did not know to what member of her Majesty's Government he should address his question, not knowing what officer was connected with railways, or that branch of the public service. He wished to know whether there existed at present a commission of engineers for the purpose of reporting upon contested lines of railway in England; and if there were, what were the lines referred to that commission for its decision?

was not aware that he could answer the right hon. Gentleman's question with perfect accuracy. He believed the matter stood thus:—There were two addresses in the course of the last session of Parliament—one for an inquiry into two lines of railway, which were in contemplation in the north of England, with a view to ascertain their respective merits—he meant the line leading from London towards Edinburgh and Glasgow —the other address referred to the lines contemplated towards Ireland. In consequence of these addresses to the Crown, in the course of last session, engineers were appointed to investigate those lines which had been surveyed, and he knew that the engineers were at present prosecuting the inquiry; and, he would add, with all convenient speed the result of those inquiries would be made public. When that commission was appointed, he believed express care was taken to guard against its being supposed that it was a general commission of engineers to inquire into all competing lines, or to inquire generally into the subject of railways. On the contrary, it was stated that the commission would merely apply to the lines already surveyed, and which might be supposed to have reference to the great lines of communication with the North, and with England.

presumed that it was not intended to take these lines out of the hands of private companies for the purpose of having them executed by the Government.

said, decidedly not. The Government, viewing the importance of the subject, had considered itself authorised to interfere merely to see that the best lines were selected.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to ascertain and define the rights of voting for Members of Parliament in Scotland. He was aware that this was a subject of great importance, but it had been investigated by a committee of the House; and the Bill which he proposed to introduce was in a great measure founded on the recommendations of that committee. He trusted that it was not necessary to enter into any details, but that leave would be given to bring in the Bill that the provisions might be before the House.

said, that as the learned Lord moved the introduction of the measure, with the advice, no doubt, of her Majesty's Government, he would not object to the introduction that the provisions might be seen by the House and the country; but, at the same time, he could not allow the introduction of the Bill without entering his protest against any distinction being introduced between freeholders as a class in England and Scotland, and against introducing into Scotland any provisions incompatible with the Reform Act for the three countries, and against attempting to impose on freehold property, before it gave the right of voting, the necessary qualification of residence. The principle now proposed was not in the English Bill; it went far beyond the necessity of the case, and beyond the recommendation of the committee, the labours of which the learned Lord had used. For his own part he never would consent to make any distinction between the law of England and of Scotland.

said, that having considered this point, it appeared to him that the old law in England need not be touched, unless the right of voting of freeholders had been attended with any evil, and when they were introducing a real representation into Scotland, where there had been none before, they might take the English law. At the same time, he thought that those who had the real right ought to vote. If he had found that gross abuses had been introduced into England—if he had found that the electors of York and of Middlesex were not bona fide freeholders—he would have thought that some restriction ought to have been introduced. That position it was for his noble Friend to make out; the Bill must not be supported because votes were given to persons who were not resident, but that the right had been abused.

said, that if this Bill passed, no person could vote unless he had a house on the spot.

said, that to his own knowledge, many persons became freeholders who were not real residents; he knew that such things had occurred in the small counties of Wales. Now residence was required by the old law, and it should be their serious consideration, when deciding upon the law of voting, to attend to this old law. He thought, therefore, that the learned Lord was fully justified in the principle of this Bill.

hoped that the noble Lord had heard the speech of the hon. Member, showing that the same things existed in Wales. If abuses existed they ought to be remedied, but by this Bill it was contrived to disfranchise the bona fide freeholders.

said, that as the hon. Gentleman admitted that if abuses existed, they ought to be remedied, if there were no means of correcting those abuses and of preventing the swamping of the bona fide electors, but by enforcing residence, he hoped that he should have the support of the hon. Gentleman. Certain he was, that in order to arrive at a pure representation of the people, it would be necessary to adopt the principle that each individual should have one vote and no more.

I have to acquaint the House, that the Sergeant-at-Arms has a communication of the highest importance to make to this House.

, appeared at the bar, and said, that last evening, about six o'clock, he had been served with a writ of habeas corpus from the Court of Queen's Bench, commanding him to bring up the bodies of William Evans, Esq., and John Wheelton, Esq., then in his custody. As he had acted by the warrant of the Speaker under the authority of that House, he conceived it his duty to lay this information before the House, with a view to receive their further directions.

handed in the writ, which was read by the clerk.

inquired what indorsement was on the instrument. The clerk read "William Burchell, solicitor.—Robinson, clerk in court."

then rose and said, that the House would perceive that their Sergeant-at-Arms had acted in strict conformity with his duty. He had taken the earliest opportunity of informing the House, that he had been served with the writ of habeas corpus, and the question for the House to determine was, what steps should be taken under circumstances of such great importance. It was a crisis of great moment; they were struggling for the existence of their privileges, and any false step might involve them in inextricable difficulty. It might very possibly be contended, that though this writ had been served upon their Sergeant-at-Arms, it ought not to be obeyed. He would not then enter into any nice question of law in regard to the power of either House of Parliament to order its officer to disregard a writ of habeas corpus. He had no hesitation in advising the House to direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to return to the Court of Queen's Bench, that he held these two individuals in custody by the warrant of the Speaker. That was the safe, the dignified, and the constitutional course. Let it not be supposed that thereby they submitted their privileges to the judgment of a court of law. The Court could do nothing but simply remand the prisoners into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. But if there should be a departure from all established precedent and usage, and the Court should question the commitment, such an usurpation on the part of the Court, would give the House a decided advantage in the struggle, should it be continued. It had been determined by a long series of authorities, that this House had the power to commit for contempt, and that when it did so commit, no court of law whatever, had the power to inquire into the cause of the committal. In some instances the cause had been set out on the face of the warrant, and in those cases the Court had decided that they could not judge whether such cause was sufficient or insufficient. In other instances, the cause had not been set out, and then the judges had decided that the omission was immaterial, as they could not have reviewed the cause, had it been set out ever so distinctly. He would, for the information of the House, mention one or two cases in which that doctrine had been held. There was Lord Shaftesbury's ease, in which the cause of commitment was not mentioned on the warrant more than in general terms, that the prisoner had beer committed for a high contempt of the House. Upon Lord Shaftesbury's moving for a habeas corpus, and the objection being made that the warrant was insufficient, inasmuch as it did not state the cause of commitment, what was the language of the Lord Chief Justice? It was to the effect, "that the Court had no jurisdiction in the case, and that they ought not to attempt to extend their jurisdiction beyond its proper limits, and the actions of their predecessors would not warrant them in such a course." Therefore, although the commitment of Lord Shaftesbury by the House of Lords was general, and merely for contempt, the Court held unanimously that they had no jurisdiction at all to inquire, and they remanded the prisoner. He would mention also a case which occurred in 1751. That was a commitment by the House of Commons under a similar warrant; he meant the case of Alexander Murray, who was committed for contempt, the contempt not being specified in the warrant. He was brought before the judges of the Court of King's Bench, and Wright, Justice, said,

"It appeared, by the return to the writ of habeas corpus, that Murray had been committed to Newgate, under a warrant charging him with a high and dangerous contempt of the privileges of the House of Commons, and it was insisted at the bar that that was a bailable case, within the meaning of the Habeas Corpus Act. The answer to that was, that it had never been maintained that the act gave power to the judges to decide upon the privileges of the House of Commons, and it had been agreed upon all hands that they had power to judge of their own privileges. It need not appear to them what the contempt was for which he had been committed; for it did appear, they could not judge thereof. Lord Shaftesbury had been committed for a contempt of the House of Lords, and, being brought before the King's Bench on a writ of habeas corpus, the court must remand him, because in no case that had been cited had the court interfered. The House of Commons was superior to that court in that particular, and they could not, therefore, enter into that question."

Justice Denison said,

"The Court, as any other Court, had granted the writ of habeas corpus, not knowing what the commitment was; but now it appeared that it was for a contempt of their privileges. What these privileges were, the Court did not know, nor need they tell what the contempt was, for the Court could not judge of it. That Court must be considered inferior to the House of Commons, with respect of judging of contempt against it. The case was a clear one, and required no sort of consideration."

Judge Foster, who it was well known was considered as one of the most constitutional judges that ever sat upon the bench, agreed in that decision, upon the ground

"That the law of Parliament was part of | the law of the land."

He would further remind the House that when Sir F. Burdett's case went to the House of Lords, Lord Eldon proposed the following question for the opinion of the judges: —

"Whether, if the Court of Common Pleas adjudged an act to be a contempt of court, and committed the offender by a warrant, stating generally, without those circumstances that led to a commitment—whether in that cause the Court of Queen's Bench would discharge the prisoner, because the particular facts out of which the contempt arose, were not set forth in the warrant."

That in substance would be, whether such a warrant as had been signed in the case of Messrs. Evans and Wheelton, were signed by the authority of the Court of Common Pleas—whether that would be good. The question being handed over to the judges, and they having consulted for a few minutes, Chief Baron Richards delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges, that in such a case the Court of Queen's Bench could not interfere. They therefore, had the unanimous judgment of the whole of the judges of England, that on a commitment by a court of law, where the warrant did not specify the cause, is a good commitment, and no other court could inquire whether that commitment was proper or improper. A power belonging to a court of law would hardly be denied to the Houses of Parliament. Under those circumstances, he (the Attorney-general) thought that they might with confidence direct their Sergeant-at-Arms to make a return of the warrant under which Messrs. Evans and Wheelton had been committed. He (the Attorney-general) apprehended that on the warrant being read, the Court of Queen's Bench could do nothing else than say that the prisoners must return to the custody whence they came. If they decided differently, it would be a flagrant violation of law, and the House would con- sider what powers the constitution had given them for the vindication of their own privileges, against the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. He would conclude by moving,

"That the Sergeant-at-Arms should be directed to make a return to the said writ, that he holds the bodies of the said William Evans and John Wheelton, Esqrs., by virtue of a warrant under the hand and seal of the Speaker, issued by the authority of the House of Commons, for contempt of a breach of the privileges of that House."

did not rise to oppose the motion of the learned Attorney-general, but he felt it his duty to state, that the learned Gentleman had not explained the real question which would come before the Queen's Bench on this return, which would be, whether or not an officer of that court could be interfered with, and be stopped in the discharge of his duties, by any power known to the constitution of this country; and it was yet to be decided, whether the court would not require the parties who had adopted such a course to come before them, and justify so serious an interruption of the course of justice. Let the House for a moment escape from the idea of this being a contest between it and the Queen's Bench, and consider it as a question whether, when one of the subjects of the realm had gained a legal verdict, and was about to receive the fruits of that verdict, the constitution would allow any single body of men to step in between those parties, and do away with the judgment of the court. He would not anticipate the arguments that would be used before the judges, nor would he venture to say that they would not remand the sheriffs; he would give no opinion on that point; but he hoped, that there would be no wish or intention to gain a triumph over the judges. Nothing could be more abhorrent from a well-regulated mind than the attempts which had been made by the Ministerial papers to throw ridicule upon the judges of the realm. He would particularly refer to a paragraph which had appeared in one of the morning journals this very day, describing the judges as "fifteen elderly Gentlemen, living in Bedford-square, and occupied principally in deciding how often thens and theres should be inserted in a special demurrer." If the returns were made as proposed by the Attorney-general, which appeared to be the regular course, he presumed that the sheriffs would accompany the sergeant-at-arms into court. If the opinion of the court was, that they ought to be remanded, let it be so; but if the opinion of the court was, that they ought to be discharged, he trusted that there were men in England who would not refuse to assist the judges in the due administration of justice.

said, that whatever others might have said, he had not meant the slightest disrespect to the Judges in anything he had said. He not only loved them as friends, but venerated them as most conscientious magistrates. He thought in this instance that they were in error, but he had never attributed to them anything like improper motives. As to the questions that might arise, he would say that none could possibly arise, if good cause of detention were shown. The writ of habeas corpus required that the person to whom it was directed should state if he held the, body of any individual in his custody, and under what authority he so held it, and if the authority were sufficient, the warrant must be considered a valid warrant, and this was a valid warrant, unless the unanimous decision of all the Judges for centuries was wrong.

thought that they would be asserting their own privileges, and in the most efficient manner, and at the same time paying a proper respect to the Judges, by not indulging in speculations as to what the decision of the court might be. If the House thought fit to make a return to the writ of habeas corpus, it was their duty without speculating as to the consequences to return the truth, and to consider any question that might arise afterwards. The judges would dispose of the case according to what they believed to be the law, and if the House considered their decision to be wrong, then would be the time to question it. He trusted, therefore, that he should hear no more speculation as to what would be done by the judges.

then rose and said, that the House, in its Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne, had littered its heartfelt congratulations to her Majesty on an occasion so deeply interesting to all her faithful subjects as her approaching marriage; and it then went on to assure her Majesty, "We shall cheerfully concur in such measures as may demonstrate our duty and attachment to her Majesty's person and family, and as may be necessary to provide for such an establishment as may appear suitable to the rank of the Prince and the dignity of the Crown." With respect to the subject of her Majesty's marriage, except in so far as it was connected with the pecuniary provision which it might be proper to make for Prince Albert, it would not be necessary for him to make any observations, after the debate which took place on the address, carried as that address was by the unanimous vote of the House. He might, however, observe, in respect to political considerations, that he thought it would have been a subject of considerable embarrassment to this country at a future time, if her Majesty's marriage connected her with any considerable power of Europe, thus entangling the empire with the alliances and the enmities of foreign kingdoms. This was a difficulty felt, though in a minor degree, in the course of the last century, in consequence of the connection of this country with Hanover, though in the Act of Settlement it was expressly provided that this country should not be involved in war without the consent of Parliament, for the defence of the King's electoral dominions. But it was obvious, if the Sovereign of this country found his inheritance invaded, it would be impossible for this country, in the honourable support of its Sovereign, not to become embarrassed in the defence of those territories. He mentioned this, because he thought it had some bearing upon the provision now about to be made, and, indeed, upon the subject generally, Prince Albert being born in a foreign dominion, but, at the same time, coming to this country at an early period of his life, he thought it should be our object to attach him as much as possible to English habits and connections, and induce him to think, that he would always find from this country that affectionate support which he was sure, would always he given to the Throne of these realms. Anything, therefore, that would tend to show—contrary to all former precedents, and contrary, he thought, to the wisdom which had hitherto guided these arrangements—that it was the desire of Parliament that the Prince at any future time should dissolve his connection with this country, would be at once unjust and impolitic. He would now state all the circumstances which appeared to him to bear upon the question of the amount of provision that ought to be made for Prince Albert. The Prince who might be allied to the Queen of this country had not properly any prerogatives, or powers, or legal attributes, such as belonged to the Queen Consort of these realms. At the same time, the position of the Queen Consort was in many respects, the nearest in analogy to the position of the Prince who became the husband of the Queen. With regard to the arrangements that had been made in former times, it was, of course, quite useless to mention the precedent of the marriage of a King of Spain with the Queen of these dominions. Another of the Queens of this country was married a considerable time before her accession to the Throne—he alluded to the Princess Anne of Denmark. Her marriage was contracted a number of years before the Revolution, and many years before her accession to the Throne. On ascending the Throne a provision was made for her after the same plan of arrangement as the household of King William 3rd had been provided for. But any arrangement of what could be called the civil list of that time was so totally different from any that had been made of late years, that it could not fairly be considered as affording a precedent applicable in any way to the present altered state of things. For instance, an attempt was made after the Revolution to separate the general expenses of the country from those which were supposed to belong more peculiarly to the Sovereign; and for that purpose it was proposed that a specific sum should be granted to King William for certain specific purposes, and that another should be granted to defray those general expenses which appeared to belong more properly to the country than to the Sovereign. Under this arrangement the sum allotted to King William 3rd, for the household, the payment of the judges, and other charges attaching to the civil list formed about one third of the expense of the peace establishment of the country. When Queen Anne came to the Throne, the general expense of the peace establishment being then about 2,000,000l., a sum of 700,000l. was appropriated to the Queen, out of which 100,000l. a-year was devoted by her to the expenses of Prince George. There was at that time no special provision made for Prince George; hut, in 1702, the Queen's warrant was passed granting 50,000l. a-year to the Prince, one moiety of which was to be paid out of the Excise, the other moiety out of the receipts of the Post-office. This was all that could be quoted, in the way of precedent, with regard to princes who had been the husbands of the reigning Queens in this country. An arrangement was proposed to Parliament in 1816 with regard to Prince Leopold. It was to be remembered, that Prince Leopold married the heiress presumptive to the Throne. There was of course no certainty that the Princess would ever succeed to be the Queen of this country, even if she lived to survive her father. A sum of 60,000l. a-year was granted for the Princess Charlotte and Prince Leopold; and 50,000l. a-year of that sum was afterwards settled upon Prince Leopold during his life. The other cases which bore, he thought, a very considerable analogy to the present, were the cases of the Queen Consort of this kingdom. Upon this part of the subject, he begged to read that to which he had referred the other night, namely, the report of the select committee of 1831 upon the civil list. [The noble Lord read the report, in which the committee, after pointing out the absence of any data by which they could be governed beyond the mere reference to precedents, concluded by recommending that 110,000l. should be "allotted to the privy purse of their Majesties King William and Queen Adelaide, of which 60,000l. should be for the privy purse of the King, and 50,000l. for the privy purse of the Queen.] That recommendation of the Committee was adopted by Parliament without alteration or amendment. When the present Queen came to the Throne, the privy purse was reduced by 50,000l., leaving only to her Majesty a sum of 60,000l. a-year. But, in order to institute a fair comparison, it would be necessary to refer for a moment to two changes which had been made in another respect. On the accession of her present Majesty, the arrangement which formerly gave 75,000l. a-year for pensions was altered, and a sum of 1,200l. to be granted yearly only allowed for that purpose; and, according to the statement of the late Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, the whole expense of pensions was taken at 35,000l. a-year. In the next place, 10,000l. a-year for secret service, which previously had been charged in the civil list, was, under the new arrangement made upon her Majesty's accession, transferred to the Consolidated Fund. It was not necessary for him then to enter into a comparison of the relative merits and advantages of these two modes of arrangement; it would be enough to say, that whereas by the former arrangement there had been some excess, under the present management there had been a considerable saving. It appeared, that the civil list of William and Adelaide amounted to 435,000l., and that the civil list of her present Majesty was limited to 385,000l., being the difference of the 50,000l. previously allotted to the privy purse of Queen Adelaide. As far, then, as they could judge by precedent of these matters (and he should endeavour presently to show, that there was no other mode of judging of them), it would appear, that 50,000l. a-year was the sum that had been allotted to Princes in the situation of Prince Albert and to the Queens Consort of this country. With respect to the sums which had been granted either to the husband of the Queen, or to Queens Consort in all cases of their surviving the Sovereign, the sum allowed was always greater than that which he now proposed. In the cases of Prince George of Denmark and Queen Caroline, the Consort of George 2nd, 100,000l. a-year was settled by Parliament upon each, in the event of their surviving the Sovereign. The Princess Dowager of Wales, the mother of George 3rd, had an annuity for life of 50,000l. Queen Charlotte, the consort of George 3rd, had a dower of 100,000l. a-year settled upon her in case she should survive his Majesty; and in the late reign, a similar dower was voted to Queen Adelaide, in the event of her surviving King William 4th. In the case of Prince Leopold, who, as he (Lord John Russell) had already stated, was not the husband of the Queen, and who might never arrive at the duties, the rank and the station which attached to the husband of the Queen, 50,000l. a-year was granted incase he should survive the Princess. With these several precedents before them, the; proposition that he wished to make was, j that the House should empower her Majesty to grant an annual sum of 50,000l. a-year out of the Consolidated Fund to Prince Albert upon his marriage; to commence from the day of his marriage, and to continue for the whole of his life. By this arrangement it was proposed to embrace the two periods which heretofore had been regarded separately, namely, the period that the Prince might remain the husband of the Queen, and the period that he might survive her. Now with regard to any particular reasons or grounds which led the Government to make this proposition, he did not know that he had any to state, he did not find any direct authority for what they were doing; neither did lie feel himself competent to put the House in possession of any detailed information on the subject. He found that the select committee of 1831 stated, in several parts of their report, that with regard to the expenses necessary for the dignity and support of the Sovereign in the present times, it was impossible for them to form an opinion. They stated further, that they had taken the opinion of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Althorp, upon the subject. He (Lord John Russell) had looked through the statements contained in the very eloquent and celebrated speech of Mr. Burke with respect to the civil list; but he did not find anything in it that could affect the present question. He could only say generally, that an establishment of some sort must be maintained by Prince Albert, and that it will be impossible for him, with the rank and dignity which he will hold as the Queen's husband, not to have about him persons above the ordinary rank, who would be ready to be in attendance at the royal palace in the usual manner in which Lords in waiting were in attendance upon the Sovereign. Without saying that anything definitive had been fixed, he might observe, that it was proposed to form the establishment of Prince Albert upon the model of the establishment of the Prince of Wales, during the time that the Prince of Wales had a separate allowance. He would have a groom of the stole, with 1,200l. a-year; grooms in waiting, an equerry, and other officers of the same class, whose salaries would amount to about 7,000l. or 8,000l. a-year. This was necessary, in order that the husband of the Queen might have in attendance upon him persons of superior rank and station. With regard to other expenses he did not know, that he could do more than refer to the precedents he had quoted. At a time when everything was much less costly, when an income of 10,000l. a-year would go as far perhaps as 20,000l. now, at that time it was thought, that the husband of the Queen—the husband of Queen Anne —should have 50,000l. a year; and at all subsequent times the Queen Consort of the Sovereign had never received less than the like sum of 50,000l. a year. The proposition, therefore, that Prince Albert should receive 50,000l. a year appeared to him to be a reasonable one. The only ground, indeed, upon which he was told that the civil list upon this score ought to be reduced, was a ground which he really did not think applied to the present case. The proposition of the Government was this—that whereas the civil list of her present Majesty had been reduced by 50,000l., as compared with the civil list of his late Majesty, it should now again be increased to the same amount as was voted for William 4th, namely, 435,000l. In other words, that the 50,000l. formerly voted for the privy purse of Queen Adelaide should now be voted for the privy purse of Prince Albert. The only objection that he had heard to that proposition—and which he could not think applied in any way to the case—was founded, not upon what was proper or necessary to maintain the dignity of the Crown, not upon what was necessary to maintain the rank of the monarch and the household of the Prince, but upon the present unfortunate state of distress in some of the districts of the country. Nobody could lament more than he did, or more than the Government did, that such a state of distress should exist; but he owned he did not think it a ground upon which the House of Commons ought to found a vote for the permanent establishment of Prince Albert. If such a ground were once admitted, he did not know how the House could refuse to entertain the argument per contra. If the House were to make a limited grant of 21,000l. as was proposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Hume), on account of the distress which prevailed in the country this year, he did not know how, in a future year of great and general prosperity, it would be possible for the House to refuse an application for a larger grant, which should be as lavish as the hon. Member for Kilkenny would now have it mean. He did not think that was the proper manner in which they ought to make a provision for one who was about to be so nearly allied to the Sovereign of this country. If, indeed, the nation was permanently declining, and they in future should be unable to provide for an establishment suitable to the dignity of the Crown and becoming the greatness of the nation, that might be a reason for decreasing the amount of the vote then before them. But he could not take that view of the state of the nation, but believed, on the contrary, that the country in all its great resources was unimpaired; and the distress that prevailed, though heavy, was not to be looked upon as a sign of permanent declension and decay. They ought not, therefore, to take that as a permanent ground for determining what they conceived to be a proper establishment for the consort of the reigning Sovereign. The only question, therefore, which they had now to consider was, whether 50,000l. was a proper sum, or whether it was excessive: and, also, whether there should be any condition annexed to its enjoyment, in the event of Prince Albert surviving her Majesty, or whether it should remain the same during the life of that Prince. He had already stated his reasons why he did not think it advisable to make any such condition. There was but one case in which it had been proposed to annex a condition to a grant to a person allied to the Royal family, and that proposal was at once rejected by the House of Commons. He thought it far better not to refuse their confidence in one who was about to become a Member of the Royal Family, and who was much more likely to become attached to this country, as his place of abode, if confidence were evinced towards him. By such conduct, too, the House would at the same time be endeavouring more satisfactorily to congratulate her Majesty on her approaching union by showing respect to the object on whom she had fixed her affections. He had only now to move "That her Majesty be enabled to grant an annual sum not exceeding 50,000l. out of the consolidated fund of Great Britain and Ireland, for a provision to his highness Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, to commence on the day of his marriage with her Majesty, and to continue during the life of his Serene Highness.

wished to ask the noble Lord one question. The noble Lord had stated that the establishment of the late Prince of Wales was to be adopted as the pattern on which the establishment of Prince Albert Was to be placed, Now the Prince of Wales had a separate palace, and what he wished to know was, whether it was intended that there should be a separate palace or dwelling provided for Prince Albert?

said, it was not intended to have anything of the kind; but of course Prince Albert would have persons belonging to his household beyond what now constituted the establishment of her Majesty.

asked whether the grant was to be absolute, or during her Majesty's pleasure only?

said, that it was intended by her Majesty that the grant should be for life.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill for the purpose of remedying a defect in the existing law relative to ejectment and replevin, which, though an inconvenience and a grievance in England, was, from the nature of the tenures peculiar to Ireland, a most serious obstacle to the course of justice in that country. The case was this, the ejectment and replevin statutes professed in their own provisions to be designed for the benefit of those alone between whom there subsisted the relationship of landlord and tenant; and, in order to constitute that relationship, it was indispensable that the lessor should have in himself a reversion of the lands on the extinction of the term demised to the lessee. He was anxious to avoid technicalities in the matter. If the landlord demised to the tenant the entire estate or interest which he himself held— if he gave him his lands for the same lives or the same number of years for which he held them himself—then the instrument became, not a lease or an under-lease, but an assignment in law; whilst, on the other hand, if he reserved to himself one day, one hour, or one minute, beyond the term enjoyed by his tenant it became a lease, and the relationship of landlord and tenant was created by it. In the latter case the landlord would be able, for the recovery of his lands, or of his rent, in case of its nonpayment, to avail himself of the short and simple process provided by the replevin and ejectment statutes, whilst in the other case he could have no remedy except by action for breach of covenant, or by bring- ing an ejectment at common law, a process full of technical difficulties, and, owing to its antiquated and critical requirements, seldom or ever satisfactory or successful. In Ireland this hardship had been felt to be very formidable, owing to the almost universal tenure in that country of "lives renewable for ever," by which one-sixth at least of all the lands in Ireland were held at this moment; and as the prevailing practice was for an under tenant to take the same lives in his lease as those by which the lessor held, in order, as at first sight it would seem, to avoid confusion and trouble, the law as now settled, would deprive such lessors of their simple remedy, by ejectment and distress, for recovery of rent, and they were driven to the antiquated processes of law which these statutes were meant to supersede. It was clear that this was one result never designed by the framers of the ejectment code; and that it was an anomaly which it was the duty of the Legislature to remove. The matter had lately attracted much attention in Ireland, owing to the conflicting decisions of the Judges upon the point. In one case, that of "Pluck v. Digges," in replevin, in the year 1828, seven of the Judges, upon argument in error, decided against three that the statute did extend even to cases in which no reversion was reserved. But this decision was overruled by a decision of the House of Lords in 1830 or 1831, who ruled, with the minority of the Irish bench, that the case was not within the statute. Immediately upon this result a second case was tried— that of a tenant in the county of Fermanagh, who had been ejected fifteen years before under a similar tenure, and now brought a cross ejectment to recover back possession, on the ground that his landlord had demised to him for the same lives as those in his own lease; and in 1833 the King's Bench in Ireland held that there was no substantial distinction between the case of a replevin and an ejectment for non-payment of rent, with reference to the necessity for a revision to constitute the relation of landlord and tenant, and decided against the landlord, in conformity with the precedent in Pluck and Digges. But a third case arose two years after in that of Ferly and Welsh, a case of ejectment, in which the Court of Exchequer departed from the decision of the Court of King's Bench, and conceived that the case of replevin decided by the Lords did not govern that of ejectment, and ruled accordingly for the plaintiff. So that the practical result from all this was, that at the present moment a landlord, under such circumstances was helpless in replevin, and had but a doubtful remedy in ejectment, inasmuch as the Exchequer had differed from the King's Bench upon the point. The object of the Bill he asked leave to introduce was to set this matter at rest, by giving to the party without the reversion the same protection and remedy as was now conferred by the statute on him who had the reversion—a remedy which was now withheld from him merely by an unimportant technicality.

would not raise any objection to the introduction of the Bill by the hon. Member, but he should look with extreme closeness and care into any Bill which should go to disturb the uniformity which existed between England and Ireland in respect to legal rights and modes of legal proceedings.

The Bill which he had now to move for leave to bring in was substantially framed upon the principle and provisions of the Act for the amendment of the law in England, passed in 1833, and which embodied the recommendations of the commissioners appointed some years before, to inquire into the common law. That Act was so highly approved of in principle, that it passed both Houses of Parliament almost without alteration, and certainly without opposition, and in practice it had been found to realise all the advantages anticipated from it. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-general, who introduced it in the Commons, pronounced it to be a bill which "would do more to simplify the law, and to render justice cheap, than any Act that had ever before been passed;" but when urged to extend it to Ireland by several Members, amongst others the learned Member for the county of Galway, it was found, independently of the fact, that some of its provisions being not altogether applicable, that it embodied regulations with regard to pleadings so different from the practice in Ireland, that it was impossible to extend it without material alterations. In the bill which he proposed to introduce these alterations had been carefully made, and the provisions which he had retained were all such as would be most beneficial, and would, he trusted, meet with the concurrence and approbation of the House. He had introduced into it one provision which was not to be found in the English Act, with regard to personal actions for the recovery of arrears of rent and annuities reserved by specialty. By an Act passed in the same year, 3rd and 4th William 4th, c. 27, the limitation for the recovery of these by action was fixed at six years, but without any provision for cases of acknowledgment in writing, or by part payment, or for cases of disability in plaintiff or defendant. Some doubts existed as to the applicability of this clause in certain cases, and, in order to remove them, he proposed to fix the limitation at six years (which was in conformity with a recent decision in the Exchequer of Ireland, that of "Bruen v. Nolan"), and also to provide for the exceptions he had just alluded to. Without troubling the House with any minute details, he would very briefly state the most important of the other points provided for in the bill. One of them was to prevent the abatement of actions on joint contract, in consequence of the non-joinder of parties either resident beyond the jurisdiction, or whom, by reason of insolvency or other similar causes, it would be unavailing for the purposes of justice to include, and also to regulate the costs in such cases. Another object of the bill was to provide writs in certain cases for successful parties who were not entitled to them, as in the case of actions by executors and administrators who were not now liable, and also in that of special juries where costs were now given under certain limitations only where a verdict has been returned. The bill would likewise render executors and administrators liable to an action of debt on simple contract, and would enable them also to recover arrears of rent accruing in the life of the testator by distress upon the lands. It provided also for facilitating the proof of deeds and other documents, and for materially lessening the trouble and expense of doing, so, and under certain restrictions it provided for the admission of the evidence of parties interested in the verdict, but whose testimony was at present inadmissible on the trial. It also empowered the Judges of the superior courts to direct issues in certain unimportant cases to be tried by the assistant barrister of the county where the action was brought, and it gave in such cases a speedier process for the entering of judgment, thus at once reducing the expense and expediting the course of justice, and even a more important provision was, that which went to enable the parties, when agreed upon a statement of facts, to obtain the opinion of the court upon them, which would be tantamount to a verdict, without incurring the delay, the trouble, and the costs of an action or an amicable suit. Another most important power which an English jury now possessed, and which he (Mr. E. Tennent) wished to see conferred upon an Irish one, was to enable them to find a verdict for the interest upon a debt as well as for the principle, provided a demand should be made of the debtor, and notice given him that interest would be claimed from the date of that demand. At present no such power existed, and a merchant or a trader was thus deprived even of interest upon that portion of his capital entrusted to his debtor, which in his own hands might have been producing a return beyond it. The bill would likewise provide for the facilitating of settlements by means of arbitration, a process which was beset with many difficulties at present, and would give a power to arbitrators to summon witnesses, and to examine them upon oath, which they did not now possess. These were the chief objects embraced in the bill, the every clause of which was designed to render the process of law more expedient, and materially to diminish the trouble and the cost of obtaining justice. With its minor details he would not now trouble the House, but would move for leave for its introduction.