said, that having given notice of his intention to proceed with the Administration of Justice Bill, he had ventured to hope that as that bill had been very much discussed in the other House of Parliament, as it had been a long time before a select committee, and as it met with very general concurrence, at this period of the Session no objection would be made to proceeding with it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had, however, given notice of a motion on the subject with regard to the whole question of the administration of justice in the House of Lords, and before the Privy Council, and had likewise stated, that at this period of the Session the bill ought not to be persevered in. He thought that this notice of the right hon. Gentleman took away from the bill that very general and unanimous support which he had hoped to receive, and which formed the only justification for carrying forward a bill of such great importance at a time when there was a thin attendance, and when many Members most competent to give an opinion on the subject were absent. He had therefore, in this state of things, to inform the House, that it was not his intention to proceed with the bill in the present Session, but he would propose a similar bill early in the next Session. He begged to move that the order of the day for the second reading of the bill be read for the purpose of being discharged.

said, he had never denied the necessity of some measure like the present, but he thought it ought to be accompanied with improvements in courts, either connected with the equity courts or being courts of appeal from them. In the next Session he should have no objection to the introduction of the bill then on the table of the House, with the view of making it the foundation of a measure really beneficial to the administration of justice.

on the part of persons interested in the trade in Sulphur, begged to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, what was the nature of the agreement that had been entered into on this subject with the Neapolitan government. He was also desirous of learning at what period the monopoly was to cease, and what was the nature of the indemnity to be made to British subjects for the losses sustained by them, and upon what principles was it to be calculated. Finally, he wished to know whether the commissioners to be appointed would be Neapolitan or British, or whether it would be a mixed commission?

said, that the proposals made by the mediating power had been agreed to by her Majesty's Government and by the Neapolitan Plenipotentiary at Paris, who had been sent with full powers to negociate on behalf of his government. He had not yet heard from Naples, but he had no doubt, that the agreement would be ratified. The nature of the arrangement was, that as soon as it should be known at Naples that the English Ambassador at Paris and the Neapolitan Plenipotentiary had entered into arrangements, the sulphur monopoly should cease at the shortest possible period. Compensation would be made upon principles satisfactory to her Majesty's Government, The commission would consist of two Neapolitan commissioners, two British commissioners, and one French commissioner, the French commissioner to act as arbitrator in cases of difference, and the selection of the French commissioner having been made with the concurrence of the British and Neapolitan Governments. The noble Viscount, in answer to another question, proceeded to state that the sulphur question was not a single instance in which the Neapolitan government, in the opinion of the British Government, had evaded or violated the treaty of 1816. Representations and communications had been made on the subject to the Neapolitan government, and as soon as the sulphur question was disposed of, the British Minister at Naples would be instructed to renew the negotiations for a new treaty.

seeing the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade in his place, begged to recall to the right hon. Gentleman's recollection the conversation that took place on a former evening relative to the class of persons who were to be appointed inspectors under this bill. He had heard that a gentleman much connected with railways was exceedingly anxious to become an inspector under this bill. Now he certainly should not have given his assent to this bill unless he had understood that a rule was to be laid down that no person connected with railways was to be appointed. He hoped that this rule would apply to persons recently connected with railways as he certainly would never have consented to the passing of the bill if he had not a satisfactory assurance of the intention of the right hon. Gentleman upon this point.

begged, in answer, to assure the noble Lord, that not one Gentleman only was anxious to take office under this bill, but a great number of Gentlemen were extremely anxious to be employed. He must decline to give any specific pledge upon a subject of this kind. With regard to any applications that bad been made to him, he had carefully and studiously avoided committing himself in the way of promises. He must wait until he saw in what shape the bill would pass before he considered and before he consulted others, the Chancellor of the Exchequer especially, with whom it would be his duty to consult with regard to the increase of allowance it would be necessary to have voted. Until the bill should have passed, he could not consult as to the most economical and efficient manner of carrying the bill into effect, and he must therefore decline pledging himself as to the precise mode of carrying out that measure. Whether he should appoint one inspector-general, or whether it was more desirable (an opinion to which he rather inclined) to appoint engineers to inspect by the job, so as not to give to any one person the sole inspection, he was not at present prepared to state. He had, however, no difficulty in saying that he should think it most objectionable to employ any person in any matter, under this bill, if he was at the time actually connected with any railway whatever. So far he did not hesitate to state his opinion; but whether the past connexion of any individual with a railway was to qualify or to disqualify, and whether recent connexion was to be considered, or what limit was to be affixed to that connexion, was a point upon which he thought it was not desirable that he should pledge himself. All he would say was, that he would take care that nobody actually connected with a railway should be employed under this bill, but with regard to any other point he should follow the course which upon consideration should appear most desirable.

thought the measure which affected a very large and important body of persons was very little understood. In no one stage of it had there been a fair discussion of its principle. There had been a hasty consideration of its clauses, and he thought, it would be very easy to convince the House that the haste of that consideration was very manifest in the present state of the bill. He implored the House not to pass a bill of such importance as this—affecting, as it did, great interests, which he contended would be liable under this bill to be greatly deranged, without at least one careful discussion of the principle of the measure.

thought that this was a good opportunity for complaining that the tonnage by the new measurement was taken as the standard for the measurement of the vessels taken and broken up; for the captors to obtain the bounties the act of 1838 required the production of a certificate of the registry under the new measurement, but as many vessels were captured, and broken up before the new tonnage came into operation, it was impossible for the captors to obtain the certificates of the measurement by the new tonnage, and much money still remained due to the captors. By the new method of tonnage, too, the compensation to all captors was greatly diminished. He trusted that an opportunity would be taken in this bill of providing for the payment of the bounties due to the captors, and unpaid in consequence of the difficulty to which he had alluded.

observed that this bill would give bounties for vessels taken without slaves and broken up; as to the question of the measurement, all the Treasury wanted was some evidence of the amount of the tonnage; they did not require the English but the foreign tonnage; in fact, some proof of what the size of the vessels captured was.

thought that this bill should be proceeded with this Session. Some of the clauses were undoubtedly good, but others were exceedingly stringent. They were taken from an old Eng- lish act of 1774, when these matters were not very closely looked into; and before they extended them to Ireland, they ought to obtain the opinions of their utility from the operatives as well as from the masters. Some of the clauses were so important, and so loosely drawn, that they could not be properly amended at this period of the Session, when bills came upon the House like lightning, and it was absolutely impossible, with the utmost industry, to go through and correct all the minute details. He hoped, therefore, that the bill would be withdrawn for the Session, and brought forward at an early period of the next Session. He would, therefore, move, that the bill be committed that day three months.

said, nothing would have induced him to propose the bill, if he had not been assured that it met with the consent not only of the master manufacturers of the north of Ireland, but also of the operatives, who had all made representations to him, that unless some measure were passed, the manufacturers would be much injured. The objections of his hon. Friend would be better considered in committee, but in the main the bill only extended to Ireland the law of England, which was indeed an old law, but actually in beneficial operation. Of course, if his hon. Friend persevered in his objection, he could not press the bill, but considering the urgency and importance of some remedy, he hoped that his hon. Friend would withdraw his amendment.

said, he had never before met with laws so stringent in their operation as those in the 10th section of this act. He admitted the necessity of protecting the property of the manufacturers in Ireland; but what was wanted was a just law, one not more stringent than the necessity of the case required. This bill, however gave the officer a power of search without a warrant, and the householder resisting such an aggression was subject to a penalty of 5l. He hoped if they went into committee the right hon. Gentleman would strike out the 11th clause, and restrict the operation of the bill till the 1st of May next, in order that they might fully legislate on the question next Session.

considering the lateness of the period at which this measure had been introduced, and the many important interests which it affected, felt bound to move, that the committee on this bill be postponed till that day three mouths.

in the absence of Lord John Russell, moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act for the better regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts in England. The noble Lord observed, that although this would appear to open a very important and very extensive subject, the real object of the bill which he sought to introduce was, in fact, confined to one specific point. He did not propose at that moment to enter into the merits of the case of John Thorogood, or of the sentence under which he was suffering. But as it seemed to be felt very generally on both sides of the House when the subject was last under discussion, that the imprisonment of Thorogood had already lasted for a very considerable time, the object of the bill which he now proposed to bring in, was to enable the court which committed the recusant to discharge him with the consent of the parties at whose complaint and prosecution he was originally committed.

was understood to state, that notwithstanding the stricture pronounced upon the opinion which he had ventured to offer when this subject was last under consideration, he was still disposed, after more mature deliberation, to adhere to it. He repeated his belief, that in the case of Thorogood, if the churchwardens being contented by any means, or disposed to relinquish their claim upon that person, came by their proctor before the Ecclesiastical Court, and proposed to withdraw the citation, the judge would have felt it his duty to sign a certificate that would have occasioned the immediate release of the prisoner.

observed, that that also had been his own opinion, but a contrary opinion having been expressed by a learned judge for whom he had a most sincere respect—he meant the learned judge who presided in the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London—he felt bound at once to yield to it; and as there appeared to be a general feeling in the House that the imprisonment of Thorogood should cease, the present bill was proposed to effect that object. Whatever his own opinion might have been, he thought that the House was bound to act upon that which had been expressed by the judge of the court in which cases of this description were dealt with.

obtained leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the law regarding process upon contempts in the Courts Ecclesiastical in England and Ireland, and to facilitate the discharge of persons who now are or hereafter may be in custody for contempts of any such courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman explained that the object of this bill was similar to that just introduced by the noble Lord. He objected to the mode in which the noble Lord's bill sought to obtain its object, and therefore, with the consent of the noble Lord, had prepared the measure he now proposed. It would be for the House to determine between the two.