 1857, and commenced as follows—
    "We have the honour to inform your Lordship that a deputation from our body attended on Tuesday, the 28th, at the War-office, on the subject of the proposed Royal Victoria Hospital. Captain Laffan explained to us the nature of certain alterations which the military authorities had decided upon making in the internal arrangements of the building, and especially in the position of the latrines; and he also entered at considerable length into the system of artificial ventilation which he stated would probably be ultimately adopted."
    He might here mention that the plan of Captain Laffan was to draw the cold air from a field in the vicinity by means of an enormous tunnel, and to suck it up through the building by means of a vast furnace placed on the top of the hospital, every window, of course, being kept shut. The deputation pressed upon Captain Laffan the perils of such a plan of ventilation; told him that the natural mode of opening the window would be far better; that the furnace would cause an enormous expense; that if at any time the heat should be diminished, the bad air would not ascend, but descend, and that the proposal of forcing up the effluvia of latrines by means of steam had been tried and proved a failure. They then went on to say—
    "While we admit that the adoption of some of our suggestions is likely to be productive of a certain amount of benefit, we are yet unanimously of opinion that the whole plan of the hospital is radically faulty, and we are persuaded that the contemplated scheme of artificial ventilation, as explained to us by Captain Laffan, will in all probability aggravate the very evils which it is intended to remedy. We were informed that the plan of the building had received the approval of several of the medical officers connected with other of the metropolitan hospitals, but we have reason to believe that there may be some misconception on the minds of the Committee at the War-office as to the extent to which this is the case. In this statement we refer especially to the size of the wards, to the construction of the corridor, and to the proposed, but highly objectionable method of artificial ventilation,—which we may be allowed to mention are the three most important points connected with the sanitary economy of the hospital. We think it a matter of regret that the medical gentlemen whose opinions were desired had not the opportunity afforded to them of meeting together and investigating the plans as well as the proposed alterations, as such a course would have insured a more satisfactory result than is likely to be arrived at by merely asking the opinions of individuals who had had no previous intercommunication, upon isolated points unconnected with the general arrangements of the building. In conclusion, we have only to express our earnest hope that your Lordship will not sanction the present plans, which may, and in our opinion will, simply convert a large and costly building into a hotbed of

    1479
    erysipelas and hospital gangrene. It was mentioned to us that this would probably form only the commencement of extensive military buildings in the neighbourhood of Netley, and if this be the case your Lordship may consider whether it would not be a move prudent, as well as eventually a more economical course, to abandon the intention of completing the present buildings as an hospital, for which they are so ill adapted, and to convert them into barracks, or other military structures requiring less peculiar sanitary arrangements."
    That was the statement of men whose character and eminence no one could question. He hoped it was not too late to carry into effect the suggestions which they had made from practical experience in their own hospital. When the return was laid upon the table they would be able to see what professional gentlemen—engineers or medical men—had boldly taken upon themselves the responsibility of an hospital, open to such criticism. They were supposed now to be founding a model hospital for the troops. He said nothing of the difficulties of the foundation. He said nothing of the increased expense which the muddy nature of the soil had required for that foundation. He said nothing about the site and the muddy banks left bare at low tide. He would not enter into those questions nor give much weight to the alarm about ague, which was stated to be one reason against the situation of the building. He rested his objections upon this—that alter the building as they might, they could never make it such an hospital as ought to be constructed with their present knowledge of sanitary arrangements, and with the experience which had been so dearly bought. They had voted the money, and the building was now in progress. He commended it specially to the care of the Government. He did not wish them to take the statement of the Middlesex Hospital gentlemen as not open to contradiction. Let them examine men who had characters to lose, who had reputations to sustain, whose names would carry weight through the country, and if it were possible, even now, let them desist from spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in order to erect a building which in site perhaps, but certainly in construction, far from being a credit, would be a disgrace, and, far from saving the lives and restoring the health of our soldiers, would, as stated in the opinion he had quoted, be "a hotbed of erysipelas and hospital gangrene." He thanked the hon. Baronet for bringing forward the subject. He was glad the Government had made up their minds to
    1480
    grant the Return, and he hoped that Return would speedily be laid upon the table of the House.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: I was rather in hopes that the Government would have made some explanation in answer to the statement of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I confess that I am not one of those who think that anything extraordinary has happened when an estimate made by the Government turns out to be insufficient for the ultimate completion of the works, because I have observed that in commercial undertakings and in private undertakings the same thing invariably happens. I do not find that railroads have been completed for the original estimate. I do not find that a Crystal Palace brings in the dividends which were originally contemplated. When works upon a great scale are in question, I think the Government must have that allowance made for them which is made to all other men, to all companies and associations, and that the difference of cost consequent upon the fallibility of engineers and architects must be paid by those who engage in the undertaking. I make no charge upon that ground, because I expect such a result when dealing with large sums. But here is a case of really very great importance. Our hospitals for the army are no doubt inferior, not only to our civil, but to our naval hospitals. The most cursory comparison will convince any one of that fact. We wish to remedy the evil by constructing a hospital worthy of the country and of the purpose to which it is devoted. As far as we can see at present, if not failure, great doubt as to success is thrown upon those charged with this construction. The hon. Baronet, the Under Secretary for the War Department, says he can show by the papers that the site was not adopted or the construction determined upon without great deliberation. That is quite possible, but great deliberation is very often followed by failure. In one sex we know it is equivalent to being lost. In this particular instance the multiplicity of counsels does not inspire confidence. The gentlemen of the Middlesex Hospital made representations with regard to the construction of this building, and it was fortunate they did so. The Government, when they saw the objections, inquired into the plans. The army hospitals at Chatham and Portsmouth are upon one construction, which has been condemned. Unfortunately in the plan

    1481
    adopted at Netley that identical construction was adopted. The fault of the construction in the hospitals at Chatham and Portsmouth is that they have a long corridor, from which open a series of narrow wards having only light by windows at the extreme ends. What is now received as the best plan for the construction of an hospital is—detached buildings, with windows opening on either side, so as to obtain a thorough draught from side to side instead of lengthways. If the windows are lengthways the opening then creates a draught, like the wind passing through a tunnel, and causes so much inconvenience, that they must be closed and the ventilation stopped. It is only fair to say that the wards in this hospital are not of great length. Not only is it necessary that the wards of an hospital should have plenty of air, but plenty of light and sun. A building with a large corridor in front may be made very architectural, the back opening upon offices, which are not very presentable. But if you make the corridor in front, you must put the lights at the back. In this instance a handsome frontage is put facing the river, and the windows for the passage of air into the wards are in the contrary direction. But the result is, that the windows look upon the north-east, which is a bad aspect, instead of upon the south-east, which is a good aspect. Subsequently to the remonstrance a very great improvement has been made. The corridor is to be constructed on a series of arches, which will be glazed in winter, and open in summer. So far as the defect of construction can be remedied it has been remedied, but defects still remain. But I believe if you built separate buildings there would be much less chance of infection, and that the draught and light from the two sides would render the place more healthy. As regards the site, there is a great difference of opinion. I always understood that Southampton Water was not what is called an unwholesome, but a relaxing climate. If this hospital is meant for the reception only of individuals coming from tropical climates, I do not think that a disadvantage. But I am informed that Southampton Water lies upon a bed of peat, with a coating of mud, not so deep but that the salt water percolates through the mud to the peat, and there generates sulphuretted hydrogen gas. It is not a very pleasant atmosphere to enter the windows of an hospital At the
    1482
    same time, I believe that the hospital has been sufficiently removed back, or the esplanade thrown so far into the water that any noxious effect from any gas of the kind will be prevented. But there is a radical error in the selection of the site. You are going to build an hospital of 1,000 beds. Your object will be twofold. First, it will be made a model for army hospitals; secondly, it is to become a medical school for young practitioners of the army. If it be an invalid hospital you will receive into it all men sent home pensioned and discharged from foreign countries. But it is not in connection with any existing garrison. If a man falls sick at Aldershot or Portsmouth you cannot compel that man to be shaken for a number of miles over a railroad, because you have built a large hospital, and want to fill the beds. And there will be this disadvantage, that those who are to receive instruction in this hopital will be confined to the study of chronic cases,—of men who have come ill from abroad, and not of men taken ill on the spot. I believe the faults of the construction of the hospital have been remedied to a great degree; but upon the question as to whether the hospital is in a position which will make it the most available for the use of the army, I confess I am bound to say the choice of a site has been most unfortunate.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No doubt this is a question of considerable importance, because when a large sum of money has been laid out in the construction of an hospital, it is desirable that the building, both in regard to site and construction, shall be calculated to cure and not to prolong or create disease. With regard to the difference between the original estimate and the subsequent one, my hon. Friend (Sir J. Ramsden) gave what I thought a proper and satisfactory explanation. He stated that when the estimate was first presented it had not been found possible, from want of time, to frame an estimate according to a given plan, but that the estimate was framed from what was assumed from former experience to be the cost of an hospital of a given size and on the old plan by practical men. A rough plan was afterwards made, and it was found necessary to frame an estimate for a larger sum than was originally put upon the Votes with regard to the building in question. With reference to the site, I certainly never heard that that side of Southampton Water was called unhealthy.

    1483
    We all know that the Forest, which is on the opposite side, being on very low ground and wet, has been considered to a certain degree unhealthy; but the spot on which this hospital is to be erected rests upon gravel, and is elevated and open to currents of air, and there has been no reason to suppose that it would be unhealthy, or not adapted to the purpose for which it is intended. With regard to the construction, all who have attended to the subject, know that there is considerable difference of opinion as to the proper mode of constructing a building designed for an hospital. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Sidney Herbert) states that the most approved plan is one in which there is a corridor, with blocks of buildings attached, separated from each other by spaces, and stretching away at right angles. There are certainly advantages in that arrangement, because it enables you to get a draught by side windows through each ward. But those blocks, separated from each other by spaces, look into narrow and confined courts, because the very blocks make confined courts of themselves, and so prevent a free and complete circulation of the air. Neither can the air come so rapidly out of confined courts through side windows as through windows at the end, supposing the wards were not too long. [Mr. S. HERBERT: You should have windows at the side as well as the end.] But if the whole of the wall consisted of windows, it would be difficult to place the beds so as to be free from draught. Again, it has generally been found that large wards are bad, and that it is much better that there should be a small number of patients in each ward. I can only assure the House that this matter has attracted the serious attention of the Government, and that great pains have been taken to get men capable of giving an opinion upon it. The papers which my hon. Friend (Sir J Ramsden) has agreed to produce will show what steps have been taken on the subject; but to a matter of such important as this, great attention should be paid, so that the building shall be fit for the purpose to which it is intended, and the House may rest assured that we shall not with our eyes open erect an edifice which shall be a source of sickness and disease, in stead of a source of health.
    MR. TITEsaid, that from the attention he had paid to the subject of ventilation with reference to the rebuilding of the general Hospital at Bath, he was convinced
    1484
    that the only good system of ventilating any building was to adopt the old-fashioned and simple plan of opening the windows. He deprecated the construction of shafts, furnaces, and a complex apparatus. The windows ought to be large and lofty, and capable of being opened at any height. A costly experiment had been made of a different system at Guy's Hospital, the leading feature of which was a large furnace, but he was informed it had failed; and, indeed, they had only to look to the House in which they were assembled, where, after enormous expenditure in experiments upon ventilation, recourse was at last had to open windows for a natural current of air. The best recently erected Hospital was that of King's College, which he recommended for a model, and hoped that it would be followed. He could not help thinking that in the matter of hospital accommodation this country was much behind the Continent, because at Milan there was a free establishment which was capable of accommodating 3300 patients, and the wards of which were magnificent. That hopital was constructed on natural principles, and the ventilation secured by opening the windows. He was of opinion, also, that warming could best be secured by open fire-places, and not by any system of stoves. He was well acquainted with Southampton, and did not consider that its neighbourhood was at all unhealthy or unfitted for the erection of an hospital for 1000 patients. The site of Netley Abbey was extremely beautiful to look upon, and he had great faith in the judgment of the monks, who originally adopted it. Still, as this was an important question, he hoped that before the hospital was proceeded with, these matters would be looked into and thoroughly understood.
    SIR DENHAM NORREYS, in reply, said, that he was glad that he had brought the subject forward, considering the discussion it had occasioned. He certainly thought that there must have been something wrong in a plan which had to be altered within two years of commencing operations.
    SIR FREDERICK SMITHcalled the attention of the House to the very great difference between the tenders for the construction of the hospital, which were fifteen in number, and the sums of which varied from the lowest—the accepted one—at £168,000, and the highest, at £256,000.
    Motion agreed to.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &c.

    BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    SIR GEORGE GREY SIR GEORGE GREY moved for leave to bring in a Bill further to amend the Act relating to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and to continue the Act concerning the management of Episcopal and Capitular Estates in England. The object of the Bill was to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat last year, with regard to the leasing and management of Ecclesiastical Estates. The Bill was to some extent in unison with that which had been introduced by a noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford), and he proposed that the two Bills should be considered at the same time, with a view to the consolidation of their provisions, and to the enactment of a measure which might effect a considerable improvement in the existing law.
    MR. NEATEsaid, he would offer his strenuous opposition to any Bill which would tend to facilitate the alienation of Church property, and to diminish the ability of the Church to meet the demands which were made upon its resources by an increasing population. The tenants of Bishops and chapters, were setting up against the Church and the public a claim of tenant right which was extravagant even in comparison with the wildest notions that prevailed in Ulster and Connaught. It was thought that, whenever a lessee of Church estates went to the Commissioners to buy, they were bound to sell. He wished to know what discretion was left to the Church Estates Commissioners, under the existing law, with regard to the sale or purchase of leases of ecclesiastical property. He should take no further steps at that stage of the Bill, but he gave notice that he should oppose it at a future period.
    SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Church Estates Commissioners were not compelled to sell or purchase, and the object of the Legislature had been to vest in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Church Estates Commissioners such powers as would enable them to render the property of the Church most available for ecclesiastical purposes. The terms upon which enfranchisement could take place were fully detailed in the Reports which had been laid upon the table.
    Leave given.
    Bill "further to amend the Acts relating to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and to continue
    1486
    the Act concerning the management of Episcopal and Capitular Estates in England," ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY, VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, and Mr. MASSEY.
    Bill presented, and read 1°.

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS.

    BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    SIR GEORGE GREYthen moved for leave to introduce a Bill to promote the establishment and extension of Reformatory Schools in England. He said, when he introduced a Bill for this object in the last Session, he was sorry to find that it excited very great apprehension on the part of many hon. Gentlemen for whom he entertained considerable respect, in consequence of the benevolent exertions which they had made for the promotion of reformatory institutions. Those hon. Gentlemen feared that the powers which he proposed to give to counties and boroughs to levy rates for that purpose would have the effect of withdrawing from such institutions the voluntary support on which they had previously depended. His object was to provide for the more rapid extension of institutions which had become part of the criminal establishments of the country, many magistrates having represented that they were unable to find any reformatories in their own neighbourhood, and nothing could be further from his intention than to interfere with the arrangement of such institutions as were supported by voluntary contributions, or to set up rival ones at the public expense. He had since had some communications with a number of gentlemen who took great interest in this matter, and he hoped that the Bill which he now proposed to introduce would remove the apprehensions which he had mentioned. What he proposed was, not to authorize counties and boroughs, without reference to any existing institutions, to establish reformatories, but to authorize them to assist voluntary efforts by granting aid in the erection of the requisite buildings, whether in the case of existing or of intended reformatories. Although this proposition did not go the length of his former one, he trusted it would give a stimulus to the work and lead to the establishment of reformatories in many of the largest counties of England, where there was a strong desire expressed for institutions in which criminal children might be placed. The Bill, which was a very short one, would leave the management of the institutions

    1487
    to be settled between the originators who contributed to their support, and the magistrates, who made grants out of the funds at their disposals; but in cases in which new buildings had to be erected, the plans would have to be approved by the Secretary of State, before aid was afforded from the public rates. He should be very glad if he could promote the object to this limited extent without encountering the opposition of Gentlemen with whom he was most anxious to co-operate in this matter.
    MR. ALCOCKsaid, that the House were not aware what an enormous outlay of public money this reformatory system would involve. At present the average number of juvenile delinquents under seven years of age in Surrey alone was 1,050, who were committed for about forty days, one with another. Their imprisonment cost the county £2 each, or £2,100 in the aggregate. But if 600 of these criminals—making a deduction of 450 for recommittals—were sent to reformatories, and such would constitute the class which would be sent under this Act, the cost would amount to £45,000 a year. It was true that, for the first year, the cost would be only £15,000, but for the second it would be £30,000, and for the third or any subsequent year—and the Act empowered them to be kept there for five—it would be £45,000 instead of £2,100. This calculation he had made upon the basis of the Redhill expenditure, that being the best establishment of the kind in the kingdom.
    MR. GARNETTsaid, he thought it desirable that the House should proceed cautiously. The weak point in the reformatory system was, that more money and pains were bestowed on bad boys than on good ones. In the borough which he represented (Lancaster) there was the greatest objection to the payment of rates for the maintenance of criminals in reformatory institutions.
    SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not propose to give magistrates power to levy rates for the maintenance of the inmates; they would only be able to contribute towards the original establishment of reformatories, and could not consider that unreasonable, inasmuch as reformatories were in part substitutes for prisons. As regarded the objections made by the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Alcock), he would observe that the amount which the Treasury were authorised to contribute would
    1488
    cover the expense of maintenance. The magistrates would only have power to charge the rates for the erection of the buildings.
    Leave given.
    Bill "to promote the establishment and extension of Reformatory Schools in England," ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. BAINES, and Mr. MASSEY.
    Bill presented, and read 1°.

  JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
    MR. BLAND MR. BLAND moved as an Amendment, that the order be discharged, with a view to its being recommitted. By a recent order of the House, new clauses could not be brought up on the third reading, and it was only by inadvertence that he had been unable to move Amendments in Committee. The Bill, he said, was one which involved a great general principle, and which to a considerable extent affected vested rights. It had passed through its previous stages almost without discussion, and he was anxious, therefore, that a further opportunity of considering its provisions should be afforded, before it passed into a law.
    Amendment proposed, to leave ont from the words "That the" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Order for the Third Reading of the said Bill be discharged," instead thereof.
    MR. WHITESIDEsaid, it was impossible for him to vote for the third reading of the Bill. He found the Civil Estimates on the paper last night, and was informed that they would probably occupy the House two or three hours at least; but when he returned he discovered, to his great surprise, that this Bill had passed through Committee. The Bill was a piece of patchwork legislation, the object of which was to enable contributories to get a person to whose instrumentality they might compromise their liability for five shillings. It was said, however, that the Tipperary Bank and the Royal British Bank would carry this Bill against common sense and common justice. He was quite sure the Attorney General could not be aware of the injustice the measure would perpetrate. The object was not to reconcile any conflict between the Bankruptcy Court and

    1489
    the Court of Chancery, but to enable the shareholders in the Tipperary and British Banks to get rid of their liability. Last year a similar Bill had been promoted by the Tipperary Bank shareholders, but when the House learned the object of the measure the Bill was rejected. Under an old Act of the Irish Parliament, every shareholder in a joint-stock bank was liable to the whole extent of his property; in the event of the bank failing, every atom he possessed at once vested in trustees for the benefit of the creditors. When the Agricultural Bank of Ireland failed some years since, Sir M. O'Loghlen, the Master, decided that the Act applied; and the result was that every creditor got 20 s. in the pound. The shareholders took the opinion of the then Attorney General for England, Sir John Campbell, but he advised against an appeal. When the Tipperary Bank failed, the creditors thought they had the same remedy; but the Lord Chancellor of Ireland dismissed the Bill. An appeal was now before the House of Lords, and a petition had been agreed to praying their Lordships to fix an early day for the hearing of the appeal. But while counsel were ready to argue this question, the Government brought in a Bill which swept away existing rights. He was glad the Attorney General for England had made up his mind to prosecute the directors of the Royal British Bank, and he should rejoice to see them where they ought to be. He wished also that some gentlemen who wore writing letters from Paris were given up by treaty, and while the hon. and learned Gentleman was prosecuting criminally, he should like to see Mr. James Sadleir receive a share of his attention. But what right had the House to say that any suitor who was likely to get twenty shillings in the pound should not have his appeal heard, and should be compelled to compromise his debt for half-a-crown in the pound? He believed that if the House agreed to the third reading of this Bill, they would be making a precedent of which they would be hereafter heartily ashamed. Let a clause be inserted, saying that the law should not affect existing rights, or apply to existing liabilities, and he should not object to the Bill. He was willing that it should apply to the British Bank if the creditors desired it, but the creditors of the Tipperary Bank objected.
    MR. MALINSsaid, as far as his knowledge went, there had been only one Bill
    1490
    before the House which affected the Tipperary Bank) and as he (Mr. Malins) had had charge of that Bill, he felt bound to repel the insinuation that he was the agent of the Tipperary Bank, or had come forward in the matter for any sinister or improper purpose. He (Mr. Malins) regretted that his Bill did not pass; but it had been defeated chiefly by the strenuous opposition of the hon. and learned Member; and although he was willing to introduce a clause excluding from its operation all concerns respecting which suits were pending, it was not adopted. He now supported the Bill before the House because he believed the shareholders of the British Bank would have been able to pay all the debts of that establishment if they had not been so harassed. The Royal British Bank stopped payment in September last year; the debts then were £500,000, the assets one half that amount; there was, therefore, £300,000 at the utmost to be paid by the shareholders; and if, at the closing of the bank, the shareholders had been equitably taxed, they would not have had to pay more than £100 a share. As matters stood, the debts were bought up for the purpose of commencing actions against shareholders. A general in the army was liable as a shareholder for £5,000, and he offered £20,000 for exemption, but he could not obtain it; and he was now a fugitive abroad. It was the same with several others, solicitors, tradesmen, and merchants, who were obliged to sell their respective businesses and fly the country, where they would remain until the Bill before the House should become law, as it was impossible to protect them in England. There was no novel principle in the Bill, for at the present moment the official assignee in bankruptcy had the power of compounding for the benefit of the creditors in each instance. The Bill would not in the slightest degree affect the appeal before the House of Lords alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, while it would give the power of buying peace in preference to going on with compulsory legislation.
    MR. BAGWELLsaid, that the creditors of the Tipperary Bank believed that this Bill would deprive them of their just rights against the shareholders of that Bank, who were able to pay much more than twenty shillings in the pound. He therefore entreated the Government not to pass it.
    MR. WYLDpointed out that the representative must have the consent of the

    1491
    Judge to any arrangement which he might make.
    MR. SPOONERasked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether this Bill, if passed, would interfere with the appeal now pending before the House of Lords in the case of the Tipperary Bank. If it did he could not support it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas very sorry that he had not the honour of two minutes' conversation with the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen, because he was perfectly confident that such a conversation would have entirely changed his opinion of this Bill. The appeal now pending was against the decision of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who had held that the old statute of that country had no application to joint-stock banks. If that appeal were successful, the shareholders of the Tipperary Bank would be liable to the full extent of their fortunes. This Bill would not affect that appeal in any single particular, unless the creditors of the Tipperary Bank chose to compromise it and settle the action. Let the House receive the assurance that the creditors either of the British or the Tipperary Bank could not by means of this Bill be stripped of one farthing, save by their own consent, and with the approbation of the Judge.
    MR. WHITESIDEpromised to convey to his noble Friends in the other House the opinion expressed by the Attorney General, for which he had the greatest respect, although he could not altogether subscribe to it.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read 3°, and passed.
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords. The Lord Lovat took the Oath prescribed by the Act 10 Geo. IV., to be taken by Peers professing the Roman Catholic Religion.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1aPolice.
2a Princess Royal's Annuity.

THE MUTINIES IN INDIA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I was in hopes that it would not be necessary to draw your Lordships' attention, even for a single moment, to the lamentable events which have recently taken place in India; but more recent accounts, which I only perused last night,
1394
have given so grave a character to the mutinies which have occurred in that country that I cannot consistently with my duty abstain from asking a question of the noble Earl who represents the Government in this House. Such of your Lordships as have attended to the recent accounts from India must have read with much regret and pain the account of the mutiny of the 19th Regiment at Berhampore; you must have watched with great apprehension the march of that regiment to Barrackpore and its disbandment, under circumstances of the most perilous character, in the presence of five other native regiments. You must have looked with apprehension at similar appearances of mutiny in the Madras and Bombay armies. But that which has most alarmed me, and which gives a more serious character to all these appearances of insubordination, is that which has only come to our knowledge within the last few hours. I read in the latest accounts from India, that between the 16th and 25th of April there were seven incendiary fires at Umballa, and that the 3rd Regiment of Light Cavalry were in open mutiny at Meerut. How it can be possible that a regiment having no more than 400 sabres could for one half-hour be in a state of open mutiny in the cantonment of Meerut is what I cannot comprehend. At that station there is, I believe, a force of fifty-four guns forty-two of European and twelve of Native artillery; there is a regiment of European cavalry, the Carabineers; a battalion of the 60th Regiment, Queen's troops; and two regiments of Native infantry. The officer who commands that division had the means of putting down any mutiny in half an hour. Open mutiny is open war, and it is to be met only as open war carried on by an enemy in the field. I cannot but think that there must have been some strange misrepresentation and exaggeration in the accounts which we have received from Meerut. I have, however, looked most carefully into all the statements which we have received as to these mutinies in the Bengal Presidency, and I can come to no other conclusion than that the source of all that discontent and mutiny is the apprehension that there is an intention on the part of the Government to interfere with the religion of the natives. It is impossible to come to any other conclusion. Now, what has the Government done to put an end to that erroneous impression?

1395
When the 19th Regiment was disbanded at Barrack pore there was, no doubt, a passage in a long official paper emanating from the Governor General in Council, and read to the soldiery, which was to the effect that no one could pretend that the Government had at any time endeavoured to interfere with the religion of the people; but I cannot find that any notification has been made, as it should have been, at the quarters of every regiment and throughout the country, of the determination of the Government to adhere to its ancient policy of respecting the feelings and prejudices of the natives. I see no trace of there having been any general notification to that effect. It has been left entirely to the officers at the different stations to make any such notification as they should think fit under the circumstances. When the regiment was disbanded at Barrack pore, General Hearsey addressed it in terms which it is impossible to surpass in reasoning or in eloquence; and he afterwards addressed the whole of the native infantry at that station, and I do not recollect ever to have read at any time or in any history, attributed to any general in command of an army, or to any statesman who had to administer the Government of an empire, any oration more thoroughly reasoning, or more completely eloquent and convincing than the speech of General Hearsey addressed to the army on that occasion. And what should the course of the Governor General have been? Ought he not with his own hand in three sentences to have communicated to the whole country his cordial concurrence with everything which General Hearsey had said, and should be not have made his concurrence with that speech as public as the speech itself was necessarily made throughout the country? I am convinced that if the Governor General had pursued that course we should have heard no more of the incendiary fires at Umballa, nor of the open mutiny at Meerut. But that course was not taken; and although I absolve the Government of India, as a Government, from any intention to interfere with the religion of the natives, I must say that there have been of late—and daily increasing of late—circumstances which were calculated to excite in the minds of the natives great apprehension upon that subject. I saw in a newspaper which I read yesterday the names of colonels, and of six or eight important persons in the civil administration of the country, high in office, mentioned as being
1396
connected with missionary operations; and to my great astonishment—I can scarcely believe it now to be true, though I saw it distinctly stated in the papers—that the Governor General himself, Lord Canning, largely subscribes to every society which has for its object the conversion of the natives. My Lords, the Governor General of India can do nothing in his individual capacity. He cannot separate himself from his public character as Governor General. He is essentially the Government of the country. No one looks to anybody else. There may be others who think that they are of importance; but they are not. The only man looked to in India is the Governor General. It is not in India alone, but more particularly in India, that it is generally understood that if a man at the head of the Government earnestly desires anything, it is his intention to enforce his desire and to effect his purpose. I deem that fact of these subscriptions of Lord Canning, the Governor General of India, to societies having for their object the conversion of the natives, if it be true, to be one of the most dangerous things which could have happened to the security of our government in India. We must maintain that government as we have acquired it, by acting on the principles of Ackbar; but we cannot maintain it by attempting to act on the principles of Aurungzeb. You may depend upon it that if persons holding high office in the Government of India, and, above all, at the head of the Government, are permitted to act on this principle, and to indulge their own personal feelings—I do not doubt but they may be acting from conscientious motives—for the purpose of changing the religion of the people, you will see the most bloody revolution which has at any time occurred in India. The English will be expelled from India; and, expelled from that country, they will not leave behind them a dozen sincere converts to Christianity. The question which I wish to put to the noble Earl opposite is, whether instructions have been sent or will forthwith he sent to India, directing the different Governments to make known at every station of the army throughout the country, that the Government will for the future, as in times past, protect all its native subjects in the undisturbed exercise of their religion?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have always been the first to express my admiration of the strong feeling of public

1397
spirit by which the noble Earl is actuated, and of the sincerity with which he advocates anything which lie conceives to be of advantage to our Indian empire; but I do think that he has acted on this occasion somewhat without consideration, and that the remarks which he has just made must have a mischievous tendency in India. Certainly, they can have no good result; and I do think that there is considerable inconvenience in bringing questions before Parliament based merely upon telegraphic information, There is no doubt that this great application of science is attended with this inconvenience—that it is impossible to rely upon the exact truth of any information which is forwarded merely by telegraph. No information connected with the statement made by the noble Earl having reached the Government, except by telegraph, it would be unwise of me to say how far I believe a great deal of that statement to be exaggerated. What astonished me was the attack made upon the Governor General by the noble Earl in the remarks which he made—remarks in which I entirely concur—as to the sacrifice of the really important interests of the country in what may be termed misguided attempts to proselytize the natives. I believe—although himself a sincerely religious man—there is no man more likely to act with judgment in every respect on these points than Lord Canning. I do not speak so much from my knowledge of the noble Lord as from the public and private letters which I have had the advantage of reading on these very points. I do not know whether he has subscribed to any missionary society, or under what circumstances such subscriptions may have been made; but I know that he has to deplore rumours which have been circulated of the most unfounded and ridiculous character, and which will gain some strength by the attack made upon him by a person of the eminence of the noble Earl. Amongst other reports it has been said that the Governor General left this country under a pledge to Lord Palmerston that he would do his best to convert the whole of the native population of India. I mention this just to show the character of the reports which were spread abroad on this point. As a personal friend of Lord Canning I rejoice that, from what I hear, the whole community of Calcutta has been struck with the firmness, judgment, and courage, which he has shown in dealing with the
1398
beginning of these mutinous proceedings. I may mention—for it shows what is my noble Friend's opinion on these points— that the first time he exercised his veto on a Bill of the Legislative Council was on account of a clause inserted in the Bill— it was in a Police Bill—which he conceived affected in some degree the religious feelings of the natives. I am glad that my noble Friend has had this opportunity of publicly testifying his opinion of the importance of abstaining from all attempts to interfere with the religion of the natives. I entirely concur in the eulogium which the noble Earl has pronounced on the speech of General Hearsey. That officer addressed the troops in their own language, I believe, in a most eloquent and forcible manner, and with a degree of feeling which seems to have had a great effect on them. I know that Lord Canning had a great admiration for that speech, He has called the attention of the Home Government to it, and to the merits of General Hearsey; and the charge of the noble Earl, therefore, on this point falls to the ground. My answer to the question with which the noble Earl concluded is, that the Government think that Lord Canning has acted with admirable judgment in abstaining from making any such notification as that suggested by the noble Earl. Such a notification, issued when the mutiny was threatened, would have appeared to be some sort of acknowledgment that it was a change in the policy of the Government, whereas it ought to be as patent as possible that it is, and always has been, and therefore always will continue to be, the policy of the Government to afford the greatest possible protection to the natives in the exercise of their religions rights. The course taken by Lord Canning has been more judicious than that pointed out by the noble Earl. The Government approve his nut having issued any such notification, and no instructions have been sent to India such as those suggested by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid that, although a friend of Lord Canning's, he did not regret that this matter had been brought forward by his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough), On the contrary, he thought that as the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had told them that the most unjustifiable rumours were in circulation respecting the feelings and opinions held by the Governor General of India with regard to the religious condition of

1399
the natives of that country, they were deeply indebted to his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) for having afforded the Government an opportunity of contradicting such rumours. The noble Earl opposite said we ought not to take for granted the truth of all the statements transmitted by the electric telegraph; but the rumours respecting the Governor General of India on this subject did not rest on such despatches only. He had seen it stated in letters from India that Lord Canning had subscribed to a missionary association having for its object the conversion of the Natives. Their Lordships were perfectly aware how religious a man Lord Canning was, and they also knew that he was a man of calm judgment and great caution. If, however, he had been led by his conscientious and religious feelings to join any association of the kind described, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) would not hesitate to say that, considering the position in which he stood, he had committed a very great error. The noble Earl did not exaggerate the effects likely to have been produced in India had the Governor General subscribed to such associations; for those persons who were engaged in conscientious and estimable exertions to convert the inhabitants of India would scarcely be able to refrain from giving themselves strength and power and importance by quoting his name in their intercourse with the people, and the population of India might be tempted to identify Lord Canning with the missionaries themselves. Knowing, however, Lord Canning's caution and judgment, he could not believe that he had been guilty of so imprudent an act as to mix himself up personally with these associations; and, as a friend of Lord Canning's, he could not, regret that the noble Earl opposite had had an opportunity of contradicting the rumours that were in circulation.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwished to explain that having seen a statement with respect to Lord Canning, the Governor General of India, having subscribed to these societies—a statement so astonishing that he could not believe it— he thought it right at once to bring the fact under the notice of the Government, because he felt deeply that it involved a question affecting materially the security and stability of our Indian Empire.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEagreed with the noble Earl that it was
1400
impossible to overrate the importance of this subject. It was of the utmost importance that the conduct of Lord Canning in this matter should stand unimpeached until some specific facts were brought forward to which an answer or explanation could be given. One in his high position should hold himself aloof from any such associations as those which had been referred to. Indifference in such matters, in his public position, was one of the first duties of his Government, nor should he in any degree, or by any act of his, give countenance to such reports as seemed most unaccountably and mysteriously to have prevailed in India. He begged their Lordships to suspend their judgments till they had distinct information as to what were the specific associations and societies to which Lord Canning had subscribed. They would not be prepared to say that he should subscribe to nothing in India, or that the Government should define at once to what he should subscribe and to what he should not. But this he had to say, from not one only, but from repeated communications, both private and public, recently received from Lord Canning, that there was not a man in England—not even the noble Earl himself—who was more aware of the danger of countenance being given to such movements than he was. From day to day he had a full sense of the danger before his eyes, and he showed the greatest anxiety that it should not be possible for any one to deduce from his conduct the inference that he would be guilty of such a charge as the noble Lord had brought forward, Having the strongest public and private friendship for Lord Canning, he was yet prepared to state that if by any error or mistake of judgment—which he did not believe, and which he would not believe without proof—Lord Canning had so acted as to give countenance to such a belief as the noble Earl inferred, he would no longer deserve to be continued in his office as Governor General of India.
EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl has just furnished me with the source whence be derived his information—it is from an Indian newspaper—and it seems to me nothing can be more vague. For anything that appeared to the contrary it might be some scientific society, many of which had religious objects in view.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: said that what had fallen from the noble Marquess

1401
was perfectly satisfactory. He had said that if it were the fact that the Governor General had subscribed to any societies having for their object the conversion of the natives he ought to be removed from the office he held, and thus all danger arising from the error would be completely removed.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEwas understood to dissent from this interpretation, he was quite satisfied that Lord Canning would be able to justify anything he had done, and that no subscription he had given would be found to have the tendency that had been ascribed to it.

PRINCESS ROYAL'S ANNUITY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GRANTVILLE EARL GRANTVILLE rose to move the second reading of this Bill, and said: My Lords, on the assumption that your Lordships will agree with me in the principle that we ought to provide for the support of the institutions of this country, and, monarchy being one of the elements of our consitution, that we ought to deal in a spirit, not of wastefulness, but of just liberality to the Royal Family—that the Royal Family should be maintained in honour and dignity, and that those illustrious ladies, the daughters of our Sovereign, when called abroad, should have a fair and liberal maintenance, it will not be necessary that I should trouble you with many observations. This might have offered a tempting opportunity to allude to certain qualities of Her Majesty; but, though the feelings of affection and respect which we may entertain for the Sovereign may make us more anxious cordially and unanimously to adopt a vote in favour of Her daughter, still I should be ashamed if I based it on any such affection and respect, because I only ask your Lordships to take that course which I believe we are bound to do, not so much on the ground of personal feeling towards the Sovereign, as from a regard to what is due to the feelings and natural pride of the country. The ground I take is, that the provision proposed in the present instance is reasonable, and, being reasonable, I am sure it will be unanimously adopted by your Lordships. Looking to the precedents in such cases, we find that for the Princesses Royal, the daughters of George II. and
  1402
  George III., provision was made by a dowry of £80,000, and an annuity of £5,000. In this case the dowry is less by one-half than that given in former times, while the annuity is larger, being —8,000, instead of —5,000. I know there are some who have thought that to pay down a large sum at once would have been a better arrangement; but I am not of that opinion. I think that when an illustrious lady is married info a great kingdom and into a powerful House, our object should he not so much to make provision for her children as to provide for that independence and that decent splendour which I am sure every one of your Lordships must think ought to attend the eldest daughter of the Sovereign. For these reasons, without dwelling upon the feelings of gratification expressed by your Lordships on a former evening at an event which is likely to reward Her Majesty for the excellent education She has bestowed upon the Princess Royal, and to render the Princess Royal as happy in her future life as we all desire. I now ask your Lordships to give a second reading to this Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, although, according to the old proverb, silence gave consent, yet in the absence of his noble Friend the Earl of Derby, he felt bound on the part of the noble Lords on that side of the House, to express his satisfaction with the provision for her Royal Highness which the Bill proposed, and his admiration of the manner in which Her Majesty had exercised Her rule in these realms, and of the bright example which She had set to all her subjects. With regard to the details of the Bill, and in regard to the manner in which the provision is made, as it had passed the House of Commons, it would be useless to discuss the question whether any better plan could have been proposed. For his own part, he was inclined to believe it would have been better to have given a round sum at once, which would have placed the Princess Royal in a more dignified position than as an annuitant of this country. It would be idle, however, to discuss that question now, and he therefore had only to express his concurrence in the object of the Bill which was before the House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

  DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL—RECOMMITTAL.
  House in Committee (according to Order) on Re-commitment.
  Clause 1 to 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17, (Divorce à mensa et thoro by reason of Desertion of Wife).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that this clause, as it stood, provided that upon desertion by the husband for two years, a wife might apply for a divorce à mensâ et thoro. Since the House had last had the Bill before it he had received several letters from men, complaining that there was no provision of a like nature extended to them. Upon considering the matter, it seemed to him that there was no sufficient reason why, upon a man being deserted by his wife for two years, he should not have the right of obtaining a divorce à mensâ et thoro from her. He I reminded their Lordships that as the Bill stood last year the clause to which the one under consideration answered, merely provided that upon such desertion a wife might petition for alimony. That, however, was but an incomplete remedy, as the husband, to save the payment of alimony, might re-quire the wife to return to him, and thus put an end to her right to the payment. But, by enabling a wife to sue for a divorce à mensâ et thoro upon desertion, this was put a stop to, and the further advantage was gained of securing a mode of relief; applicable in the converse case to the man. With a view, therefore, to extend the advantages of this clause to males, he proposed the addition of the words "husband or" in the second line of the clause.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, this Bill sanctioned for the first time the principle that divorces could be granted upon the sole ground of desertion. That he considered to be a very dangerous principle, and would open the door to great collusion, The Select Committee which had considered this subject had recommended that in cases of desertion the Court should be empowered to grant the wife alimony, but not to pronounce a divorce. That was a much more reasonable proposition than the present. As the clause now stood, nothing could be easier than for the husband to absent himself for the very object of procuring a divorce à mensâ et thoro. He should therefore move as an Amendment in line 13 to strike out the words "divorce à mensâ et thoro," in order to restore the provision for alimony to a deserted wife;
  1404
  and thus replace the clause as it was left by the Select Committee.
  EARL GREY EARL GREY rose to order. The Lord Chancellor had proposed an Amendment in line 12, and until that was disposed of their Lordships could not discuss an alteration in line 15. They ought to proceed according to the recognized rules and practice of Parliament.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSagreed with the noble Earl, but maintained that the course he had pursued was calculated to save the time of their Lordships. The clause as it stood provided that desertion by her husband should give a wife a right to divorce à mensâ et thoro. The Lord Chancellor now proposed to extend the clause so as to meet the case of a wife deserting her husband. Now, his argument was that neither husband nor wife should have a right to divorce for desertion; and if his Amendment to that effect were adopted by their Lordships there would be no necessity for discussing the alteration proposed by the Lord Chancellor in line 12.
  EARL STANHOPEthought that much of the irregularity which arose in Committee proceeded from the unsatisfactory mode in which the Amendments were printed. They appeared, not according to the order in which they ought to be taken up, but according to the alphabetical order of the names of the Peers proposing them.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that some latitude should be allowed to their Lordships in the discussion of Amendments applying to the same clause. At the same time he thought the House would gain much if it gave rather more authority to the Peer in the chair. He could not make a proposal of that kind when the Lord Chancellor was presiding, because the noble and learned Lord was a nominee of the Government; but he was at liberty to say that if the Chairman of Committees, an officer selected by their Lordships themselves, were invested with a kind of mild despotism, great advantage would result in the transaction of public business.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEdesired to know what was the question before the House?
  LORD REDESDALE(the Chairman of the Committee) replied, that the question was the Amendment proposed by the Lord Chancellor in line 12. In no circumstances would be have put any other question than that; but it was always

  1405
  open to any noble Lord to suggest that, for the sake of convenience, two Amendments bearing upon the same subject should be discussed together; and it certainly was very convenient to bear explanations as to the whole clause.
  EARL, FITZWILLIAMwished to make an observation on a word in the second line of the clause. He thought that "separation" should be substituted for "divorce" with reference to the proceeding here contemplated as the result of desertion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORremarked that the clause, as it now stood, provided that any wife deserted by her husband for two years should have a right to divorce à mensâ et thoro. Since the Bill was printed he had received a number of letters from husbands stating that a corresponding benefit ought to be given to them, he saw no reason why that request should not be complied with, and therefore be proposed to introduce words in line 12 giving a husband the same remedy if deserted by his wife as the clause now gave to a wife if deserted by her husband. Last Session great discussion took place as to whether in the case of unjustifiable desertion there ought not to be divorce à vinculo matrimonii, as was the law in Scotland. The Committee decided in the negative; but their Lordships were generally of opinion that some relief ought to be given, and it was at his own suggestion that, instead of being entitled to divorce à mensâ at thro for desertion, a wife was to be simply enabled to petition the Court, and obtain an order for alimony. Since that time he had changed his mind upon the point, his objection being that the husband might come back and deprive his wife of the relief granted by the Court. What, in his opinion, was necessary was that the wife should have a new status under such circumstances. He had, therefore, substituted the present clause, and made provision for a divorce àmensâ et thoro, which really amounted only to a separation. The precise question before the House was whether the husband should not have the same relief as the wife.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not object to the husband having the same right as the wife to obtain from a competent court, on reasonable evidence, a separation, equivalent to what was known to the law as a divorce à mensâ et thoro, which was not, in fact, a divorce, because the parties might come together again and
  1406
  live happily the rest of their days. It was proposed by some that there should be no community of property whatever between husband and wife, and he was surprised that the proposal should have received the sanction of his noble and illustrious Friend (Lord Brougham)—illustrious for his promotion of law reform and his defence of the weaker sex. With married persons there should be community of property as well as of persons; but when a new status was acquired by divorce à mensâ et thoro the community of property ought to cease. The wife's property would then be protected, and they would bear no more of the cruel instances of husbands returning and sweeping away everything belonging to their deserted wives
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, a woman who was separated occupied a different position from a woman who was divorced. The general public did not understand the legal distinction between divorce à vinculo and divorce à mensâ et thoro. He would, therefore, move to substitute the word "separation" for "divorce à mensâ et thoro."
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that the noble Earl's proposal would unnecessarily introduce an element of uncertainty into the Bill. The phrase "divorce à mensâ et thoro" was well known to the law, its attributes well understood, and its import clear and defined. Instead of it the noble Earl proposed to introduce a new word—a word, too, already appropriated to another state of things; and the result would be that uncertainty as to the intent of the Legislature would be created, to quiet which a long course of litigation might be necessary.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwould not pledge himself to the precise words, but thought they should insert the words "judicial separation, which shall have all the effect of" before "divorce à mensâ et thoro."
  EARL GREYwas for reforming legal nomenclature generally, and getting rid of Latin where possible. Why not call a divorce à vinculo "a divorce," and a divorce à mensâ et thoro" a separation"?
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, the answer to the noble Earl's question was simply because a divorce à mensâ et thoro was not a separation—which was a voluntary

  1407
  parting capable at any time of being got over by reconciliation and recohabitation—but a divorce, an utter and total disjunction of the marriage connection so far as "bed and board" was concerned. It would be as well to call things by their right names, even in an Act of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, the noble and learned Lord's explanation itself showed that there was an ambiguity in the use of the word divorce, which would lead to confusion in common minds, and ought to be removed.
  On the suggestion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, words were inserted to the effect of enabling parties to petition for a "judicial separation" instead of a "divorce à mensâ et thoro."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLhoped it was understood that a corresponding substitution of terms would be made in the rest of the Bill wherever it was necessary.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that would be understood as a matter of course.
  On the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he thought the substitution of "judicial separation" for "divorce à mensâ et thoro" was a very unwise one, altering as it did, and without, as it seemed to him, due consideration, a well-understood phrase which had been known to the law from the earliest times. Their Lordships could not define what "judicial separation" was. Besides, he might remind them that an alteration of terms did not change the substance of the thing meant, and it was therefore desirable to adhere to the old phraseology. The noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam) seemed to speak of "judicial separation" as if it were something distinct from "divorce à mensâ et thoro," but it was, in point of fact, the same thing. He conceived that their Lordships' object was not to separate a man and wife without sufficient cause, but rather to restore wherever possible the restoration of conjugal rights. Why then, that being their object, grant a divorce à mensâ et thoro to a husband or wife who might be deserted for two years? He (Lord St. Leonards) believed the intention of the Committee upstairs, on whose Report the Bill was founded, was to adhere as nearly as possible to the established law, but to give a new tribunal, and readier means of access to that tribunal, to all classes of the population. He would move that the clause be omitted.
  On Question, "That the said Clause stand part of the Bill,"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 76; Not-Contents 37: Majority 39.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archbp.

  Worcester, Bp.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ardrossan, L. (E. Eglintoun.)

  Cleveland, D.

  Aveland, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Belper, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Brougham and Vaux, L. Calthorpe, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Campbell, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Carew, L.

  Townshend, M.

  Churchill, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Airlie, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Amherst, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard)

  Burlington, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Ellesmere, E.

  Leigh, L,

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Lilford, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Granville, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Grey, E.

  Manners, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Mayo, E.

  Melros, L. (E. Haddington.)

  Minto, E.

  Morley, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Silgo.)

  Munster, E.

  Orkney, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Panmure, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Rivers, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Sydney, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Truro, L.

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Wensleydale, L.

  London, Bp.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Manchester, D.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Norfolk, D.

  Durham, Bp.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Westmeath, M.

  Oxford, Bp.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Belmore, E.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Chichester, E.

  Derby, E.

  Berners, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Boston, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Talbot, E.

  Denman, L.

  De Ros, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Downes, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Feversham, L.

  St. Vincent, V.

  Gray, L.

  1409

  Kenmare, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Lovel and Holland L. (E. Egmont.)

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Petre, L.

  Clauses 18 to 21. agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he now rose to propose a clause with reference to a question which occasioned considerable discussion when this Bill was last before their Lordships—namely, as to the punishment of persons who were guilty of adultery—namely, whether by imprisonment or by a money fine in the event of adultery being declared a misdemeanour. It was originally proposed by this Bill that an action of crim. con. should not be brought until after a divorce had been obtained. That proposition was very fully discussed, but it was not satisfactory to their Lordships, and it was rejected. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leonards) proposed that adultery should be constituted a misdemeanour, and that proposition had been provisionally adopted. In the interval he (the Lord Chancellor) had considered with great attention the propriety of carrying that suggestion into effect. He had, however, arrived at the conclusion that it was not desirable to make adultery a, misdemeanour, for on many accounts it would be extremely difficult, if not impracticable, to carry out such an enactment. It would, for instance, be necessary to make exceptions where the adulterer was not aware that the woman was married, for in many cases traps might be laid, and a man might find himself accused of a crime which he had no idea of committing, or of having committed any crime cognizable by the law. Again, it was obvious that a very easy mode of extorting money by collusion would thus be afforded, and he thought the evil likely to result from such a change of the law would counterbalance its advantages. The two objects which they should endeavour to accomplish were, first, to render the commission of adultery less frequent; and, secondly, to take care that, when proceedings were adopted for obtaining a divorce à vinculo matrimonii, there should be a bonâ fide resisting party, and that no collusion should take place. He now proposed a clause with the view of carrying out those objects. What he suggested was that any person seeking to obtain a divorce à vinculo matrimonii should not be at liberty, as he now was, to proceed against the wife alone, unless the
  1410
  court should declare that there were special reasons for sanctioning such a course; and also a fortiori that he should not be enabled to proceed against the adulterer alone in the absence of his wife, so as to fix adultery on her in her absence; but that in every case when the husband sought a divorce à vinculo matrimonii on the ground of adultery, he should present a petition to the court praying that both parties should be made respondents or defendants in the case. Both the parties, the alleged adulterer and the wife, would thus be before the court, and the action would be bonâ fide resisted. As to the punishment, he should propose that the Court should have the power to impose a fine upon the paramour, and that fine, with the view of indicating that it was not in-tended to be merely a nominal one, he should propose to limit to an amount not exceeding £10,000. The amount had been objected to as being excessive, but it was only intended to indicate that it should not be a merely nominal fine. He, therefore, now proposed the insertion of a clause, to the effect that in actions for adultery both the wife and the adulterer should be made parties to it; and that a decree of divorce against the wife should also be a decree condemnatory of the adulterer, and subjecting him to such a fine as the Court in its discretion might impose. He believed that such a course would be the most practicable, and one most likely to prevent the commission of the offence, because it would not only have the effect of exposing the conduct of the parties and inflicting a heavy fine upon the paramour, but every one charged would have proper notice of the action and an opportunity of defending themselves. The noble and learned Lord then proposed his clause, as follows—
  "Upon any such Petition presented by a husband the Petitioner shall make the alleged Adulterer a co-respondent to the said Petition, unless on special grounds, to be allowed by the Court, he shall be excused from so doing, and the Respondents, or either of them may insist on having the alleged adultery tried by a jury as hereinafter mentioned."
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he entirely approved of the plan proposed by his noble and learned Friend. They were all agreed in condemning the action for criminal conversation, but the difficulty was how to prevent the adulterer and the adultress from going free. Many years ago Pitt, Fox, and Grenville, and others who edified and adorned the two Houses of Parliament,

  1411
  expressed it is their opinion that the action for criminal conversation ought to be abolished, and that a substitute for it ought to be provided by making adultery an offence liable to be visited with punishment. Of the same opinion was that renowned advocate and splendid orator—the chief of the legal profession in his day—Erskine, many of whose immortal laurels were gained in connexion with actions for criminal conversation; and in that opinion Lord Eldon entirely concurred. He had before alluded to the injustice and hardship inflicted upon women by that action; and of these he would now give their Lordships one example. He held in his hand five letters from the alleged, the falsely alleged, paramour of the injured lady to whom they referred, and he would answer for it that the reading of those letters by two, or thee, or more, of their Lordships, would at once convince them that the charge against that lady of having had an amour with his late lamented friend Lord Melbourne, was absolutely and necessarily impossible to be true. He had read them, and they had produced the most absolute conviction in his mind that the thing was utterly and entirely untrue. Yet an action was brought behind the back of that lady, without necessarily any notice, and but for the verdict of the jury, obtained through the exertions of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), the character of that lady would have been ruined for life, she being as entirely and absolutely guiltless as any human being in the three kingdoms. As regarded the punishment of an adulterer, he preferred the infliction of a fine to an indictment for misdemeanour, his reason for so doing being the difficulties which beset all attempts to detect conspiracy in such cases. One example occurred to him at that moment. A merchant's clerk in the city went home with a woman whom he supposed to be following her professional avocation; it afterwards turned out that she was married; an action was brought, and on proof being given of the fact of marriage, damages were awarded to the amount of £1,500. It was almost impossible to provide any absolute safeguard against conspiracy and collusion.
  EARL GREYsaid, that although he thought that the clause now proposed was a great improvement on the original proposition, still he was of opinion that the imposition of a fine would operate very unequally upon the wealthy and the poorer
  1412
  classes of persons. He should be glad to see imprisonment enacted as well as a fine, and if no other noble Lord undertook the task, he should himself propose a clause to that effect. From the first he (Earl Grey) had entertained grave doubts of the propriety of legalizing divorces à vinculo matrimonii at all; he trusted therefore that the present measure would be regarded only in the light of an experiment, and that, if found to lead to an increased laxity of morals, the Legislature should return to what had always been the theory, though not the practical law of the country—namely, rendering the marriage tie indissoluble except by the death of one of the parties.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had always thought the action for crim. con. a disgrace to English jurisprudence, and he entirely approved of the proposals of his noble and learned Friend in the clause under discussion. With regard to the suggestions for making the offence a misdemeanour, he could not give it his support, as it would enable any man to prosecute in those cases. The fine would be in all cases proportioned to the means of the adulterer, and would therefore press equally upon the rich and the poor, He would, however, have preferred his noble and learned Friend leaving the amount of the fine quite open to the discretion of the presiding Judge.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that while he entirely agreed with the noble and learned Lord as to the inexpediency of granting additional facilities for obtaining divorce, he thought that the punishment of imprisonment should be added to the money fine, because a fine in the case of a rich man was next to no punishment, and in the case of a man of moderate means it would operate as a very heavy punishment. Imprisonment, on the other hand, savoured of disgrace, which a money fine did not; indeed, he could imagine the latter punishment being regarded in certain vitiated states of society rather as an honour than as a disgrace. The proper course would be to render adultery a disgraceful crime against society, and to punish it as such. If the House agreed to the present clause he would move, upon the reading of the 25th clause, the insertion of a clause to enable the Court to impose imprisonment as well as fine, and also to give power to apply any part or the whole of the fine to pay the costs of the proceedings.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment to this clause, to the effect that a party who had once been a defendant in a suit in the court of divorce should afterwards be allowed to become a prosecutor in the event of having contracted another marriage. The object was to avoid the scandal that often took place on the Continent.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORcould not assent to any such Amendment. If a divorce à vinculo was allowed at all, the effect ought to be to place the parties in a position of perfect freedom, as if no marriage had ever been contracted. As to scandals to which the noble Earl had referred, he did not think they were likely to occur in this country. For many years the law of divorce had been in practical operation, and no such case had ever occurred.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 25 agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert a clause:—
  "Whenever in any such petition presented by a husband the alleged adulterer shall have been made a co-respondent, and the adultery shall have been established against him, the Court shall impose on him a fine of such amount as it may deem just, not exceeding ten thousand pounds, and may also order him to pay all or any part of the costs of the said proceedings."
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDproposed, as an Amendment to the proposed clause, to insert after the word "established"—
  "it shall be lawful for the Court to pass upon the guilty parties, or either of them, sentence of fine and imprisonment, or fine or imprisonment, as if they had been convicted of a misdemeanour at common law, and it shall be lawful for the Court to order the whole or any part of such fine to be applied in payment of the costs of the proceedings."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought it would be better to limit the punishment to fine, as this was the first time that such a principle had been introduced into the law.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsupported the Amendment, as a fine only would be of very little effect in the case of wealthy persons.
  LORD CAMPBELLthought it would be to better to keep by the fine alone. In some cases a husband might feel reluctance and even horror at taking a course which might send his wife, even though guilty, to prison.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKobserved, that in some cases a heavy fine would fall as a punishment upon the children.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDreminded their Lordships that imprisonment was not rendered imperative by his Amendment. It might be inflicted in extreme cases, but these would be very rare.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORcould imagine nothing more revolting to the mind of a man whose wife had been unfaithful to him than the reflection that he could not obtain a divorce without subjecting her to imprisonment.
  LORD BROUGHAMobjected to the Amendment, which gave a Court power to inflict a heavy punishment of imprisonment without the intervention of a jury. No doubt the sole action of a Court was sometimes useful, as in cases of insolvency or bankruptcy, but it was not the same in respect of criminal proceedings.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDobserved that, by a new clause which would be proposed, there would be a trial before a jury.
  EARL GREYsaid, as they were about for the first time to make divorce a part of the law of the land it was necessary to guard that change by every possible precaution. A pecuniary fine might be sufficient in some cases, but there were others in which it would be totally inadequate. There were special cases in which justice could only be done by punishing the guilty parties by imprisonment. In cases where a designing woman had entrapped a man into adultery with the desire of being detected, a fine would be of little use. Such cases might be rare, but that they did sometimes occur was a matter of history.
  On Question, Whether the said words be there inserted? their Lordships divided:—Contents 43; Not-Contents 33: Majority 10.
  Amendment made; Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Centerbury, Archbp.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Norfolk, D.

  Dungannon, V.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Westmeath, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Airlie, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Lifford, V.

  Bantry, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Cowper, E.

  Durham, Bp,

  Derby, E.

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Grey, E.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Mayo, E.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  London, Bp.

  Romney, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Lovat, L.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Petre, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  DeMauley, L.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Denman, L.

  De Ros, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellar.)

  Cloncurry, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Leigh, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Manners, L.

  Granville, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Panmure, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Rossic, L. (L.Kinnaird) [Teller.]

  Minto, E.

  Morley, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Orkney, E.

  Portsmouth, E,

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Seafield, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Belper, L.

  Talbot de Malahidc, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Truro, L.

  Campbell, L.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Clauses 20 to 44 agreed to.
  Upon Clause 45, prohibiting persons divorced after being proved guilty of adultery from marrying again,
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved the omission of certain words, and the insertion of others, with the view of restoring the clause to the state in which it stood previous to the Amendment moved by the Archbishop of Canterbury when the Bill was last in Committee, prohibiting the re-marriage of the guilty party. That Amendment was made by the most rev. Prelate, and was carried on a division by a small majority. Without saying what was the proper interpretation of the scriptural texts on the subject, he would admit that they ought to legislate on it in the spirit of those texts, and with the view to promote public morality and public policy. He could conceive nothing more scandalous in point of public morality than by Act of Parliament to place the woman, and in some cases the man, in a position in which they must remain single, and in the case of the woman, to force her, necessarily in some instances, into a state of prostitution. It was gross injustice to leave the adulterer at liberty to re-marry, and to restrain the woman who had been
  1416
  divorced in consequence of his licentiousness from the same liberty. He thought there ought to be no restriction, and that the woman in such cases ought to be at liberty to marry the adulterer or any one else. The noble and learned Lord then moved to omit ("Party on whose petition the marriage shall have been dissolved") and insert ("respective parties thereto").
  LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his cordial approval of the Amendment.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say, that both upon Scriptural grounds and for reasons of public morality he did not think that guilty persons ought to be permitted to marry again. He would, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLstated that several noble Lords had voted for the introduction of the words proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury upon the supposition that they amounted merely to a prohibition of marriage between paramours. He could not believe that a majority of their Lordships would wish to condemn a person guilty of adultery to perpetual celibacy, or, probably, to a life of immorality. It was not improbable that some so-called Amendments had been proposed with a view to the rejection of the Bill elsewhere.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the Amendment of the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), which it was now proposed to expunge, did not condemn the guilty party to perpetual celibacy. It provided that the husband or wife guilty of adultery should not marry while the husband or wife who had obtained a divorce continued to live. If that provision were removed they would have the anomaly of a person divorced à vinculo being in a better position than a person divorced à mensâ ct thoro, because the latter could not, but the former could, marry in the lifetime of the person from whom they were divorced.
  EARL GREYexplained that on the former evening he voted for the Amendment, because he did not wish to see divorce à vineulo given without some safeguard; but he thought it ill fulfilled that purpose, and, as they had now made adultery liable to punishment, not only by fine but by imprisonment, he should vote for the Amendment now proposed—that was, to strike out the prohibition.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, the object of their Lordships should be to surround the innocent with the greatest number of guards, rather than to leave the guilty exposed to the possible inconvenience of marrying their paramours. That was most eminently the character of the proposition of the most reverend Prelate. All experience showed that the purity of civilized society depended more upon the absolute chastity of the woman rather than the principle of the man. The temptation I to sin assailed the man and the woman on two opposite sides of their character. In the man the great temptation was the gratification of appetite; but it was not so in the woman. The late Mr. Coleridge, in one of his admirable essays on the relation between the two sexes, expressed the idea so forcibly that he would quote the words—"The desire of the man is for the woman; the desire of the woman is for the desire of the man." That was to say, that the woman was led astray, not by the direct temptation of sensual appetite, but by the proffer of affection—by the promise that what in early life she trusted to be to her husband, but had failed in being—namely, the object of attachment and affection—she would be to the tempter. Those married women who had fallen from the direct temptation of appetite were very rare exceptions, and in ninety-nine cases out of 100 they fell, because their marriage had been unhappy in its consequences. To say, therefore, that the woman should not marry for the natural lifetime of the husband she dishonoured, was to take away from the tempter a prevailing bait and to give an additional safeguard to her remaining innocent. Let their Lordships remember what the proviso was, that was embodied in the clause at the instance of the most rev. Prelate. It was not in any sense put in as a penalty upon either party that they should be prohibited from marrying, longer than they would have been prohibited from marrying another, if they had not sinned. The innocent party was allowed under the clause to marry again; and was it an extreme punishment to say to the guilty person that he or she should not marry again during the lifetime of the party from whom he or she was divorced? It seemed to him monstrous to represent that as an outrageous violation of liberty.
  After a few words from Lord DE ROS,
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONfelt himself at liberty, now that adultery was to be
  1418
  punished by fine and imprisonment, to vote for the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, and against the Amendment made the other night in the Bill, on the Motion of the most rev. Prelate.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 24, Not-Contents 46: Majority 22.

  CONTENTS

  Canterbury, Archbp.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Durham, Bp.

  Norfolk, D.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Mayo, E.

  St. David's. Bp.

  Nelson, E. [Teller]

  Romney, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Gordon, V. (E. aberdeen.)

  Lovat, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Dononghmore.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Redesdale, L.

  Stafford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Campbell, L.

  Cloncurry, L.)

  Congleton, L.

  Cleveland, D.

  Dc Mauley, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Denman, L.

  De Ros, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  De Tabley, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Westmeath, M.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Airlie, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Cowper, E.

  Granville, E.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Grey, E.

  Manners, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Panmure, L.

  Minto, E.

  Ponsonby, E. (E. Bessborough.)

  Morloy, E.

  Munster, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.) [Teller]

  Seafield, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)

  Dungannon, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Sundridge, L. (Argyll.)

  London, Bp.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Belper, L.

  Truro, L.

  LORD WENSLEYDALEthen moved an Amendment, to add to the clause the following proviso:—
  "Provided that the other party shall not marry the person with whom the adultery is proved to have been committed, and the Court in its decree for a divorce is to name that person"
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEcould

  1419
  not assent to the Amendment, which he thought would not tend practically to promote the interests of religion and morality. He believed that in cases of this description women were generally led into error by passion, and those who had lived long in the world were aware of the feeling with which women who had so erred were regarded by their own sex. Even if women who had thus fallen remarried, they were still in a position of great degradation, and it was difficult to estimate the punishment they suffered. The object of legislation should be to provide for the reformation of offenders after they had suffered punishment for their crimes; but he believed the effect of this Amendment, by depriving a woman of the opportunity of marrying her partner in sin, would be to degrade her utterly, and to drive her to a course of prostitution. When they dealt with a burglar or a perjurer, they always supposed that he might, by repentance, be qualified to resume, in some measure, that position in society which he had occupied before he became a criminal; and were they in the case of a woman alone to refuse the opportunity of reformation, although experience had shown that women who had violated the marriage vow had subsequently become faithful wives and good mothers, and had shown themselves deserving of that limited respect which could be gained by persons under such circumstances? He agreed with a great legal authority who had said that cases of this description ought to be dealt with according to the particular circumstances of each case, and he considered that the discretion ought to be left to the Court. This Amendment, however, if it should be adopted, would deprive the Court of any discretionary power.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD,in supporting the Amendment, observed, that it was unnecessary to repeat the arguments he had urged on a former occasion, but he might remind their Lordships that they were not legislating simply for one class, but for all classes of the community, and that they ought to consider the effect which might be produced by their legislation upon what were called the lowest orders of society. Unless they agreed to this proviso, they offered great inducements to crime, with the view of dissolving the marriage tie. The noble Marquess was wrong, in thinking that the first object of legislation was the reformation of the
  1420
  offender: it was the prevention of crime. It was said that they should not impose too stringent restrictions in the first instance, because, if it were found necessary, the law might subsequently he rendered more severe; but all experience showed that it was much easier to relax a law than to increase its stringency.
  LORD CAMPBELLshould support the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend.
  On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided;—Contents 28; Not-Contents 37: Majority 9.

  CONTENTS

  Canterbury, Abp.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Durham, Bp.

  Norfolk, D.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Chichester, E.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Mayo, E.

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Campbell, L.

  Romney, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Lovat, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

  Lyttelton, L.

  Petre, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donougmore.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Wensleydale, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Belper, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Cleveland, D.

  Denman, L.

  Wellington, D.

  De Ros, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Foley, L. (Teller.)

  Westmeath, M,

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Cowper, E.

  Leigh, L,

  Granville, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Grey, E.

  Harrington, E,

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Manners, L.

  Minto, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Morley, E.

  Panmure, L.

  Munster, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessbourough.)

  Portsmouth, E,

  Seafield, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Roossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.) (Teller.)

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  London, Bp.

  Truro, L.

  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.