wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, at the head of the Board of Control, whether any despatches had ben received with respect to the state of slavery in India, and whether he would consent to lay such despatches upon the Table of the House.

replied, that since the papers received in July, 1838, were laid upon the Table of the House, a correspondence had been carried on between the home Government and the Government in India, and he would have no objection whatever to lay the correspondence before the House.

inquired if the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had any objection to lay before the House the treaty which had been concluded with Texas.

replied, that of course it would not be laid upon the Table until it had been ratified.

said, that yesterday he had asked the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if he had any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence that had taken place with the United States since 1837, relative to the seizure of the Caroline; also whether he would lay upon the Table the correspondence that had taken place in respect of the apprehension, in the state of New York, of Mr. M'Leod, a British subject. The noble Lord had then stated, that he did object to the production of the correspondence with regard to these two subjects, but that he had no objection to lay before the House so much of the correspondence on the latter case as had been published in the American papers, inasmuch as it had been laid before Congress. Now he would submit to the noble Lord that he should re-consider his answer. At all events, the production of the correspondence in that form would be a matter for the noble Lord's discretion. He had asked for the whole correspondence; he had not asked for a partial correspondence to be produced, on the ground not that it contained the facts as they actually stood, but that it had been made public through some irregular medium. He thought, that the production of those papers in that form would establish an improper precedent, and would place the case on a footing that might be greatly liable to misunderstanding as regarded this country in the eyes of her colonies. He wished also for a more explicit answer to a question which was asked yesterday, namely, whether her Majesty's Government had taken any steps, and if so, what steps, as regarded the liberation of Mr. M'Leod. The noble Lord had told him—he believed these were his Lordship's exact words—that her Majesty's Government would, and indeed had taken such steps as they thought necessary on the subject. He did not ask them what steps they had taken, if the noble Lord thought proper to withhold that information, but he did ask him whether he had taken such steps for the protection and liberation of Mr. M'Leod (who had been apprehended on the 12th of November, 1840) as would be effectual in point of time in reference to the proceedings then going on. He wished to ask that question, and also to give the explanation, though he did not wish to press for the production of papers, nor did he ask for them when they did not give the whole information. He was aware of the responsibility which attached to any Member calling upon the Government for papers which they were not willing on public grounds, to produce. At the same time, he reserved to himself the future expression of his opinions upon the subject, and the full right of pressing upon the Government at another time for the part and whole of the correspondence.

replied, that when he stated yesterday, that he could have no reasonable ground of objection to the production of papers which had already been laid before Congress, and published, he did not intimate any intention, on the part of Government, to lay those papers on the Table of the House of its own accord. He thought the noble Lord, for the reasons he himself bad stated, had exercised a sound discretion in not press-sing for the production of those papers.

observed he had not asked for a part—he had asked for the whole.

With respect to the other question, what he had stated was this:—A case of a somewhat similar nature happened, or was expected to happen, a year or a year and a half ago; and upon that occasion instructions were sent out to Mr. Fox, laying clown what the Government thought were sound principles to meet the emergency. At that time, it was rendered unnecessary to act upon the instructions; but the case having now actually occurred, Mr. Fox, without waiting for further instructions from home, acted upon the former instructions, and made a demand upon the American government for the liberation of Mr. M'Leod. He then reported the whole case to her Majesty's Ministers, but from various onuses that communication had been much longer on its passage than usual, and it was only a few days ago that he had received the final portion of the correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Fox and the American government—it was, therefore, only that day that an opportunity had presented itself for sending out final and conclusive instructions—they were then ready prepared and were on the point of being sent off; but what the nature of those instructions was, neither the noble Lord nor the House would then expect him to say. He repeated, Mr. Fox had founded his remonstrances with the American government upon instructions sent him by the British Government, respecting a case of a similar nature, which it was feared would have occurred.

The noble Lord did not answer my question. I wish to understand whether the noble Lord has or has not, up to this time, since the 12th of November, sent out to the British Minister, at Washington any specific instructions as to the protection and liberation of Mr. M'Leod.

said, that the instructions to Mr. Fox were precisely to the same effect as those which were stated as having been given in the former case. It was not till Saturday last that the government had received from Mr. Fox the report of his last correspondence with the government of the United States, and he repeated that to-day was the first on which instructions could be sent to Mr. Fox.

wished to put a question to the noble Lord. He held in his hand a paper purporting to be a general order issued and signed by Colonel M'Nab, the general tendency of which was, that the Lieutenant-Governor approved in the highest degree of the destruction of the steam-bout Caroline, and offered his thanks to Captain Drew, and those under his command, including the volunteers, for the creditable manner in which the feat was performed. The question which he (Mr. Hume) wished to put was, whether that paper had been communicated to her Majesty's Government and whether her Majesty's Government had signified their approbation of the act?

replied, that the communication quoted by the hon. Member had been made by order of the Lieutenant Governor, who stated that he approved of the act done. The Lieutenant Governor then reported the circumstances to her Majesty's Government, who received a counter-statement from the American government. As to whether her Majesty's Government approved of the act, his noble Friend had already answered that question.

wished to know whether the Government had adopted the acts of Captain Drew, who had acted under the orders of Sir Francis Head, as their own. He thought the House ought to know whether they had given or withheld their approbation of that act.

If the hon. Gentleman means to ask whether this Government do or do not consider the capture of the Caroline to have been a justifiable proceeding, I answer that her Majesty's Government do consider it, under the circumstances, to have been a proceeding perfectly justifiable by the consideration of the necessity of defending her Majesty's territory.

then asked whether her Majesty's Ministers had ever signified that opinion to the Government of the United States in any way?

That opinion has been submitted both to the Minister of the United States here, and, I believe, by Mr. Fox to the American government.

begged, the indulgence of the House while he referred to a matter that was personal to a gentleman of high respectability, holding an important judicial office in Ireland: he meant Mr. Blacker. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin, when speak- ing on the bill for registration of voters, had said, in order to show that Mr. Blacker was one likely to take a stringent and unpopular view of the franchise, that Mr. Blacker had worn an Orange badge when on the circuit as a barrister. At the moment when the charge was made, he and those Gentlemen around him who knew Mr. Blacker, felt convinced that it was unfounded; but he would now read a short passage from a letter which he had received on the subject from Mr. Blacker himself. The passage was as follows:—

"I gave up in 1826 going the circuit, and never, either before or since, have belonged to any political society of any description, or worn any badge, whether Orange or not, either on the circuit or elsewhere. The charge, therefore, is not only unfounded in fact, but is contrary to all my habits."

stated, that he had received a letter from Mr. Blacker to the same effect.

said, he had known Mr. Blacker for many years, and he felt authorized by that long acquaintance to state that the insinuation of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was perfectly unfounded.

rose pursuant to notice to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to the drainage of lands in Ireland. It was proposed by this bill, which corresponded in its objects and almost in all its clauses with the bill of the last Session, to promote the welfare of Ireland, more particularly in respect to its agriculture. The projected sites for draining, were, upon careful survey, to be determined on by the proper authorities for conducting such inquiries. The duty of conducting them to completion would devolve, of course, upon the board of works in Ireland, which would be at liberty to recommend that persons willing to undertake the drainage of certain districts should be allowed advances of money, to carry these partial drainages into execution, upon approved security. He thought that with modesty he might say, though the author of the bill, that it was a measure which, if carried into effect, promised to effect quietly and without exciting either hostility or apprehension, more good for Ireland and more permanent relief for her population in the way of affording a stimulus to industry and means of employment for thousands of unemployed hands than had been effected by measures of greater pretension and more sounding name. He had little doubt in his own mind, that though it would not equally excite and agitate the public mind in Ireland, as the Irish registration bill of his noble Friend or that which he had originated, it would do more good for the people of that country, than either his noble friend's bill on registration or his own; and satisfied he perfectly was that it could never experience as much opposition from any quarter, as either his noble Friend's registration bill or his own. The noble Lord concluded by moving that leave be given to bring in a bill to promote the drainage of lands in Ireland to promote navigation, and increase the facilities of communication, by means of water-carriage.

thought it necessary the House should be apprised that it was likely, if the bill passed, they would be called upon to advance money belonging to the public for the purpose of carrying it into effect. If the noble Lord contemplated that by the present bill there would be such a call made on the public, as would occasion an increase in our unfunded debt, he must protest against any such improvident project, more particularly in our present embarrassed financial situation.

said, it was not in his contemplation to make any call upon the public for a grant of public money, but he saw no reason why persons or companies engaging in these undertakings, pursuant to the plan of the Irish Government, should not be permitted, like any other class of enterprising persons, to obtain loans of money upon good security.

conceived that the most desirable object to follow, for the sake of Ireland was, the promotion of its agriculture, for which she was eminently adapted, in consequence of the great field open for exertion and enterprise in the waste lands and bogs of that country, and the abundant supply of labour at a cheap rate. After the agitation that had been got up on the subject of the exclusive consumption of articles of Irish fabric and manufacture, it was not very probable that anything attempted by its Government to increase the commerce of Ireland could be Very effective.

thought he had just rea- son to complain of the course that had been taken by the two right hon. Gentlemen, who had seized upon the occasion of the noble Lord's moving merely for leave to bring in a bill, to read the House two distinct lectures on trade and finance. He hardly expected to have found any right hon. Member much excited by another project being broached for the draining of Ireland—a process with which every English Minister, it must be confessed, was very familiar. The jealousy of the right hon. ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer was natural enough. From habit and upon principle he was sensitively apprehensive of the danger that might result to England from letting any of the public money go over to Ireland; a jealousy, however, very unreasonable when that right hon. Gentleman must have known that, out of the administration of Crown property in Ireland, there had been remitted yearly to the Exchequer here, not less than 74,000l., which was spent in beautifying London, widening its avenues, and erecting statues in its public places and squares. He also might have found, from his being so conversant with the public exchequer, that not less a sum than little short of two millions of money was remitted by Ireland to the exchequer of England, for the use of this country. After this explanation, he trusted the House would not suffer itself to be misled into giving a colour to the suspicion that it participated in the uncharitable prejudices of the right hon. Gentleman. The House, too, might have been spared the allusion made to the prevalent agitation in Ireland, on the subject of giving a preference to Irish produce and manufacture. The subject had been discussed at length in most parts of Ireland; and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) had been challenged to enter into the field. He might have entered into the arena with his friend Dr. Butt—but he declined it.

, in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of the punishment of death, except in certain cases, observed, that from the ample discussion which a similar bill of his had undergone last Session, there was little necessity for troubling the House with reasons for permitting him to place a similar bill to that of last year upon their Table. The number of offences to which, by our laws, the punishment of death was attached in the early part of the last century was nearly 300—a most formidable and fearful proportion. Through the efforts of many eenlightened men, though opposed by the most eminent members of the profession to which he belonged, that state of the law had been mitigated, and the number reduced to nearly thirty. Pursuing this benevolent object, he had had the honour to submit to the House last Session a bill for the abolition of death as a punishment for crime, except in the cases of murder and high treason. That bill had been on various occasions fully discussed. It had been read a first and second time, passed through a committee, and only thrown out upon the third reading by a very small majority, in a thin House. Under such favourable circumstances he was convinced he was fully authorised in presenting for their acceptance, this Session of Parliament, a measure of a similar description. He had the pleasure to learn that the Government did not intend to offer any opposition to the introduction of the bill of which he had given notice. It would suffice to state, therefore, that this bill in substance did not depart from the bill which he had introduced to their notice last Session. There was, in point of form, a variance adopted, upon the suggestion of some of his professional friends, which consisted in this—that, instead of reciting in one section all the different offences which were to be taken out of the class to which the penalty of death had been attached, and to which a mitigated punishment was in future to be attached under this bill—he had increased the number of clauses in the bill, and had placed each of those offences in a separate clause. Although this might be considered inconvenient, yet it had one very important advantage over the other course, inasmuch as it enabled the House, in the committee on the bill, to suggest separately any improvement in the secondary punishment applicable by this bill to each offence, upon the clause being read by the chairman. It, in effect, would give the committee a greater scope to adapt a secondary punishment to the offence specified separately in the clause under discussion by the committee. With these exceptions, which he had thought not only expedient but necessary, in order to obviate the objections of some, and to neutralise the opposition of others, to the measure of last Session, the bill which he was about to move for leave to introduce would be the same both in its form and substance as before. He must, before he sat down, take the opportunity of expressing his regret that he had not been able to prepare and to lay upon the Table of the House similar bills to that which he had described for the purpose of introducing the same modification of the law, with respect to the punishment of death, into Ireland and Scotland. But it would, doubtless, occur to hon. Members, as it had done to him, that the simultaneous introduction of three bills, identical in their clauses and wording, into the House, would lead to very considerable confusion, and would tend to render that an intricate subject of legislation which ought to be most simple and easy of comprehension. He had, therefore, withheld those consequent measures, convinced that, if the House consented to abolish the punishment of death for certain offences now visited or liable to that sentence in England, it would at once follow as a matter of course, that the same alteration in the law would immediately have effect in Ireland and Scotland; for no doubt could be raised as to the expediency of such an equalisation of the statute law, and consequently no opposition to those measures, which would thus be rendered necessary, could be offered. He therefore felt no difficulty in pledging himself to bring forward two measures for Ireland and Scotland, to abolish the punishment of death in those kingdoms, as soon as he was satisfied that the House approved of the principles which pervaded the measure in behalf of which he was speaking. There was another and highly important consideration, connected most intimately with the present question, to which he felt bound to refer. In the present state of the law relating to secondary punishments, it could not but be admitted by all parties that there existed a very great imperfection in the statutes relating to that subject, and this imperfection had been made use of as an argument against all attempts at legislating further on the punishment of death until secondary punishments had been placed on such a footing as to enable the executive to dispense with capital inflictions. When, however, he investigated the speeches of those humane and high-minded public men who had given their special attention to the subject of punishment, he found that it was, without exception, their opinion, that although the law relating to this matter was in an imperfect and unequal state, still it was impossible for any individual Member of the Legislature, not acting in accordance with, and by the sanction and aid of the Ministers of the Crown, to attempt to effect any general alteration of the law as it now stood. It was obvious that in the question of such a sweeping modification of the laws affecting secondary punishment as this would be involved a very serious consideration respecting the public expenditure. Any new system of secondary punishments would render it requisite to appoint and provide for the support of a vast number of additional public officers, as well as for the erection and preservation of an extra number of prisons. It would be necessary to provide for all this expense if such a bill as he referred to were introduced, and such a step could be taken by no other party in that House than the Minister of the Crown. Still he hoped, in case the Government should not be prepared to move in the matter of secondary punishments, and in case no hon. Member of that House better qualified than himself took the initiative, that he should be prepared to place on the journals of the House some suggestions, in the form of a series of resolutions, which might be useful as a guide, if in no other way, and upon which some beneficial measure for the alteration of the whole system of secondary punishment now in practice might be based. He hoped, however, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), to whom the country was so much indebted for the reforms which he had introduced into the criminal code of the country, would be prepared, before long, with some resolutions to the effect he had intimated; and if he should not, and if it should also appear that the Government was not disposed to bring forward the subject, he himself would, after Easter, submit his own ideas to the House, in the form of a series of resolutions on the subject. Before he sat down he felt it necessary to allude to a bill which the Government had given notice, it was its intention to introduce during the present Session, for the further abolition of the punishment of death in certain cases. He begged most cordially to thank the Ministers of the Crown for their intentions, had it so hap- pened that it had suited their convenience to have laid it on the Table of the House, at or near the period at which he had felt it to be his duty to bring forward his own bill upon the subject, he should have endeavoured to have delayed his measure, in order to see whether that of the Government would effect what he proposed; but as the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, had intimated that he should not be ready with his bill before the end of the month, he had felt it to be his duty not to postpone his motion, and to ask the House to suffer him to bring forward his bill as before, without offering any opposition in the present stage; when, if there were no great delay on the part of Gorvernment in the other bill, he should refrain from pushing his measure forward to the committee-stage until he became acquainted with the details of that of the Government; when, if it should prove to be coextensive with his own measure, he would at once cede and withdraw the latter, rejoiced to find, that the Government, during the present Session, had been induced to step forward, and to carry into effect those great reforms in the application of punishments which the enlightened spirit of the age imperiously and unanimously called for. He begged leave to move for leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of the punishment of death in certain cases.

begged to second the motion of the hon. and learned Member, because he had been particularly requested to do so by some parties highly desirous to see the proposed modification of the criminal law carried into effect. The experience of every day which had elapsed since the principle of adopting a milder system of punishment had been mooted and acknowledged, confirmed his own conviction that it was not only safe but expedient to dispense in future with the punishment of death. When the measure, for the introduction of which the hon. and learned Member had asked leave of the House, was a little more matured, he would submit, for the consideration of those hon. Members who took an interest in this subject, a series of calculations which had been furnished to him by the obliging communication of a Member of the Chamber of Deputies, showing that crime had rapidly diminished in those states where the punishment of death was now unknown. He would also show, from the same statistical documents, that the certainty of punishment had increased since the infliction of death had been abolished; he would also show, that in cases of indictment for those crimes which had formerly been visited with capital punishment, the convictions were increased a thousand fold in the proportion to what they were before this alteration was made. He should, however, reserve these statements for some future stage of the present measure, and in the mean time he could only express the cheering effect that was produced upon his mind by the reflection that the universal interest which was taken by enlightened persons in all the countries of Europe, in the propagation of the principle on which this measure was founded, showed a simultaneous advance in those countries in the education of mankind, and in the propagation of sentiments of true Christian charity. He would only add, that he coincided entirely in the views expounded by the hon. and learned Member respecting the necessity of making some extensive alterations in the present system of what were termed secondary punishments, but what he hoped, at no distant period, to be able to call primary punishments. His opinion in this matter was, that the best way of reforming a criminal was, to subject him to such preliminary discipline in prison, and afterwards let him have an opportunity of recovering his character in a foreign penal settlement. He trusted that whatever reform in the present code of capital punishments was contemplated by the Government, such reform would be at least coextensive with the bill of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich; and also that the views propounded by the hon. and learned Member, with respect to the amendment of the criminal law would be promoted and furthered by the Ministers of the Crown.

The hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed this bill had stated very truly, that at the commencement of the present century there were not less than 300 offences punished capitally; and he was also correct in stating that there was for many years a very strong opposition to any amelioration of that punishment. Every proposition for mitigating the extreme severity of the law was opposed by all the strength of the Government in the House of Commons, and so pertinacious was that opposition, that he remembered when a bill proposed by Sir J. Mackintosh had been read a third time, the then Secretary of State, determined not to relinquish his opposition, took the chance of a few more members coming into the House, and declared that he would divide again upon the question "that the bill do pass." The Secretary of State was successful, and the bill did not pass. Such was the nature of the opposition then made to any proposition for modifying the criminal law. The hon. and learned Gentleman was likewise right in stating that of late years a very great change had manifested itself not only in the spirit of the different Governments which had succeeded to the administration of affairs, but also in the opinions of the heads of the law, and of those whose judgment must always have great influence on both Houses of Parliament. Agreeing with the hon. and learned Gentleman thus far, he could not admit with him that it was expedient to change the criminal law to such an extent as he proposed, with the view, as he stated very candidly to the House last year, of abolishing the punishment of death altogether. At the same time, he was prepared to admit, that there ought to be further changes and ameliorations of the criminal code. He admitted that there were some crimes now, by law, punishable with death, which ought not to be so punished. Therefore, he could not refuse to the hon. and learned Gentleman leave to introduce a bill which proposed to take away the punishment of death from certain of those crimes. It would be a subject for consideration how far the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to carry his modifications; and whether it would be in the power of the Government to concur in the full extent of his proposal. It was always to be recollected that the hon. and learned Gentleman who brought forward the present motion, and the hon. Gentleman who seconded it, unhesitatingly declared that their ultimate object was the entire abolition of the punishment of death. That being the case, it was likewise proper for him (Lord John Russell) to declare that that was an object to which he could not consent. With respect to the offences still remaining on the statute-book punishable with death, there were, he thought, two very distinct classes of them. There were certain offences in respect to which hardly any one would wish the punishment of death to be retained, and in respect to which there could be no doubt that some other mode of punishment should be substituted. There were other cases in which he thought there would be very great difficulty in effecting a change of the law. As an instance of both these cases, he would take the offences created by a single statute, all of which were punishable with death—he meant the offence of destroying ships and ships' stores in dock-yards. Now the offence of wilfully destroying one of her Majesty's ships was one which, in his opinion, partook of the character of high treason, and was, therefore, justly punishable with death; but there was in the same statute a class of minor offences, such as the destroying of rope, or setting fire to any small quantity of stores in the dockyards, which could he considered merely as offences against property, and which, therefore, ought not to be punished with death. It would be seen, therefore, that there were different offences comprehended in one and the same statute, to all of which the punishment of death was now allotted; to one class of which that amount of punishment was properly applicable, but to the other class of which a much milder punishment was all that justice could require. There were other cases of as great or even greater difficulty. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the system of secondary punishments at present established in this country were not such as he could altogether approve of. At the same time he said that he did not think that any individual Member of the House could propose a complete and beneficial change of the law in that respect, but that it must be undertaken by the Government. He owned that it appeared to him, if the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion were good, and he was not disposed to doubt it—he owned it appeared to him, that after the mitigations effected in the criminal law by the present Government in 1837—taking away the punishment of death from so many offences previously punished capitally—and after the care and attention which had been bestowed upon the subject of transportation and imprisonment, as means of secondary punishment, the hon. and learned Gentleman might very properly have allowed her Majesty's Ministers time to consider the whole of the subject, and that he might have waited at least a little longer to see whether some complete system would not have been proposed. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that, as regarded secondary punishments, much remained to be done—he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman no system of a perfectly satisfactory nature could be established until prisons had been built in this country, and maintained at the expense of the state, in which persons could be confined who would otherwise be liable to the punishment of death or transportation. But, at all events, this was quite clear, that, as the law stood at present, there was much that required to be amended, much that would demand a great deal of labour and care, before a satisfactory statute upon this subject could be framed. The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the alteration which took place in the law in 1837. At that time he (Lord John Russell) proposed in certain cases to substitute imprisonment for five years in this country, for the punishment of transportation for life. The other House of Parliament thought the proposed period of five years' imprisonment too long, and reduced the maximum amount of punishment under that statute to three years' imprisonment. The House of Commons agreed to that amendment, and such was now the enactment of the law. If, then, imprisonment for three years was the maximum amount of punishment for all the grave offences, included in the act to which he had just referred, and which, previous to the passing of that act, were punishable with death, that amount of punishment ought to be the standard by which all future legislation upon the subject of secondary punishment should be guided. But there were many statutes upon the book which imposed transportation for 7 or 14 years, for offences of a much less grave nature than many of those for which the maximum of punishment now prescribed by the law was three years' imprisonment. In dealing with this subject, therefore, it was necessary that a wide and comprehensive view should be taken of it, and that such grades of punishment should be allotted as was suitable to the guilt and gravity of each particular offence. He had made these observations for the purpose of showing that, in legislating upon this subject for the future, it would be necessary to take a general view of the whole subject, so that the amount of punishment in all cases might be apportioned to the crime, and so prescribed by law as not to leave the mitigation of the punishment to the Secretary of State, or the mercy of the Crown.

asked for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Tithe Recovery Act, 5 and 6 Will. 4th. He said that the House was no doubt aware that it was provided, by the 7 and 8 Will. 3rd., that all suits for tithes under the amount of 10l. should be instituted before the justices; the House would also recollect that in the year 1835 he had the honour to introduce a bill, which afterwards became law, and the 5 and 6 William 4th., by which it was provided that all such suits should be heard only before the justices of the peace, to the exclusion of the other courts of her Majesty. It was now asserted that the Ecclesiastical Courts did not come within the scope of the act, but it undoubtedly was the intention of that act to prevent all suits for tithes under a certain amount from being carried to the superior courts. There was now a petition on the Table of the House from a poor woman of the name of Sarah Young, which stated that she had been cited to the Bishop's Court at Llandaff by a reverend divine for an alleged arrear of tithe amounting to only seven shillings, and at a time when that unfortunate person was confined to the House from sickness, and consequently unable to attend. She was held in contempt for not attending at a distance of forty-five miles, and she was committed to the county gaol of Mon-mouth, where she remained for a term of seven months. Another case had occurred in the diocese of Exeter. A gentleman of the name of Hill had been cited to the Bishop's Court for an arrear of tithe. Having greater means than Sarah Young, he employed a proctor, who appeared in court and produced the Act 5 and 6 William 4th, as a defence to the action. To the astonishment of Mr. Hill and his proctor the case was dismissed, but without costs. It appeared, then, that notwithstanding the 5 and 6 William 4th, persons were liable to be cited before the Bishop's Court for tithes. He thought the House ought to remove all doubt on the subject, and place the Ecclesiastical Courts on the same footing as the rest of her Majesty's courts in regard to this question. He would be glad if the noble Lord would bring in a general measure to remove the general jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts altogether, but as it became his (Captain Pechell's) duty to amend the act which be had been instrumental in getting passed, he would therefore move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Tithe Recovery Act (5 and 6 William 4th), and to takeaway the jurisdiction from the Ecclesiastical Courts in all matters relating to tithes of a certain amount.

had no objection to allow the hon. and gallant Member to amend his own clumsy and bungling legislation. The difficulty arose entirely from the hon. and gallant Member's taking up a subject with which he was not very familiar.

thought the learned Gentleman who had just sat down had no right to accuse the hon. and gallant Member in this instance, for he was equally responsible for the measure—indeed more so. It became him to watch over a measure which he says was bunglingly gone about, and prevent its passing into a law.

was of the same opinion. He thought it was the duty of the learned Gentleman opposite to have interfered; but though he knew better, he would not come to the relief of the hon. and gallant Member. The House was much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member, he had done something, but the learned Gentleman opposite had done nothing.

felt great diffidence in approaching the subject of County Courts, on which he had given notice of a motion to ask for leave to bring in a bill to establish them, when he considered that the question had formerly been undertaken and discussed by such men as Lord Althorp and Lord Brougham; and his diffidence was in no way lessened when he considered the deep importance of the subject, and the humble powers of the individual who had now undertaken to bring the question before the House. He was sure that the House would agree with him when he stated that in the situation in which he was placed—connected with that department of the Government which had the surveillance of the administration of justice throughout the country—that it was impossible for him to shut his eyes to the demand which the public had made for legislation on that subject. Year after year petitions had been presented to the House, and he believed there was scarcely a district in England from which petitions had not been presented to the house for private bills, in order to enable them to establish some better sys- tern for the recovery of small debts. But he did not approve of such piecemeal legislation. He thought it desirable that one general system should be established by Act of Parliament to extend to the whole of England and Wales. It was unnecessary for him to enter into any long statement to the House in order to convince them of the evils attendant on the present system for the recovery of small debts. It was, in fact, a total denial of justice to the poor, and to all persons a heavy expense. He could only refer the House to the fifth report of the law commissioners on this subject; they would there find all the grievances of the system, and most of the clauses of the bill, in the shape of suggestions which he was about to propose to remedy those evils. The inconveniences of the present county courts were admitted on all hands. The measure which he was about to introduce was the same as that which had been brought before them two years ago. The first principle of it was to extend the jurisdiction of the county courts to sums amounting to 20l. Whether this was a proper limit they were not there that night to discuss, for the point would be reserved for an after stage of the bill. In establishing the courts, he proposed that they should be perambulatory, not merely confined to the central town of the district, but to be held from time to time, and in such other places as her Majesty's Council might be pleased to appoint. He proposed, in the next place, that the judges to be appointed should be paid by a fixed salary—that they should be permanent officers appointed by the Crown, and removable by the same power which appointed them. He proposed, also, that their salaries should be paid out of the proceeds of this court; and when the fees should not happen to be sufficient to remunerate the judges, instead of paying the deficiency out of the county rates, as it was once suggested to do, he proposed that it should be paid out of the consolidated fund. He next proposed, in reference to the proceedings of these courts, to render their proceedings more simple, so that the meanest capacity might at once understand their nature. He proposed to do away with all the written pleadings which at present existed in the county courts, and that the pleadings should commence with a simple summons, calling on the defendant to appear and answer. If the defendant failed in the first instance to appear, judgment in absence would be given against him: but if he could afterwards show good cause why he had not appeared in the first instance, he proposed that the judgment in absence should be annulled, and a new trial granted. It was also proposed, in order to avoid vexatious delays, that if the defendant appeared and entered his defence, with a special plea for making it attached, and if he failed to sustain his defence, the judgment would go peremptorily against him in absence, but at the same time it was thought advisable that the judge should have an unlimited discretion in every such case either to refuse or to grant a new trial. It was proposed that the judge should sit alone in certain cases; that he should, by himself, decide all cases under 5l., but in cases above 5l. and under 20l., it was proposed to leave it to the option of the parties whether they should be tried by the judge alone, or by a jury, to consist of five individuals. In reference to the costs, he had no doubt but that they would be greatly reduced. He had next to propose, what might be objected to by gentlemen learned in the law, but what appeared to him to be an essential part of any system for the easy and speedy recovery of small debts—he proposed that the parties themselves should be examined if found necessary, and that all witnesses might be examined without reference to any interest they might have in the case. He proposed nothing new, he merely proposed to extend to such newly-created judges the powers which the present judges had under the 1st and 2nd Victoria. There was no doubt but that the patronage which the Crown would receive by the power of appointing the judges to these county courts would be great. He anticipated that for the purpose of disposing of the business under the present measure, the number might possibly amount to twenty-five; but there was one circumstance to which he wished to call the attention of the House. It was, that almost an equal amount of patronage existed at the present moment, without the House being aware of it; for since the measure was first introduced, no less than twenty-two local bills had been framed, very similar in their provisions to the present measure. To every one of these localities, the power of appointing the judge was vested in the Lord Chancellor, and the House would observe that these twenty-two local courts would all be merged into the present general measure. The patronage under the present measure could only be made to vest in the Crown. It would not be safe to place it in any other source than one, which was responsible to both Houses of Parliament. In reference to the patronage which at present belonged to the manorial and other courts, he did not propose to do away with the jurisdiction of any of these. His object was merely to improve the administration of justice in the county courts, and such courts as the courts of requests would still be open to the public, if they chose to make use of them. He proposed that the salary of each judge should be, in the first instance, 800l. per annum; and that it should increase as the business increased, but in no case should it exceed 1,500l. per annum.

said they would not be allowed to practise. He had now sketched the outline of the measure, the great feature of which was that which went to establish throughout the country local perambulatory courts, to which the poorer creditors would have immediate access. Instead of a court which obliged both them and their witnesses to travel an inconvenient distance to attend, they would now have one near to their own homes, and one that would give them cheap and speedy justice. He hoped that the measure would be the means of giving to the lower classes a confidence in the good intentions of Parliament towards them. He had witnessed the beneficial effects of a similar system in that part of the kingdom with which he was more immediately Connected. Three years since, a measure passed through Parliament, which attracted little notice; but which gave a power to her Majesty to declare in what part of any county in Scotland the sheriff should hold his small debt court. That measure had worked, and was still work-king, greatly to the benefit of the people of Scotland, and he sincerely hoped that this Session would see a similar measure bestowed on the people of England. Thanking the House for the attention with which they had listened to his statements, he begged leave to move for leave to bring in "a bill to improve the practice, and extend the jurisdiction of county courts."

hoped he might be allowed to express an opinion on this subject, having been solicited by individuals in that part of Lancashire to which he belonged, to introduce a similar measure. These courts existed, and were found very beneficial in Scotland and Ireland, and he hoped they would soon be established in England. He, however, thought it would be better not to prevent the judges practising as barristers. There was one innovation in the bill worthy of all praise,—namely, that the evidence of witnesses was not to be limited by technical rules. Let a witness be sifted as much as possible, but let his evidence be taken quantum valeat. He should be glad to see, by way of supplement to this measure, one for introducing a system of stipendiary magistrates throughout the country.

hoped, that the measure would not be made instrumental in undermining the jurisdiction now exercised by county magistrates. It appeared to him that the Government intended to reserve the power of appointing the existing magistrates in the metropolitan districts to act under this bill. If this principle were acted on in the metropolitan districts, he considered that it would be highly objectionable. It would be much better, in his opinion, to keep the criminal and the civil business distinct, as was the case in the higher courts of judicature. Care, therefore, should be taken so to limit the appointments as not to render them instrumental in mixing up the administration of criminal justice with the adjudication of debts and other civil proceedings. Provision being made against such a result, he considered that the establishment of such courts would tend greatly to serve the poorer classes, whilst at the same time the expenses of the courts would be borne by the suitors. He would again advise those who had united with him in endeavouring to prevent the police courts from being also made courts for the recovery of civil debts, to avoid the same danger of a double jurisdiction from the present bill.

could not conceive how the adoption of the measure could lead to the danger that criminal and civil jurisdiction would be confounded by its provisions. He completely coincided in the views expressed by his hon. Friend, the Member for Wigan, and his only regret on that occasion was that the bill did not go fur- ther than was proposed. The cheap and easy administration of justice was an object of the utmost importance to the community at large; and he certainly felt that the measure just introduced would tend very materially to secure that object.

was glad that the bill had been brought forward. He hailed the measure as a bold effort on the part of her Majesty's Ministers to endeavour to lessen the costs of the law, and facilitate the administration of justice. Numbers of small debt bills had been formerly passed, almost every year, through the House, each rendering the law more perplexed by introducing new principles. At present there were innumerable small courts, with various degrees of jurisdiction, the patronage of which was placed in the hands of private individuals. He thought such a system extremely injurious to the due administration of justice; and he hoped the rights of patrons would not prevent the passing of the measure then before them. The hon. and gallant Officer had given no reason for his opinion, that the giving to these judges criminal and civil jurisdiction would act injuriously. If in the metropolitan districts they had competent judges under the Police Act, why should they not have additional duties imposed upon them, if they had time to discharge such duties? He saw nothing injurious in such a plan, and he thought the public, having gone to a very great expense in the establishment of those courts, were entitled to have them made as beneficial to the people as possible. The vesting the appointment of judges of these courts in the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice, would remove all objections that could be made an the score of political patronage. That was a subject which had been much discussed in the committee, and he understood the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke, to say that he had no objection to give the patronage of those courts to the Lord Chancellor, or the Lord Chief Justice, but that he would prefer the Lord Chief Justice. He also understood the right hon. Gentlemen as having given up the rights of the existing patrons. Now, if a great and useful measure of this nature were opposed by the other House, merely for the sake of preserving private patronage, it would give great support to the opinion that that House existed more for private purposes than for public benefit. He hoped too, that when the question was next discussed in that House, they should hear a great deal less about the loss of patronage by private individuals, and a great deal more of the necessity of securing a good administration of justice than they had done on former occasions.

thought that the want of the connection in the measure which had been deprecated by the hon. Member for Middlesex, constituted its great evil. The judges of these courts ought to possess both civil and criminal jurisdiction. Let them look at the anomalous state of the law regulating these courts in the different counties. In England by this bill the judge of the county court had civil jurisdiction only. In Ireland he might possess both civil and criminal jurisdiction, and in Scotland, where he had originally only criminal jurisdiction, civil jurisdiction had been recently superadded, so that in the three different countries there were three different methods adopted in the administration of justice. In many cases of civil trial it was necessary that the judge should have criminal jurisdiction, and nothing could be more anomalous than this judge half dead and half alive, this paralytic judge, who was alive on one side only—alive on the civil, but dead on the criminal side. What the hon. Member opposite was afraid of was, that they would interfere with the jurisdiction of the magistrates. In Scotland, the magistrates had very little to do he believed, and that was just what they were fit for—and it would be for the benefit of this county if the magistrates here had also the opportunity of indulging in dignified leisure extended to them. An unpaid magistracy was a perfect anomaly which had no existence in any other county. The magistrates' court could not, at all events be considered as a poor man's court, at all events he had never known an instance in which the being rich had been a disadvantage to a man before the magistrates. He thought it would be better in all cases to leave the administration of justice to paid and responsible authorities. He was sorry to see that the bill proposed to give patronage to the judges. The Lord Chancellor was one of the Ministers of the day, removable with the Ministers, and, therefore, the giving patronage to him was, in fact, giving it to the Ministry—but if they wished to derive a method for spoiling the Lord Chief Justice, they could not possibly invent one more effectual or more calculated to degrade him into a political partisan than the giving him the appointment of the judge of those courts. The Bar at present was quite subservient enough to the Bench. [Mr. Sergeant Talfourd—No, no.] Not subservient enough? Now if they gave the Lord Chief Justice the appointment of these judges, they would have the entire rising Bar subservient to him. Not a junior barrister would express an opinion or take a part in any political discussion until he had ascertained the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice. He hoped, that in the progress of the bill some clause would be introduced to give the judge of the county court criminal as well as civil jurisdiction, in the same manner as was now exercised by the judges in the higher courts, and he felt convinced that the public would be highly benefitted by having the criminal as well as the civil jurisdiction brought home to their own doors.

hoped the provisions of that bill would provide for the proceedings and practice of the court. He should wish to see the same proceedings adopted in these courts, as were adopted before the commissioners of bankrupts, where both litigant parties were brought before the judge and examined.

—It is so; such are the provisions of the bill.

—Oh, very well; then I have nothing more to say.

contended that this bill, if altered as recommended on the other side, would be an attempt to introduce the narrow end of the wedge, so as in time to take the whole administration of justice, especially in the country, out of the hands of magistrates, by whom it was at present satisfactorily administered. If criminal justice, as well as civil, were put into the hands of stipendiary magistrates, it would strike at the root of the welfare and prosperity of the nation. Nations did not depend for their prosperity so much on the habits and usages of the country as upon the laws; and what had made England superior to other countries was the mixing and blending together of the different classes of society, thus promoting that good understanding which was necessary to the prosperity and happiness of every community. He consi- dered that the present system of appointing magistrates tended to produce this state of things, and on that account he should be extremely jealous of every thing that was at all calculated to remove from the hands of the existing magistracy the administration of the justice of the country. It was true that the bill now before the House had nothing in it of that character, and he hoped it would not be followed by any measure similar to that recommended by the hon. Member for Wigan and other Gentlemen.

observed that the hon. Member for Middlesex, (Captain Wood) had admitted, that this was a measure that would do a great deal of good; that there was a defect in the administration of the civil justice of the country, that it was dilatory and expensive, and that the present measure would make it cheap and speedy. But the hon. Member was afraid it might encroach on the criminal jurisdiction of the present magistracy, if that were the case he should consider it an additional benefit. He believed that many of the magistrates were anxious to be relieved from their present duties, and would gladly see them performed by competent officers acting in public and having in a bar and all the officers of a court the surest guarantees for proper decisions. Far therefore from looking on the objections made by the hon. Member for Middlesex, as reasons why he should not support the bill, there were on the contrary reasons why he should vote for it in all its stages.

apprehended that some insuperable objections would be found to the intended scheme, although personally he should be glad to see the cause papers of the different courts cleared of paltry cases, on which even success was attended with ruin. If parties, like those contemplated by the bill, had no appeal, injustice would often be done; and if an appeal were allowed, they would probably fall into the hands of the lower practitioners of the profession. At the same time he was most anxious that a measure should be perfected that would relieve some of the existing evils of the present system. As to the question of patronage, he cared little whether it were placed in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, or of the Chief Justice. Let it be where it would, he did not at all apprehend that the integrity of the bar would at all be affected by it. The hon. Member for Dublin had indeed said, that the bar was already "sufficiently subservient:" if by those words he meant to cast any imputation on the bar, he defied him, or any other man, to substantiate any charge of want of independence in the bar of England. It was the glory of the English bar, that while it treated the judges of the land with all respect, it maintained most perfect independence as regarded the interests of suitors. He had seen no change in the character of the bar, notwithstanding the judges had had the appointment of revising barristers; and notwithstanding the number of commissions established by the present Ministers, the Whigs at the bar were not more numerous than they had been, from the hope of preferment from the judges, or from any other quarter.

added, that he wished to put an end to any expectation, if it existed, that the proposed bill was intended to give the new judges jurisdiction in cases where the sum in dispute was above 20l. At present, in the county courts, by suing out a writ in the Queen's Bench, and by a different form of pleading, as he was instructed, any amount might be recovered. With that power it was not his intention to interfere.

observed, that the other bill for which he had given notice of an intention to move, was connected with that which he had just obtained leave to introduce. For the sake of argument, he would presume that county courts had been established, and being established, he proposed, by a second measure, that the Lord Chancellor should have power to refer to them matters relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, and lunacy. The great question of the bankruptcy and insolvency laws must remain for more skilful and practised hands than his; that subject must be treated in a separate bill, and by those who were both more extended in their views, and more practical in their habits. All he proposed to do on the present occasion was, to empower the Lord Chancellor to remit to county courts matters at present disposed of by country commissioners, of whom it appeared, by a report already laid before the House, that there were 700 in 140 different districts of the kingdom. The duties they discharged in bankruptcy he wished to be undertaken in future by the judges of county courts, and the saving thus effected would go far to provide for the increased expense of the county courts. As to insolvency, he proposed that the same course should be pursued, and he begged to refer the House for information to the report of the commissioners on the subject, which would at once show the saving to be effected, and the frequent circuits of the judges of the county courts would afford more speedy relief to debtors than the present commissioners, who only made their circuits thrice a year. To the county courts, in the third place, he intended to carry all matters relating to lunacy. It was admitted, that the present system worked most inconveniently, and by the change a saving of not less than 10,000l. a year would be accomplished. It might be asked if, with the number of new judges provided in the first bill, he hoped to be able to discharge all these duties? They might or might not be sufficient; and in order that the duties imposed might not be too much for those who had to discharge them, he wished to give to the Lord Chancellor the power of increasing the number of judges, in order that they might keep pace with the increase of business. If the House permitted him to introduce this second bill, he hoped that it would proceed pari passu through its various stages with the first.

observed, that the bill now moved for, would be a most important measure, as regarded the commercial community. Nothing was more notorious than the defective administration of the bankrupt laws in the country, and he said so without intending the slightest disrespect to the 700 commissioners mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. In London the change of system, and the working of it, had given universal satisfaction, and the extension of it to the country, would be a great advantage. In proof of this statement, he would mention, that a memorial from many most respectable and wealthy mercantile establishments in various parts of the kingdom had been presented to the Lord Chancellor, earnestly soliciting such a change.

said, he was about to recal the attention of the House to a subject which had been under its consideration last Session, and on which a committee above stairs, after a long and laborious investigation, had made a report in favour of the principle which it was now his object to incorporate in a bill. It would divest the question of much abstract matter and theoretical argument for him at once to state, that he sought to introduce no new principle of legislation, to found no new law, but simply to give force and efficiency to one already in existence, but which the lapse of time and other circumstances had rendered inoperative for the achievement of the object which it proposed. The question for which he had to entreat their consideration was, not whether there should be copyright at all, for that had been decided in the affirmative by the passing of a law by which it was established fifty years ago, but whether the House would render that law effectual by making that extension of the term which the altered circumstances of the trade had rendered indispensable for its prosperity. Early last Session he introduced a bill for this purpose, in which he proposed to extend the copyright of designs from three months to twelve. The question was felt to be one of much manufacturing and commercial detail, with which the majority of Members were not very familiar; and, under the circumstances of the imperfect information which the House possessed upon the subject, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was reluctant to consent to an extension beyond half that period. But as he felt confident that the term he proposed was the very shortest which it was possible to adopt with any hope of effecting the desired object, and felt conscious at the same time that a thorough scrutiny of the subject could not but lead others to the same conclusion, he at once adopted a suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, and consented to refer the inquiry to a select committee, which was accordingly done; and the committee at the close of their labours made a report to the House of the minutes of evidence they had taken, coupled with a recommendation that the term of the present protection should be extended. He had, therefore, not only the principle of a copyright established by the existing law, but its extension recommended by the report of the committee, and the only question to which he had to beg their attention was the length of extension which it was indispensable to adopt. Conscious of the importance which it was to the public taste to get early possession of these designs as the groundwork for still further inventions and improvements, their authors and proprietors asked but a brief enjoyment of their exclusive profits, at the expiration of which they were contented to see them converted to any purpose that might tend to the general diffusion of taste, and the consequent advancement of art as applied to British manufactures. And when it was considered that by far the largest proportion of all the productions of England on which these designs were impressed found a market in distant countries, it surely could not appear an unreasonable or prejudicial term to ask but twelve months within which to realise a remuneration for the enterprise and outlay of their producers, and at the expiration of which they were to become the common property of the public? It was likewise a strong and a striking fact that in the only country which was confessedly superior to England in all the departments of industrial art, in France, the copyright of designs was the most complete and effectual, giving the inventor a property in them for any term of years, from one to a perpetuity, for which he might feel disposed to claim it. Under the influence of this law the productions of French taste had attained a reputation for beauty which ensured for them a price infinitely beyond the more homely and less elegant manufactures of England; and if this were questioned as the source of her admitted superiority, it could not at least be denied that the existence of such a law in France, so far from being prejudicial to her trade, had been shown by experience to be compatible with the very highest excellence in art, and the utmost success and prosperity of her manufactures. The present duration of the copyright was, as he had staled, only three months for calico-printing, the same which was established by the law of 1794; but although at that time it might have been found to be sufficient, whilst all processes were slow, engraving done by the burin, and printing by the hand, the case was very different now, when every process had been expedited by machinery, and the application of electro-magnetism to engraving had re- duced the labour of months to the compass of as many hours. These circumstances drove the parties in the trade to apply to Lord Sydenham for protection, and in 1839 he introduced and passed two bills revising the entire system, giving a copyright of three years to some departments, and offering one of twelve months to the weavers of silks and the printers of calicoes. But as this offer to the calico-printers was coupled with a condition that they should subject all their designs to a system of registration which was about to be tried, and to which they objected, they begged to be left out of the bill till that system should have been tried and corrected, which was accordingly done. The state of the law, therefore, presented this singular anomaly at present, that there was one law to regulate patterns upon calico and another for woollens and silk; and, what must appear still more incongruous and absurd, for the same design if woven upon silk there was a protection of twelve months, and if printed upon calico only three. In the meantime the system of registration had been tested and proved; the inconveniences which the calico-printers foresaw had been ascertained, and were now in process of correction, and the calico-printers, having thus had their apprehensions and objections removed, came now to accept the terms offered them in 1839, and asked to be put upon the same footing with the manufacturers of silks, being now willing to accept the copyright upon the same conditions, namely, with the amended system of registration for their patterns; and he avowed he could not discover on what equitable grounds their demands could be resisted. But though it might not, and he hoped would not, be resisted in that House, it was resisted elsewhere, and for the sake of the trade, he regretted to say, by a numerous and interested party, namely, those who now lived by pirating and copying the designs of their neighbours, and a few honourable individuals who had been influenced by erroneous representations, to work with them in opposition to it. The fact was, that the present term of copyright had been found in practice to be so brief as to be no protection at all; it was violated in all directions, and even the sufferers were deterred from seeking redress, so worthless did they feel the only modicum of protection to be which the law could afford them. Hon. Members would be quite unprepared to hear the extent to which the law was derided and set aside. They would be unprepared to learn that whilst it expressly declared, that no one design should be pirated or copied within the period of the protection, so powerless was the enactment for good, that the patterns of some houses had been copied in such numbers as sixty and seventy in a batch, to the utter discomfiture of the trade of the original producer. The fact was, the temptations to invade and appropriate property of this kind were great, and the protection small. A design which might have cost an artist weeks or months to produce, and which had proved eminently successful in the market, could be traced and copied in a few hours by the pirate, who could thus share in its profits without incurring the expense, the delay, and the labour, of its production, or the risk of its success. What might have cost the original proprietor twenty pounds could be appropriated by his persecutor for twenty pence; and even this disproportion in the outlay afforded no criterion of the injury inflicted upon the original producer, by the confusion, the uncertainty, and the destruction of confidence which the system of dishonest invasion inflicted upon his business. As an illustration of the extent to which these practices were carried, he would beg to read a few passages from the evidence given before the committee of last Session by gentlemen practically engaged in the trade. Mr. Brooks, who was an extensive calico-printer at Manchester, and a magistrate, and recently boroughreeve of that town, avowed, in the course of his evidence, that he had been himself a most extensive copyist of other men's designs, though less within the last eight or ten years than formerly; that he did just as many as answered his purpose; and he "thinks a fair quantity he did" within the existence of the copyright, as well as after its expiry," sometimes with loss, but most generally with profit," to himself, though with "injury" to those whose property he appropriated; and that he generally printed his copies upon such inferior cloth, as to enable him to ask a lower price than the original producer, and yet "leave himself a good profit, and plenty of room to slip under;" that he had been occasionally remonstrated with by the injured parties, but never proceeded against; and that he took in every instance the precaution of publishing those copies as the act directed, in order to assert a claim to copyright in them, as original designs of his own, and, if proceeded against for damages, he would have defended the action, though aware he was in the wrong, and relied on the strength of his purse to defeat his opponent. Such was the confession of a person actively engaged in the practice of piracy, and he (Mr. Emerson Tennent) would now give the House the declarations of a Gentleman who represented his trade to consist chiefly of employment given to pirates. Mr. Louis Lucas, on being asked in the Committee:—

"Are you a calico printer?" answered, "No I am a merchant of the firm of Nicholls, Lucas, and Co., New Wood-street Mews, extensive dealers in printed calicoes for foreign export." "Are you in the habit of having goods printed expressly for yourselves from your own designs?—Yes, frequently from what is exhibited to us; but this is the nature of our business. We are in the habit of receiving from abroad, almost constantly as the different packets arrive, patterns of prints suitable to those markets. We have a branch house at Manchester and they are sent to it, and we endeavour to find such calico printers as will produce them at the cheapest rate." "Irrespective of who may be the proprietor or inventor of the pattern?—We ask no questions upon that subject; we say this is a pattern received from abroad, and we want so many hundreds or so many thousands of them." "And you pay no regard to the fact whether these patterns be under an existing copyright, or under an expired one, or whose property they may be, provided you can have them executed at such a price as may suit the market?—That consideration has never entered into our heads—we never ask the question." "Price alone is the object with you?—Price alone is the question." "Do you purchase extensively of printed goods?—We do: in the last six months our shipments must have been at least 60,000 pieces." "Are you aware there is a law giving a copyright of three months on printed goods?—I have heard so."

This gentleman thought, "nothing more destructive," of his trade could have been suggested, than the extension of the copyright to twelve months, the effect of it being, that he could then get no printer in Manchester to undertake one of his piratical orders. Now, "he can take," he said, "a pattern round the trade; all he can find who will do it cheapest;" and he said, "such is the frailty of people, that if the original proprietor asks too much for printing it, he can always find a copyist who will undertake it on his own terms." Nor had he ever found any difficulty in getting his work done at Manchester, except the price. Mr. Lucas was opposed to "all copyright," but to the present protection of only three months, he did not object, inasmuch as "he never felt it to be any protection at all." Such were his own words. Mr. E. Brooke, a printer of furniture calicoes, stated, that piracy had been carried to such an extent in his business, that at one time," every pattern produced by his house was copied by a rival establishment in Manchester." Mr. Warwick, an eminent publisher of the most expensive chalis, of the house of Ovingdon, Warwick, and Co., in Cheapside, related a similar case, in which the entire of his designs intended for the trade of one season were copied in one batch by a rival house. The consequence he stated to have been ruinous to him, inasmuch as it perfectly paralysed his trade altogether. Mr. Stirling, connected with the eminent Irish house of William Henry, of Dublin, stated that" his establishment has suffered to an extent almost beyond telling" by copies of his goods for export being made in Manchester, and the best of his patterns being fastened on for that purpose, and his profit on the remainder destroyed in consequence. In December, 1829, he delivered to one gentleman, Mr. Hosier, of London, 700 pieces of goods, consisting of eighty-three different patterns, and in the January following, copies of the entire eighty-three were brought to the same gentleman by a pirate, pattern for pattern, worked on inferior cloth, and offered at 20 per cent, lower than Mr. Henry's house had sold them, in consequence of which Mr. Hosier declined to repeat an order for the goods, and he (Mr. Henry) had never been able to sell him a single piece since. Not only so, but the sale of the articles in question had entirely ceased in every direction, owing to the same circumstance. In another instance, an order actually given to Mr. Henry's house was cancelled in consequence of the merchant, immediately after giving it, seeing copies of the same goods in Manchester of inferior quality. Again, ten of Mr. Henry's patterns were produced to the committee, copied by the house of Leese, Kershaw, and Co., of Manchester, in one batch. Mr. Stirling stated generally that from Mr. Henry's goods being eminently suited to the West-India trade, they had been more extensively copied than those of any other House, and that" his business is almost at a stand in consequence, as he is never now able to effect a second sale of the same pattern on account of the profusion of copies in the market, which are thrown in his teeth every time he asks for an order." But he (Mr. Emerson Tennent) would only fatigue the House were he even to allude to innumerable cases of hardship contained in the evidence given before the committee of last Session. The cases he had cited were but a sample, not only of the nature, but of the magnitude of the mischief. But he was prepared to be interrupted by an observation that all these cases occurred within the period of three months, rendered sacred by the existing law; and why was it not asserted, and its protection claimed, for their prevention? The answer he was prepared with. The trouble of vindicating the right was not worth incurring for the worthless amount of the remedy, A few weeks might elapse before a pattern was fixed on by the pirate. It would require a few more to produce and publish the copy; and before the fraud could be made known, and the law put in force for its suppression, the entire term of the copyright would have nearly, if not altogether, expired, and the injured party, even if successful, would take no advantage by his victory. If the term were extended to twelve months, it would create a quantum of interest in the copyright that would make a pirate pause before he aroused the resentment of the proprietor by invading it. But at present he appropriated his property with impunity, because the law withheld from him such an interest in it as would make it worth his while to employ vigour and energy for its protection. A man would assert his right vigilantly, where the value was five pounds, in whom it would be absurd to resort to legal proceedings for the amount of five shillings; and yet the moral offence of the aggressive party in either case would be the same, and the law equally explicit and open. One of the most prominent and most injurious results of this state of the law was, that it operated most prejudicially to the advancement and improvement of the art employed upon these designs. The printer, conscious of the insecurity of his property in them, studied to avoid every possible expense in their production, and to curtail every detail which, though it might add to their beauty, would augment their cost, and the cultivation of taste was thus chilled and prohibited by the impunity of the pirate. Artists of a higher order, were, therefore, deterred from employing their talents upon such insecure subjects; and, in fact, the manu- facturer felt the imprudence of employing them to produce designs for the benefit of his neighbour rather than himself. The consequence was, that those styles of work which were attempted in this country were only of a medium and ordinary class as compared with the French, and parties were frighted from venturing upon other and newer departments in which their talents might be exercised, but in which they were forewarned that they would have no protection for their enterprise and outlay. Mr. Thomson, of Clitheroe, the most eminent printer in England, and Mr. Applegarth, of Kent, had both stated, that they had been deterred from attempting new styles of art by the insufficiency of the protection; and the latter gentleman mentioned to the committee of last Session that on one occasion he was offered designs by Mr. Smirke and Sir David Wilkie for architectural decorations, in imitation of Italian interiors, a species of production unattempted hitherto in Great Britain; but as the outlay would have been considerable, and the copyright a delusion, he declined to accept their designs which would have fallen into the hands of the pirate almost as soon as he could have produced them himself; and, certainly, long before they could have remunerated him for his outlay in their original production he would be compelled to resign these profits to the pirate. This and numerous other instances of a similar kind sufficiently accounted for the low state of industrial art in this country, as compared with its condition in France. Another evil arising from the insufficiency of the law was felt in the deteriorated character of British goods in foreign markets; the copiest being frequently driven, in order to undersell the original proprietor, whom he wronged, to reprint his designs upon inferior cloth, and in spurious colours, instead of fast ones, a circumstance which, as copying was unknown amongst their rivals on the Continent, was never apprehended by the purchaser of French productions. But even independently of these lawless assaults upon their property, the term of three months' copyright, even in the ordinary course of the trade, was inadequate to remunerate a printer for his outlay and trouble. His customers were deterred, by the alarm of piracy, from giving large orders in the first instance, lest they should be overtaken and undersold by the spurious copies, so that the languid sale within the three months, even if uninterfered with, was insufficient to reimburse him. The ordinary sale of a new pattern in the home market extended over at least six or seven months, and some of them twelve, or even a much longer period, so that the pirate, who had no share in the cost of production had an undisputed share of two-thirds the profits. But in the foreign trade the insufficiency was still more apparent—a shipment could hardly be made to a distant market, sales made, and the order repeated, within three months, or even within four or five. A course of post could not bring a repetition of the order before the copyright should have expired, and Mr. Lucas, whose whole trade was an export one, openly declared that fact, and justified his employment of piratical printers, on the ground that for him they could not possibly infringe the law, as it was impossible to send goods to the West Indies and receive an order back for copies of them before the copyright expired; and he could broadly state to the committee that in the foreign trade "he never felt the term of three months to be any protection to the printer at all." A still more striking case occurred where the same goods were suited both to the home market and to the foreign also. These articles were generally prepared and printed in summer in each year; they were ready for delivery for export in September, and the sale for them commenced in the home market in the January following, and lasted till the following July. Now, it was utterly impossible to secure the profit of both these markets within the term of the three months—one or other of them he must of necessity surrender to the pirate. If he dated the commencement of his copyright from his delivery for the foreign market in October, the term was out before his home sale commenced in January; and if he deferred the necessary steps for securing the protection till January, in order to secure the sale at home, he was certain to have the patterns pirated which he had exported three months before, and copies of them sent into the home market in competition with his own. One class seriously injured by the present law were the parties who sent out muslins to be embroidered by the needle; in Scotland and the north of Ireland a branch of trade which gave most extensive employment to females in their own houses and families. Some of these goods took many months to work with the needle, and as the design was printed on the cloth in outline before it was sent out to be embroidered, the pirate could copy it with impunity, and have his imitation in the market as early as the original producer. To this class of employers the inconveniences were of the most serious character, and an extensive employer at Glasgow thus described its effects in a letter to him:—

"In the district of the north of Ireland, where this system of wholesale piracy is carried on, almost every Scotch manufacturer withdrew his work for a time, at least during the last year, and pushed the bonnet elsewhere. The consequence of this was a great reduction in prices, and distress amongst the workers; and thus, for the want of a proper protection for design, a branch of business affording employment to thousands of the industrious females of Ireland suffers very materially. And we may be allowed to say that there is no branch of the national industry that is more deserving of the protection of the Legislature than this of hand-sewing or embroidery, for, although in amount it may be insignificant as compared with others, it is to be considered that the employment is given to the females in their own houses; there is no congregating together of the people in masses, as in the towns and districts which are the seats of the cotton manufacture. Its benefits are known to every one acquainted with the condition of the people in the north of Ireland and Scotland.

"We have taken opinion of counsel on one case, who concur that our goods, being printed in the first instance, are entitled to three months' protection from the date of publication. But observe, our date of publication is the day of giving out to the worker to be sewed; and as the sewing and otherwise preparing for market, by bleaching, &c, varies from six weeks to three months, it is evident that even if we succeed in establishing our claim to protection it is a very inadequate one."

Two other branches of manufacture were also petitioners for this extension—the printers of furniture calicoes for hangings, the production of which were tedious, and their sale, being less liable to the fluctuations of taste and fashion, extending over almost as many years as the sale of a dress did months; and the paper-stainers, whose business was overrun with dishonesty and piracy, from their utterly inadequate term of but twelve months' copyright. For all these evils the parties were persuaded that an effectual remedy would be found by simply extending the protecting term to twelve months instead of three, as at present. It would encourage the arts of design and give increased employment to designers and artists, as every individual must then be driven to produce original inventions, where he now subsisted by the filching or pirated imitations and servile copies. It would complete the efficiency of schools of design, by giving the artist a security for the exercise of his profession, after having afforded him the opportunity of acquiring it; and, by raising the general character of British goods to an equality in taste and beauty with those of foreigners it would augment the consumption and add to the general trade and manufacture of the nation. The statement which he had now made comprised the principle arguments in favour of the measure which he was desirous to have introduced. It was premature for him to anticipate the arguments which might be brought against him, but he was perfectly prepared to meet and to refute them. And whilst he reserved any discussion upon these points to a future stage of the measure, when they would in all probability be stated in detail, he thought it his duty thus early to intimate that recent circumstances had placed him in a position to combat them much more satisfactorily than he had an opportunity of doing last Session. These arguments had chiefly reference to an anticipated difficulty of distinguishing between what was an original, and what a pirated design under the new law; but the panics who had dwelt upon this seemed to forget that that was a question incidental to any law of copyright, whether of three mouths or twelve; and in any case, whatever were the duration of the term, the abstract question of pronouncing between the invention and the copy must pertain to any law which professed to give a protection to the one against the encroachments of the other. But this, and a number of similarly untenable devices which had been relied at first upon by the opponents of the measure, were all eventually abandoned in the committee, and the entire justification of the opposition narrowed to a fear that under the new system, whilst the English copyist was tied up for twelve months, the foreign one would be left at perfect liberty to pirate our designs, and that they would do so and undersell us in those neutral markets to which we at present exported. And as the probability of this being attempted depended mainly on the possibility of a foreign printer producing the same design cheaper than the English one, some very wild assertions were made to the committee to the effect that the printers of Belgium, Germany, and the States of the Prussian League could at the present moment pro- duce twenty-five per cent, cheaper than England. Now, he had in the course of last year made a visit to Belgium and all the manufacturing districts of the Prussian League, with a view to see for himself the results of that enlightened commercial experiment, and he was prepared with documents of the most authentic character from the printers of those countries themselves, which he would produce when the proper time came and the question was fairly raised; and what would establish under their own hand, that, so far from being able to compete with the English printer in neutral markets, they were overwhelmed with his productions in their own—in spite of prohibitory duties, amounting on an average from forty to fifty per cent. The manufacturers of Belgium, Prussia, Saxony, and Bavaria, when he had shown them the evidence regarding that given before the committee of last Session by persons professing to speak from personal experience of their trade, pronounced them to be false, and perfidious, "per fide et mensongère." So long, in fact, as England could supply, by means of machinery 200,000,000 of her own subjects and dependants, she must of necesssity be enabled to undersell the Germans with their population of 20,000,000, and the Belgians with only 4,000,000. England, in fact, had nothing to fear from foreign competition, if she were but "true to herself" and to her own artists. It was to induce her to be true to them that he introduced the present motion—to induce her to put her own artists on the same footing with other countries, and to give her own manufacturers the same security which they enjoyed; and if, added to her undisputed power of producing cheaper than any nation of the world, she could attain the facility, by means of protection and encouragement, of producing as beautiful and as refined articles as those of France, it would be impossible for any country of Europe to enter into competition with her, thus armed with a double superiority. The hon. Member concluded by moving a resolution that the chairman be directed to move the House that leave be given to bring in a bill for extending the term of copyright in designs for printing woven fabrics and paper hangings.

said, that when this subject was brought under the attention of the House, in the course of the last Session, he had felt that it would not become him to oppose the institution of the inquiry which was then proposed, because he did not then feel confident of the impolicy of the adoption of a measure which should have the effect of extending the copyright of designs; but now having paid close attention to the evidence which had been brought forward upon the question before the committee, that which had been only a doubt in his mind, had ripened into a firm opinion that it would be inexpedient to assent to the proposition which was now made by his hon. Friend, the Member for Belfast. Connected as he was with so large a branch of the trade of this country, interested in the subject now under discussion, he felt that he could arrive at no conclusion satisfactory to all those whose interests were involved in its decision; but while he felt that his opinion must be hostile to some, he had endeavoured to come to a conclusion founded upon no personal motives, but entirely upon a sound and just consideration of what he believed to be its important bearings. He was opposed in principle to the extension of the copyright which was suggested, but at the same time he should not now oppose the motion of his hon. Friend, leaving the mature discussion of the whole of the details of the measure to a more convenient opportunity. He was, he confessed, one of those who had not got rid of what might be called a bug-bear—namely, the apprehension of the mischief of foreign competition. He had not had the same opportunity certainly of inspecting the manufactures of foreign countries as his hon. Friend, but his opinion was formed upon the evidence which had been produced before the Committee. It was upon that evidence that the public must come to a conclusion, and he was bound to consider the matter in reference to it. He conceived that if the House proceeded to legislate with regard to the copyright of designs, they must look to what would be the chances of competition which would present themselves in years to come; and he must say that he could not but believe that the proposed extension of the copyright would hold out an inducement to persons in this country to apply to persons abroad to copy the designs which might be published, by which means designs might be procured fully equal to compete with the originals. He could not avoid the apprehension that this would be the case, and the fear was induced by his perusal of the evidence. He thought, too, that there was no rule with reference to the copyright of design which could be made applicable to the whole system, and on that account he was indisposed to venture upon the adoption of any new legislation. Most undoubtedly the carrying out of the measure which was proposed would, in his opinion, give rise to much litigation; and when he looked at the existing law and its operation, besides the present state of the trade, he was convinced of the impolicy of introducing any new system which should make the trade less profitable, or which should make it distinguished for the litigation of its members as to what was, or what was not, original; and he said this, not merely upon the general grounds of the inexpediency of such a result being produced, but because the interests of the trade would be materially involved in the discussion of minute questions of the originality of patterns, without any (the smallest) benefits being produced to the consumer. The consumer undoubtedly was the most important person whose interests were to be considered, and if there was anything in the proposed law which should have the effect of increasing the cost of the article of consumption unnecessarily, he conceived that that was a sufficient ground of opposition to the measure. A constant succession of new patterns was, in his opinion, the main object to be gained; but that was an end which would not be effected by this measure; and the continuance of the maintenance of any particular matter was of no real importance to the public. The truth of this observation was shown by the fact, that those who had made the greatest exertions to meet the public taste had been found to succeed the best. He repeated, that it was not his wish to oppose the introduction of the bill. Opportunities would be afforded hereafter for the discussion of its provisions more in detail, but he had thought it right to take this opportunity of stating, that his opinion had undergone no change; otherwise than to lead him to a conclusion of the inexpediency of extending the copyright. If his hon. Friend had any further evidence which he could produce upon the subject of foreign competition, he might not, perhaps, think it unfit that the committee should resume its labours of inquiry.

said, that as he was aware that there would be other occasions of discussing this question, he only troubled the House in order to set the hon. Member for Belfast right upon a matter of fact, upon which he imagined that he had fallen into error. The hon. Member had said very truly, that the law, as it now stood had been proposed to be amended by Lord Sydenham, and that he had proposed to give the manufacturers an extension of copyright to twelve months, provided they would accept a system of registration in conjunction with it. He knew that that had been the first proposition of his noble Friend, but he had reason to believe that before this inquiry Lord Sydenham had great doubts whether he could, with safety to the trade, have asked the House to extend the copyright for twelve months. When the hon. Member in the course of last Session, brought forward his motion, he (Mr. Labouchere) readily acceded to what appeared to be the general wish of the House, that in a case in which there were such conflicting statements, the whole question should be submitted to the inquiry of a select committee, and he was in hopes from the exertions which were made by that committee, and from the means which they had of looking into the subject, that some well-digested scheme would have proceeded from them, supported by facts and arguments which would have justified its adoption by the House. He found, however, that he was disappointed—that on both sides there were conflicting statements—that persons who were deeply interested in the matter had expressed views on the subject which were distinctly opposed to each other. Among the petitions which were presented to the House, he found some proceeding from those manufacturers who were engaged in producing the best goods in favour of the alteration of the law, while on the other hand those who were engaged in the production of the commoner articles, and who were to be found mainly located in Lancashire, expressed their apprehension at any change being made in the law. It was to be observed that this latter class was one of the highest importance. It was from them that the major part of those manufactured goods proceeded which were the subject of export, and they formed a class whose interests must be considered as of the highest importance. The committee when they were engaged in the consideration of the question, appeared to be equally divided as to whether they should express any opinion to the House. When the question was raised of whether they should make any report or not, it was found that there were six for the report and six against it, and the hon. Chairman gave his casting vote in favour of the report.

wished to explain—The first motion for a report was met by a motion that there should be no report, and carried, he must admit, by his casting voice. The next question was, as to whether the report should be in favour of, or against the extension of the copyright, when six Members voted in favour of the extension and three against it.

would not discuss this matter with the hon. Gentleman now, but the hon. Gentleman must admit, that it was by a bare majority the report was agreed to. Under these circumstances he confessed that he remained in the same opinion as that which he had entertained last year. He admitted, that he thought that a case of great hardship had been made out on the part of those who, having gone to the expense of procuring designs to be made, afterwards found that other persons had profited by their labour and exertions; and he wished that he could redress their grievances, but he felt that he could not do so without inflicting greater injury on others—without producing litigation in this country, and difficulties and inconvenience to our foreign trade. He could not agree with the hon. Member opposite, that the fears which had been expressed on the subject were quite so visionary as he described. He should be ready to give the measure, when it was introduced, his best consideration; but he would wait to see in what manner the hon. Member proposed to apply his principles before he expressed any decided opinion upon it, because he felt that on a question of such magnitude and importance, one false step might produce the most serious consequences. He had stated last year that he thought the best way would be to extend the copyright on the system of registration to six months, and he still thought that that might be the best course to adopt; but at present he held himself undetermined as to the decision to which he should come. He hoped that when the hon. Member brought in his bill he would give it time to be fairly and duly considered, not only as to its principle, but as to the mode in which that principle was to be carried into effect.

wished to ask, if quantity and cheapness were of the utmost importance to our foreign trade, in what respect could cheap calicoes be affected by the extension of the copyright, while the present state of the law was of serious injury to the finer branches of the trade. He entreated the right hon. Gentleman to consider if he looked to foreign markets and the markets of Europe alone, whether he would not effect his object better by taking care of the finer branches of the manufacture. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that the trade was nearly divided on the subject, but he could say, that, as far as the calico trade was concerned, there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the extension. If hon. Gentlemen would look to that large volume on the table, they would find abundance of evidence in it. In Manchester the trade was suffering to a large extent for want of the proposed protection. The hon. Member for Wigan had frequently brought before the House a plan for establishing a school of design, in connexion with our manufactures, but no school of design could be more effective than giving a liberal scale of remuneration, and thus raising the character of our designs by employing a higher class of artists. On all those grounds he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would extend the copyright to twelve months, or, at all events, to six months.

, conceived that it was of the greatest importance that in this country the most liberal attention should be given to the improvement in the arts of design, in reference to our manufactures. There was a wide difference between the position of England in this respect and France, and the vast superiority which France had over us was most strikingly manifested by the magnitude and success of their silk trade. The very heavy amount of duty which they were enabled to pay, and yet sell their goods to advantage in our market, afforded a convincing proof of their superiority over us. They purchased the material at the same market with us, their labour was not less expensive than ours, and yet, by reason of the great superiority of the articles which they manufactured, they were enabled to obtain a price remunerating them for all their necessary outlay. He had adverted to the silk trade, because it was the most remarkable, for their cotton trade was by no means so suc- cessful. We had hitherto forced our foreign trade by the cheapness of our goods, but if we were to maintain it any longer it was necessary that we should be able to improve our designs. He thought, however, that it was not merely an improvement in our arts, of which we stood in need, but that we required what might be termed an English style. He might give some offence by saying so, but the real truth was, that there was no English art of design. All the designs we had were wholly or in part foreign—altered, no doubt, from the originals, but the alterations were generally of such a character as that the less extensive they were the better, and that if the original designs were altogether untouched it was best of all. It was true, he admitted, that there were many manufacturers who did not resort to this system, but who employed persons of superior talent; but with reference to the ordinary manufacturers, he believed that our supposed superiority over the continental manufacturers was derived from the causes which he had pointed out. America to which very little attention was paid, was progressing rapidly in its cotton manufactures. Already as many as 300,000 bales of cotton were consumed there, and she was gradually manufacturing one article after another, and extending her trade in all directions. In China, the Pacific, and even the Levant, they were beating us in our trading, and were driving us out of the market, and we must not imagine that the advantages which we had so long enjoyed would continue for ever. It was necessary to improve our designs in manufacture, in order to maintain our position; and he would cordially join the hon. Member opposite in endeavouring to give the manufacturer all that he would be entitled to, although he could not support him in the measure which he proposed to the House. The only other thing to which he would advert was the term of extension. They should consider that the articles which were produced were sold, if at all, within the following three months. In common justice he thought it right to give the inventors the whole season from the time of publication. He did not think the public would suffer if some extension of the present term were conceded, and he believed that an extension to six months was as much as any manufacturer would desire, as the same patterns which were produced in the summer were seldom required for the winter; and if the term were extended to twelve months, it would extend over two seasons, which was unnecessary. The establishment of schools of design was undoubtedly essential in a manufacturing country like this, and it might be considered somewhat discreditable to former Governments that we had been so long without them; but it was impossible for the manufacturers to give employment and sufficient remuneration to the artists educated in those schools, unless they could ensure a sufficient return by the first sale for the capital expended in the production of the design. He should support the motion now before the committee; but when the details of the bill should come under discussion, he should support the proposition for extending the term to six months, instead of twelve.

said, that after having paid great attention to the evidence taken before the committee who had sat on that subject, he had come to an entirely different conclusion from the hon. Member for Belfast. He was persuaded, that a change in the present law of copyright of designs would prove most injurious to the calico-printing trade of this country. The present law had been in operation for more than fifty years, and during the whole of that period, though many of the principal persons engaged in the calico trade had seats in that House, not one of those parties had proposed any alteration of the law. He was sure that if they extended the period of protection to designers, such a measure would be a source of endless litigation. All designs were taken from the vegetable or animal world, and how was it possible that every pattern taken from those sources, could be a completely new one? One of the largest calico printers in this country, had stated, that 250,000 patterns were produced here annually; and there could be no doubt, that not less than 30,000,000 of designs had been produced within the last fifty years. How, then, was it possible, that new patterns could be anything more than a compound of the old ones. If, therefore, they held out the prospect of a higher reward to designers, they would be introducing a measure which would probably lead to litigation and abuse. He would give his most decided opposition to any attempt to extend the copyright of designs, from an impression that it would be most injurious to that branch of our manufactures.

would not detain the House from the business before it, but having applied himself for some time to the consideration of a subject nearly akin to this, and being of opinion, that there was some analogy between inventions in machinery and the fine arts and literary productions in respect to copyright, he could not allow this discussion to pass without expressing his entire sympathy with the hon. Member for Belfast in the object he had in view, and tendering him his humble support. He quite agreed in the principle that there was a property in works of art, and that it was necessary to give some incitement to the exertions of genius and skill in the way of a right of property in the production, whatever it might be, be the term longer or shorter. With respect to his own bill (the Copyright Bill), he thought he had been defeated merely by an accident, and not by any argument that had been brought forward against him. He had no doubt that the result would be different when he brought forward the measure next Session. While he remained a Member of that House, he was determined not to lose sight of that which he considered to be no more than justice to literary men, viz., to give them a right of property in their own productions.

would make an observation which was, he thought, rendered necessary by what had fallen from the hon. Member for Inverness. It was said, that competition was increasing daily between the manufactures of this country, and those of foreign countries in neutral markets, and that the day was fast approaching when the manufactures of those countries would be offered as cheap as our own; and it was also said that there was more of talent, skill, and taste, brought to bear in the manufacture of foreign goods than our own. What followed? Why, that we must compete with those countries in those higher qualities. He thought the argument of the hon. Member for Inverness was as much in favour of an extension of the term of copyright in designs to twelve months as six. The hon. Gentleman's conclusion did not agree with his argument; and he (Mr. O'Connell) hoped that at a future stage of the bill he would see the propriety of supporting the proposition for extending the term to twelve months. The only question was as to the time of protection, and he thought it a paltry matter to quarrel whether it should be six or twelve months.

thought, that his hon. and learned Friend, who had just sat down, was going a great deal too far. Was he certain that the granting protection ensured excellence? How was it that other countries excelled without protection being afforded them? The manufacturers of chintz in Switzerland had never been excelled, and there they had no protection. He mentioned that country because there they had no custom-houses, and the Swiss manufacturer laboured under the disadvantage of having to bring the raw materials a long way by land to his manufactory. He thought instead of extending the time they ought rather to consider whether the three months at present allowed was not too much, whether they ought not to do away with all protection. The whole doctrine of protection was a fallacy. The witnesses who had been examined said, that three months was no protection, and if so, there could be no harm in doing away with it. He thought, the Government should correct the errors of the old times, and do away with what is falsely called protection altogether. The true way to excel was to pay attention to those arts by which our manufactures might be made superior—we were superior in weaving, why should we not be in all other arts? He, for one, thought, that all protection should be withdrawn.

thought, the House ought to pause before coming to a decision, when they considered the conflicting nature of the testimony given before the committee, and that the report in favour of copyright had only been carried by a majority of one. There was something like justice in asking, as the learned Sergeant had done, for a copyright for authors; but who would stand up and ask for a copyright for booksellers? Yet that was what was sought to be obtained by the present bill. These designs were not the inventions of the master printers themselves—they were purchased by them for a few shillings—and this bill was to enable them to make rapid fortunes by taking advantage of the inventions of others. He agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that there was no necessity for any copyright at all. It took two months to prepare the plates before a design could be struck off, so that after any design appeared it would be three months probably before a copy of it could be in the market. The bill would give rise to endless litigation. He did not see how it was possible to distinguish between a copy and an original pattern, and unless a system of registration were established, it would be impossible for the honest tradesman to know whether the designs he might purchase were copies or not. The bill was calculated to favour the few at the expense of the many, and he thought it was best to let well alone, and not make any alteration in the present law.

thought his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, went too far. He thought, with regard to the copyright, both in literary works and mechanical inventions, no one could say that no remuneration ought to be afforded to the inventors. The great object to be kept in view was to reconcile the interests of the inventors with those of the public, to give some short period of copyright, just sufficient to act as a stimulus to the inventor, and having done so, to secure the reversion to the public. That was the proper principle to found a bill as regarded literary copyright, and the copyright of designs. If, as the hon. Member for Inverness stated, the foreigners were so rapidly overtaking us, that in two or three years, they would be able to manufacture as cheaply as ourselves, they ought not to extend the copyright an inch beyond the time absolutely necessary, as the designs might otherwise be carried to foreign countries, where fac similes would be produced at a cheaper rate than the original was, inasmuch as they would not have to pay the original designer. He thought the term proposed by the bill would be a hazardous term for the export trade of this country if it were carried into effect.

said, that he had been induced to call the attention of the House to the subject which he was about to introduce to their notice, in consequence of a petition which he presented a few days ago from a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion of the name of Salo- mons, who had been prevented serving a high office in the Corporation of London, to which he had been elected by a large body of his fellow citizens, in consequence of his religious opinions. This gentleman had served the office of high sheriff of the county of Kent, and also that of sheriff of London and Middlesex. At about the completion of the term of his filling the latter office, he was elected by a large majority of the inhabitants of one of the wards of the city of London as their alderman; but he found the declaration he was called upon to take before he could proceed to exercise the duties of this office was of such a nature, and drawn up in such terms, that no gentleman of the Jewish persuasion could possibly take it. It appeared, therefore, that no gentleman professing that religion could hold the office of alderman in any corporate town in this country. The Act 9 George 4th., removed the restrictions from other dissenters, as regarded filling corporate offices, but it made an exception in the case of the Jews by the mode in which the declaration was framed. He trusted that the House would extend to the Jews the same privileges which they had granted to other dissenters, and he hoped that another Session would not be allowed to elapse without their removing the anomaly which existed with respect to them. The hon. Member concluded with moving for leave to bring in a bill to allow individuals professing the Jewish religion to make the declaration contained in the Act 1 and 2 Viet. c. v. and xv., "For the relief of Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, elect ed to municipal offices."

did not object to the motion on any personal ground to the gentleman who had been alluded to, nor in consequence of the magnitude of the demand made; but he did so on the ground that, by their constantly giving these little concessions, they were gradually leading to great and serious changes. He was sorry to say that this system had long been pursued in that House, and which, if continued, he feared would ultimately lead to the greatest evils. He thought, also, in the present case, that the motion ought rather to have been for leave to bring in a bill to enable David Salomons, Esq., to make such a declaration as would enable him to serve the office of alderman of the city of London. He denied that his was a question of religious toleration, and he contended that the Jews were not entitled to hold either this or any other corporate office, or any other civil privilege, on the ground that they were of a different nation, and ought not to be regarded as Englishmen. Any Jew, if appealed to, would admit this distinct nationality. He objected to the measure on the grounds which he had stated, but should not divide the House on the subject in its present stage, but would do so on a future occasion.

was rather surprised at the argument of his hon. Friend, as to the independent nationality of the Jews. Did his hon. Friend forget that the Jews at present possessed many privileges which they held as natives of this country. The law enabled them to purchase and inherit real estates, and they now enjoyed the privileges and incurred the risks in common with other possessors of property. According to the law, an alien could not hold real property; his honourable and orthodox Friend, therefore, to be consistent, should propose a motion for leave to bring in a bill to deprive the Jews of all the landed estates they possessed, on the ground that they were foreigners. A great outcry had been raised against Mehemet Ali, for the persecution of the Jews in Syria, but would any one deny that a similar spirit was then manifested in that House. He contended that the cases were similar, for what, then, was it but persecution to exclude an honest and conscientious man from an office which he was otherwise eligible to fill, by calling upon him to take a religious test?

said, that it appeared to him that the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, was the best justification which could have been pronounced, for the course which had been pursued by his hon. Friend, the Member for Oxford University, (Sir R. Inglis). He understood his hon. Friend to say, in effect, that this motion was not to be considered so much in respect to its intrinsic value, as to what it might hereafter lead to. This was an important question, because upon it rested the point whether the Jews should or should not sit in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Divett) must see that he was under some obligation to his hon. Friend for not dividing the House (there not being forty Members present); but he thought it would be unfair to do so, because it would be better to allow the question to proceed to a further stage. At the same time he believed that the hon. Gentleman would find that there was a large amount of objection to this principle. He had no disposition to press upon individuals, but it was matter for consideration, at the same time, whether they should admit Jews into a Christian House of Legislature.

contended that the state was not justified in interfering with a man's religious opinions, as a ground of exclusion from a civil office. The only ground of justification for interfering with a man's civil rights was his violation of some law. He was satisfied that the result of the future discussion of this and other bills of the kind would be the extension of the opinion he had just expressed.

observed that the case of Mr. Sheriff Salomons was not solitary, for in the town of Sunderland, which he represented, a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion, a most influential shipowner and merchant in the town, had been elected a member of the town council, and was prevented taking his seat because he could not conscientiously take the oath that was tendered to him. He also felt that the continuance of these religious restrictions on the Jews was a stumbling block in the way of their conversion to Christianity.