reported to the House that the select committee appointed to try the matter of the petition presented by John Cobbold, and others, against an undue election for the borough of Ipswich, had resolved that the chairman be instructed to issue his warrant for the committal of J. Thurston to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms for having been guilty of wilfully giving false evidence in his examination before them. Ordered that J. Thurston be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms to await the further orders of the House.

moved the third reading of the Kingsclere Inclosure Bill.

felt it necessary to address some few observations to the House in opposition to this bill, which he considered to be unjust in every respect. It would be well if measures of this nature were not allowed, as they mostly were, to pass silently through the House, but were always treated as public bills, because it certainly did happen that by passing them slightly over very important matter was often lost sight of. In his opinion the opponents of this bill would have the strongest grounds for complaint against the committee if they passed it without allowing further time for those who felt themselves aggrieved to make good their allegations. If the House of Commons agreed to the bill, after the representations that had been made on the subject, they would be guilty of the grossest unfairness and injustice to the complainants. So glaring was the case, however, that he could scarcely suppose that they would do so. It was often asked, who were the supporters of the poor? Who were the protectors of the poor? Who were the friends of the poor? Who were the assistants of the poor? And the question was bandied about from party to party. Sometimes it was said, the Whigs were not the friends of the poor: sometimes the same assertion was applied to the Tories —and the Radicals applied it to both. Now, looking to the course that had been adopted with reference to this bill, he thought that the Radicals had a right to accuse both parties. How stood the case in this instance? There was no Radical on the committee. It was composed of nine Tories and two Whigs, one of the Whigs filling the office of chairman. A similar measure, it should not be forgotten, was introduced in 1834 and 1835, and it was most properly thrown out. This fact of itself proved that no persons ever made out a stronger case than the individuals who were opposed to this bill had made out. That case was not now weakened; and he would say, that it was scarcely possible to imagine a case more strong or more complete in all its parts than that which was put forward against the bill by those who opposed it. He sincerely wished that the late Member for Berkshire was now in the House—he meant Mr. Walter, who had effectually opposed the former bill. In 1834 that gentleman, by his exertions, had caused the measure which was at that time proposed to be rejected. How did he effect that object? He sent down a surveyor to Kingsclere to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the proposed inclosure. He sent that individual down at his own expense. The surveyor made his report—it was unfavourable to the plan of those who supported the Inclosure Bill, and the bill was thrown out. In 1835 the friends of the inclosure again brought a bill before the House and it was abandoned. Now, if this measure, thus twice defeated, were carried, what would be the consequence? Why, persons now possessing 200 cottages on the waste would be cast on the high road subjected to penury and want. Such would be the effect of this bill if it into a law. And what, he would ask, were they assuming in this case? That the person calling himself lord of the manor was indeed lord of the manor, and by this measure they would give him power, through commissioners, to dispossess those poor people who justly complained that their rights were invaded. They had, it appeared, the lord of the manor, a rich party, on the one hand, and the owners of some few very humble tenements, a number of poor cottagers, on the other hand. They were assuming that the rich man, on the one side, had a good and undoubted title, and assuming, on the other, that the poor man had no title at all. Having arrived at this conclusion, they were about to give power to commissioners to dispossess those cottagers, to raze their residences to the earth, and to deprive them of that which they justly considered to be their property. If such an act were done, then he would say that the House of Commons was a disgrace to the country, and that no set of men were entitled to suffer more degradation un-pitied than that Assembly, which could ordain such injustice to be perpetrated. The commissioners had not merely power, if they thought fit, to proceed under this bill—it went much further. By its enactments the commissioners were actually compelled to dispossess those poor persons. The committee, he believed, only sat for a few days, and when the opponents of the measure required them to receive a copy of the report which was made on the subject, and which was dated in February, 1834, the committee said, "We cannot receive the report unless Mr. Maughan is present to verify it." Again, those who opposed the bill called for further time; they did so yesterday, and were refused; and such was the breathless haste with which the promoters of the bill were anxious to proceed, that on the following day (this day) they called for the bill to be read a third time. He implored, he earnestly requested, the House to resist this application. If the lord of the manor, as had been asserted, really possessed a right to send away these people from their cottages, why did he not dispossess them by ordinary course of law? But he would say, that without any such right being shown on the part of the lord of the manor, they empowered the commissioners to proceed to the removal of these people at once. He knew not how to represent or to describe to the House the feeling which operated on his mind when he contemplated such a proceeding. Nothing, he conceived, could be more unjust, nothing could be more indefensible. When they were told that the opponents of the measure were not in time (the delay being caused by their necessitous circumstances), when it was known that their extreme poverty deprived them of the power of coming to that House, should not that operate on the House as a cause for extending a kind and lenient feeling towards them? They implored the Houses to postpone the report. And how was their prayer met? Out of 152 Members only 15 were found to vote against the bill, and for the postponement of the report. When a question of this kind came before them, they ought to consider themselves as if deciding judicially and on evidence. Now, he would ask of hon. Gentlemen, had they seen, had they read, had they considered the evidence? Had they fully examined the case before them? And if they had not—and such he believed was the truth,—would they, in ignorance of the situation of these poor people, dispossess them of their cottages, and cast them for shelter and sustenance on the highways and byways? The fact was, they knew little or nothing of the case—they had heard nothing of the allegations of the complainants—they had heard nothing of their evidence. In a case where 5l. was at stake, they would say, "Let us hear both sides of the question;" but here it appeared that they were influenced solely by the decision of the committee. If such were to be the practice, why then they ought to do away with receiving reports of committees at all in that House. Let them in future give up all decisions to their committees. Let the House abrogate its functions, and let them, in future, merely affirm what their committees proposed. For the chairman of the committee (Mr. Labouchere) he felt the greatest respect. He admired the manner in which he had generally conducted the public business and his ordinary course of proceeding in that House. But, he must say, that he disapproved of his conduct in this particular case. Too much had been left in the power of the committee in this case. The interests of the complainants were left wholly to them. He, as we understood, had been intrusted with a petition, signed by a considerable number of persons, to be heard against this bill—but he was too late. The poor people had not the necessary funds to make their defence before the committee, as they ought to have done; but that, in his opinion, formed an additional claim for granting them further time, in order that they might take proper steps for the protection of their interests, and with that object in view he should move as an amendment,—

" That the minutes of evidence taken before the Kingsclere Enclosure Committee be laid on the Table of the House."

opposed the motion. When the hon. Member who had just spoken alluded to the question who were the supporters of the poor? he would say that he did not think the person who misled the poor by inflated statements was the friend of the poor. He saw nothing unjust in this bill. Parties who had held cottages for upwards of twenty years would still retain them, but those who had encroached upon the waste within that time, would not, of course, be entitled to retain the land. Now, the bill only went to this—that the law as it existed should be carried out. Those, however, who opposed the bill acted on a different principle. They wished to interfere with the present state of the law, and to give a title where it did not before exist. In his opinion, the House ought not to interfere on the subject.

said, he happened to be on the committee in 1834, and he opposed the bill because it appeared to him not to be introduced for the purpose of carrying out the existing law, but of creating a new law. Let the freeholders or the lord of the manor assert their rights under the present law, but do not give them an additional power by the means of commissioners.

had already entered at some length into the merits of this bill, and he did not, therefore, think it necessary to detain the House with many observations on this occasion. What the sense of the House was might be collected from the division of the House on the preceding evening, when there were 137 for receiving the report, and only 15 against it. After that manifestation of opinion he could see no ground upon which the House was now called on to delay its decision. The hon. Member for Finsbury, so far as he could perceive, had introduced no new matter that should induce the House to grant any further delay. The bill of 1834 was not, as some Gentlemen seemed to suppose, thrown out by the committee. It failed in the House itself, after evidence had been heard. Further examination had, however, proved that the bill was likely to be productive, not of injurious, but of beneficial effects; and therefore he should support it. If Gentlemen were of opinion that inclosure bills, generally speaking, were an evil, they would of course vote against this measure. He, however, was of a different opinion. He considered this to be a good bill; he thought that the House ought to agree to it, and with these few words, in their hands he would leave it.

said, that they ought, in common justice, to hear what these poor men had to say, which hitherto they had resisted. This was the third time that an attempt had been made to carry the same measure, and he hoped that it would fail now, as it had failed before. So far from this measure protecting the interests of any of those who opposed it, even those who could show possession for sixty years might be annoyed and interfered with. Fortunately, however, if the measure were carried here it must go to another House, where more mercy he hoped would be shown to the complainants than was manifested towards them by the House of Commons. If they did not, in the other House, receive more commiseration—if their claims were not more earnestly attended to, then he would say, that the aristocracy was in a fair way of being destroyed—aye, and he would add, that it ought to be destroyed, if it would not listen to the prayers of these justly-complaining people. He was quite convinced that if they had an opportunity of coming fairly forward, they would be able to prove a fair title to that which they claimed.

felt it necessary, after the charges that had been brought against him by the hon. Member for Finsbury, to say a very few words. As Chairman of the committee, his only duty was to hear the evidence that was brought under his notice. He knew nothing whatever of the subject, except what he was thus put in possession of. He should be as sorry as any Gentleman in that House, if he did not consider most scrupulously, the rights and interest of the humblest individual that might happen to be connected with that or with any other measure that happened to be brought before Parliament; but still he must remain of opinion, that the interest which the community in general had in this common, and more especially the interest of the labouring population, would be more effectually served by the inclosure than otherwise. Persons possessing common rights of this kind, they not being in the vicinity of great towns, and situated in thinly inhabited parts of the country, derived more benefit, he was convinced, front the employment that was afforded by additional cultiva- tion, than they could possibly hope to gain from the ordinary exercise of those rights when the land lay uninclosed and uncultivated. Such was his view of the general principle. He denied the statement of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fielden,), that persons who could prove possession for sixty years could be interfered with. It seemed to be supposed, that individuals would be summarily turned out from their cottages on the common without any compensation whatever. The committee had authorised no such thing. There was a special clause in the bill to preserve the existing rights of persons who had held land for twenty years; but any person whose encroachment did not extend to the term of twenty years, though he would be removed, would still be allowed a certain compensation for his loss. Looking to these encroachments of a recent date, what, he asked, was the law? He must say, contrary to the opinion of the right hon. the Lord Mayor of Dublin (at least as he understood him) those persons who so encroached on the common might be immediately dispossessed under the law as it now stood. If the present measure had never been introduced, any lord of the manor would hare a right to resort to that remedy. It was said, that those persons, though deeply aggrieved, had not the power to bring their grievances fairly before the committee. There was, in fact, no fair ground for the assertion. Sufficient notice, long notice, was given of the proceedings. Those who opposed the measure, and the parties who were immediately concerned with it, had the most ample opportunity for exerting themselves. When the committee met, it appeared that three Gentlemen had been engaged on the part of the opponents of the bill; but their attendance was required elsewhere. However, a most respectable gentleman attended on behalf of these parties for two days, and cross-examined the witnesses with as much ability and acuteness as any professional gentleman could possibly do. He repeated, that in the course he took, he had done nothing more than his duty; and, in his opinion, that House would not be doing justice to the promoters of this bill, if they put them to further expense, by additional and unnecessary delay.

begged the right hon. Gentleman not to suppose, that he had stated the law other than it really was. What he stated was, that the bill provided for the lord of the manor an additional remedy. He knew, that these people, if holding their cottages for less than twenty years, might be ejected in the ordinary way—and he asked, why, in addition, appoint commissioners to drive them out?

said, there was already a sufficiently strict law on one side, and he certainly saw no necessity for a new law in addition, except it was to harass the other party. They had heard mention made of compensation, but where was it to be found? Suppose a man had expended 500l. on an acre of land, from which he was forcibly driven; where did this bill contain a provision for proper compensation? The bill authorised the removal of cottages which had been built on the land within twenty years; and what compensation, in that case, was to be given? Why, compensation would be given to the amount of the bricks, and mortar, and timber, which was a mere mockery after you had pulled a man's house down; but he looked in vain for any compensation to be granted for improvements made on the land. The following was the only clause which touched on that point:—

"Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the several persons who shall be in possession of such encroachment or inclosure, or in the receipt of the rent thereof, at the time of the passing of this act, to take down and remove all such buildings, fences, or other erections, as shall then be thereon, and to convert the materials thereof to their own use, provided such removal take place within a certain time, to be limited by the commissioner for that purpose, by a notice delivered to the persons respectively in possession of such encroachments, or affixed upon some conspicuous part of such encroachment or enclosure."

That could not be called compensation; for a man might be seriously injured in his business or his trade in consequence of his house being thus summarily pulled down. Such a proceeding he considered to be most unjust, and he meant to propose a clause to counteract it. He should propose a clause, at the proper time, to enable individuals to purchase land of which they had not held possession for twenty years. As the bill stood, individuals were to be turned out without allowing them the option of becoming purchasers. But, it was said, that no opposition was offered to the 51st clause—that most obnoxious clause. That was true; but the fact was, that the means for carrying on an effectual opposition were scanty. The poor people could not afford it. He denied that holders of cottages for more than twenty years were secure under this bill. By the 40th clause, they also might be interfered with, if any one disputed their legal title. He hoped, if the House were determined to pass the bill, that these people would have justice so far done them as to be allowed to purchase the land of which they had been in possession for a less period than twenty years.

supported the amendment, and considered it a great hardship to dispossess those poor people by a bill of this nature.

as a Member of the committee, wished to say a few words. Several of the cottagers themselves had been examined before the committee, and expressed themselves in favour of the in closure. It did not affect any persons but those whose encroachments came within twenty years, and they were not to go uncompensated. It was a bill which, in his opinion, would benefit a great number, and would not injure any one. Of the kind, he never knew of a more useful measure, and thought that it ought to be passed.

also as a Member of the committee, could declare that the most conscientious feeling pervaded the committee to attend strictly to the interests of all parties, and their conviction was, that all those interests would be best consulted by the inclosure.

said, that justice ought not to be refused to these poor people. It was, in his view of it, a most monstrous case. Great inhumanity and great injustice were manifested towards those unfortunate people. There was one point in considering the question which hon. Gentlemen seemed to have overlooked—namely, that when these people were driven from their cottages they must be thrown for support on the poor-rates.

defended the opinion he had previously given as to the power which the bill contained for interfering with cottagers who had held them for more than twenty years.

as a Member of the committee, expressed his approval of the bill, which had already received the unequivocal sanction of the House.

said, he should meet this question with a direct negative. What had the House of Commons, the gentry of England, the friends of the poor, done by their late decision? They had decided on dispossessing 500 persons of their habitations, without hearing the evidence on which that decision was to take place? They had absolutely decided that they would not hear that evidence before them. Could anything be more unjust than such a course of proceeding? Could hon. Members be astonished that so much violence was manifested by the people out of doors with respect to the proceedings of that House, when such acts as this were perpetrated? And, until the people were fully represented in that House, he believed that these atrocities against their rights would constantly be committed. A more unjust proceeding he had never witnessed in any assembly, be that assembly what it might. If a jury dared and presumed to decide without hearing the evidence upon which their verdict was to be given, that House would denounce them as a set of unworthy scoundrels—as men who ought not to be admitted into civilised society. This was one of the most painful proceedings he had ever witnessed. From the statements that had been made to him with reference to these poor cottagers, it was heartrending and painful in the extreme. The House were assuming that the lord of the manor had a right to eject them from their cottages, but by their decision, they had actually given him that right. If the lord of the manor had any right at all, why had he not ejected them? He was told, indeed, that by the lord of the manor's own neglect, his manorial right was forfeited, and that therefore, he had no right to eject them, But they were now creating a law to favour the rich man at the expense of the poor, and he should, therefore, meet this question with a direct negative.

then said, that he should move the addition of three clauses to the bill; but if the House were against the first, he should not divide upon the other two. The substance of the first clause was, that persons who had held the land for less than twenty years, but had erected cottages thereon, should be entitled to purchase such land at the price per acre of the surrounding land. The second clause had reference to certain charity lands in the parish; and the third clause was one which was introduced into the bill of 1834, but had been omitted from the present bill. It was founded on the report of the committee of that day, and the sub stance of it was, that those commoners who had been in possession of their land for more than twenty years should have two acres of common attached to them as of right. The noble Lord concluded by moving the following clause,—

" Such parts of the commons as shall have been inclosed within twenty years last past, to be sold to the persons in receipt of the rents and profits, at the price the land was worth at the time of the inclosure, and lands inclosed more than twenty years to be entitled to an allotment."

Clause brought up and read a first time.

was opposed to the ad-

^* Although the numbers are nearly similar on both divisions, the change of Members who voted is found to be so considerable when the lists are compared, that to ensure accuracy, it was thought advisable to insert the lists of both divisions entire.

dition of these clauses. He, as chairman of the committee, had asked counsel if they had any more clauses to propose, and he was answered that they had not. The proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, to treat those who had not acquired a freehold right by lapse of time precisely as if they were freeholders. It would be acting on most dangerous ground to do so, and he, for one, could not consent to it.

said, his object was, not to treat those persons as freeholders, but to give them the power to purchase their holdings at the price they were worth at the time of the inclosure.

expressed his intention of opposing all the clauses.

thought, that the pulling of houses about the ears of the holders was rather a harsh proceeding, and he should therefore be inclined to support the second clause proposed by the hon. Member for Kidderminster; but the first clause attempted to establish a most outrageous principle— namely, that the man who had had the courage to build a house upon the waste, in the hope that he should not be disturbed, should be rewarded with two acres of land to the injury of the freeholder. This clause he must oppose.

said, that, contrary to his usual practice of never voting on any private bill with the provisions of which he was unacquainted, he had voted on this bill under a misconception of the extraordinary powers given by it. He should support the proposed clause; for it went to mitigate, and would in some degree alleviate, the evils of the bill, especially those which would spring out of the working of the 53d clause of the bill, which enacted that insulated old enclosures should be deemed part of the lands to be enclosed.

said, that although he had hitherto voted with the majority, he was very much impressed with the justice of the clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, and should support them.

was almost afraid to contend for the justice of the clause, because in the ratio of its justice he thought its success was questionable. It was a question whether the person calling himself lord of the manor had any right at all there. The effect of this bill would be to give that individual a right by law which he never had before. He should support the clause.

rose, and complained of the practice of the Government in bringing on their measures on Wednesdays, which had not been the custom. Wednesday night was the only night on which individual Members, not connected with the Government, could calculate upon having an opportunity to proceed with the bills they had in their charge. He did not now rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the measures on the paper, but to express his opinion that the new practice was particularly hard upon Members not connected with the Government, and that it was also injurious to the proper discharge of public business, inasmuch as hon. Members had not sufficient notice of the bills which were to be proceeded with.

said, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, several times during the previous Session, had not hesitated to say that there were some proceedings of the late Government which they would not refuse to follow. He would not say whether it would be a wise and useful determination to imitate the general conduct of the late Government, but he would say that it might be convenient to the House if the present Government would follow the example of the last in two things,—first, in not going on with Government bills on Wednesday evenings, and secondly, in not only stating what business was to occupy the House, but in what order it would be taken. At present it was impossible to foretel whether the first, or the 17th, or the 20th order would be taken first or not. The first order on the list for that evening was the Licensed Lunatic Asylums Bill, which was virtually a Government bill, but one which ought not to be discussed on such a night and in such a House. Of course the regular supporters of the Government would be in attendance on Wednesdays, but of all the other members few would attend, those few consisting chiefly of Members who came down to the House out of curiosity, or those who, not being fortunate enough to get an invitation to dinner, had nowhere else to go. The noble Lord the Member for Monmouth-, shire had promised that this bill should not be proceeded with without previous inquiry; but what new information had been laid before the House on the subject? None, positively none. The noble Lord wanted to renew the powers of the commissioners, on the ground of public advantage. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether he would consent to postpone the bringing up of the report to that day fortnight?

could not subscribe to the opinions of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard and of the hon. Member for Finsbury with regard to leaving the members of the Government to take their chance with other Members; but he announced that it was not his intention to bring up the report until that day fortnight.

said, that he would reserve whatever observations he had to make on the bill until the report was brought up.

rose for the purpose of moving his amendment. The hon. Member stated, that if he should succeed in inducing the House to adopt his amendment, it was not his intention to offer any further opposition to the progress of the bill. He objected to the clause appointing barristers to the office of commissioners of lunatic asylums. What could be more absurd than to select members of the legal profession to sit in judgment on cases of mental derangement? Was not insanity invariably associated with bodily disease? The investigation in which the commissioners would be involved would be purely of a medical character, and therefore the barristers, if they were appointed, would be incompetent to perform the duties which would devolve upon them. Supposing barristers were appointed, what would they have to do? Their principal duty would be to ascertain whether the lunatics were subjected to proper medical treatment. That was the main object which the commissioners ought to keep in view. Was not the noble Lord aware that the selec- tion of a competent medical man to fill such an office as that of commissioner would have a most beneficial effect on the conduct of those physicians and surgeons officially connected with establishments set apart for the reception and treatment of the insane? If medical men were appointed, important tabular statements would be drawn up relating to this class of affections, and much valuable light would be thrown on the nature and treatment of insanity. He complained of the disposition which existed in that House to fill up every appointment to which emolument was attached by a barrister, Whether it was to be attributed to the fact of all bills being drawn up by barristers or not he did not know, but the disposition was evident. That they were unfit was shown by the total failure of the Metropolitan Commission, in which they predominated; he would therefore move that the words "Barrister Commissioners" be omitted, and the words "Medical Commissioners" be inserted. He had intended to move for the appointment of only one medical commissioner, but as the noble Lord proposed that the commissioners should act separately, he felt it his duty to propose that both should belong to the medical profession.

could assure the hon. Member that nothing was further from his intention than to cast any slur upon the medical profession. All that he wanted was, that the provisions of the law should be carried out, and that he thought would be better done by gentlemen of the profession of the law than by medical men. The inquiry to be made by the commissioners was not as to the medical treatment of the patient, but whether he was treated properly and with kindness; and with respect to such inquiries a barrister could make as sufficient an investigation as any medical man. Besides, he thought that the appointment of legal gentlemen would be more acceptable to the gentlemen who were attending asylums; they would not like to be interfered with by gentlemen belonging to their own profession. He proposed that the legal commissioner should have the assistance of medical men when he considered it necessary to obtain their advice. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wakley) had suggested that a medical commissioner should be associated with a legal commissioner; but he thought it would be difficult to obtain the services of competent medical men to act as commissioners, for they could not offer sufficient remuneration to a medical gentleman in full practice to induce him to spend half his time in the country in visiting asylums. He had brought in this bill in consequence of communications with the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and he believed, if it was adopted, it would afford means of obtaining a mass of information which might lead to the establishment of a better mode of supervision than now existed.

thought it advisable that the commissioners should be members of the medical rather than of the legal profession. Strong representations had been made to him by a medical gentleman who was the proprietor of a lunatic asylum in the borough which he represented, complaining of the inquisitorial system which would be established by this bill, and objecting to the appointment of barristers as commissioners. He hoped that his noble Friend (Lord G. Somerset) would reconsider some of the more stringent provisions of the measure. He was glad that the noble Lord proposed to give the legal commissioner the power, when he deemed such a course necessary, of obtaining the assistance of the physicians appointed by courts of quarter sessions as inspectors of lunatic asylums.

thought, that the duty of inspecting lunatic asylums, which was far from an agreeable task, should be taken out of the hands of magistrates, and committed to two commissioners — the one a barrister, and the other a medical man.

proposed to strike out the clause, preventing barristers from calling in the aid of medical men, in order that in particular cases they might avail themselves of the advice of the medical visitors appointed by the quarter sessions.

said, he had had a practical demonstration of the truth of phrenology. He knew before he had commenced his observations, that he should not convince the noble Lord. The noble Lord had opposed his propositions with the most persevering pertinacity. He would now suggest, that the profession of the commissioners should not be stated in the bill, but that the responsibility of the appointment of a medical man or a barrister should rest with the Lord Chancellor, There would be no difficulty in getting competent medical men for this investigation any more than there would be in getting competent men of the legal profession. The hon. Member concluded by moving an amendment, to the effect that two of the commissioners to be appointed should not have their profession stated, but that their appointment should be left to the Lord Chancellor.

thought, medical men educated as to the diseases of the human mind more fit for such an appointment than men educated in mere legal technicalities. He should oppose the proposition that it be left to the Lord Chancellor to choose whom he might appoint, as his predilections would most likely be in favour of his own profession.

was opposed to the appointment of exclusively legal gentlemen.

said, whatever might be the opinions of the hon. Member opposite as to his phrenological conformation, he should oppose the proposition to leave the responsibility of the choice of the professions of the commissioners to the Lord Chancellor. He had no objection to take the proposition of the hon. Member into consideration, but he would rather the House would at once decide the question than throw this responsibility on the Lord Chancellor.

meant to persist in his amendment.

said, he should distrust the fitness of a legal commission. He would much rather see one legal and one medical commissioner. On a visit to the Wakefield Lunatic Asylum, he had felt convinced of the sanity of a lunatic on conversation with him, who, it afterwards turned out, was the most violent of the patients.

was of opinion, that Members of the legal profession were the least qualified persons to be on the commission.

thought, that medical men were not so fit from their prejudices. He had heard a doctor swear, that all mankind were mad. They wanted the experience and knowledge of the other profession to investigate the truth of the facts under which a lunatic was confined. He wished to see the two professions combined, in order to arrive at a just result in such an inquiry.

hereupon said, he hardly knew what course to adopt now, as he knew not whether the intention of the House was to favour the medical or the legal authority.

said, he had no doubt whatever as to the perfect practicability of carrying out beneficially the principle which the House, he was glad to say, had affirmed. Perhaps it would be well, for the present, to postpone the further consideration of the measure.

said, he thought this clause would prevent elegant extracts being put into school-books; he wished to know what effect this clause would have with respect to the existing law, which was at present very stringent; but stringent though it was, it was believed that the proposed clause would be much more so.

did not see any reason for this apprehension. The clause allowed extracts for purposes of "criticism," "judgment," or "argument." Now, in all cases of injunction, the equity judge had to decide how far the extracts were injurious to the book, and if they were merely bonâ fide for such purposes as these, they would come within the exceptions of the clause, exceptions which would undoubtedly include selections for school-books; whereas, were the words "or school-books" specially introduced, under the cover of that language whole works would be republished.

opposed the clause. It appeared to him, that the effect of passing this clause would be, that the large class of books on important subjects which, from their cheapness, were accessible to the public, would no longer be placed within their reach. It was, in his opinion, entirely inconsistent with the public interest that this clause should be agreed to.

said, it was desired by the clause to re-enact the existing law with reference to extracts. It was quite evident, that any extracts for criticism, observation, or argument would not come within the law as it at present stood; but it was necessary to adopt some measure for the prevention of the artifices which are constantly resorted to in order to profit by extracts from popular works. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Godson) had stated to the House what the existing law was; they were all agreed that the proposed law should not be less forcible as a protection to copyright than the existing one, and it was only proposed to re-enact by this clause that which is already in operation in reference to the publication of extracts.

explained, that the clause as framed was a strict definition of what would be piracy, and therefore ought to be preserved as part of the bill.

was of opinion, the clause would have a most injurious effect, inasmuch as it would prevent the publication of extracts from the most useful works, and which appeared in such publications as Chambers's Journal and the Mirror— works which found their way into almost every cottage.

contended that no jury would find such extracts as appeared in the Mirror or Chambers's Journal to be injurious to the author; but, on the other hand, if more lengthy extracts were made would the House leave the author without a remedy?

thought the clause would be an impediment to the general diffusion of literature through works with which all were familiar, and which contributed so much to the celebrity of the authors quoted.

said, that by that clause any of the judges either of the courts of equity or common law would be empowered to grant injunctions in cases of piracy. He would beg to ask whether such a proposition was not a new feature rather than a re-enactment of the law of copyright?

believed the power of granting injunctions was at the present time possessed by all the common law judges, though certainly such power was not exercised. He thought that there were many reasons why the power should exist, but, of course, it would be for the Lord Chancellor to propose an alteration of the clause, if be pleased, when the bill came under the consideration of the House of Lords.

said, that the plaintiff ought to be prevented from going to the Court of Chancery at all, and be compelled at once to go to the Common Law Courts.

said, that now if a plaintiff went into the Chancery court he would get his injunction, but he would get no damages, and the object of the present clause was to enable him to get both his injunction and his damages in the same court. But if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Finsbury were adopted, a man would be compelled to sue for damages. It would prevent him from being satisfied with the injunction.

thought, that the gift to the Common Law Courts of so large a power for the first time ought not to be granted without mature consideration.

for his own part, concurred in opinion with his hon. Friend (Mr. Godson), but as the new power given to the Common Law Courts was so strongly opposed by hon. Members who had given him their support throughout, he felt bound to consent to the omission of the Courts of Common Law.

suggested that a middle course between the two parties might be adopted by giving the power to the Common Law Courts only when the proceedings in the case had once been attached to such courts, and they had already gained jurisdiction.

supported the suggestion.

advised the postponement of the clause.

thought, after all the discussion, that it would be better to omit the clause for the present, and in bringing up the report it could again be introduced.

thought that a clause ought to be inserted under which coffee-houses should be compelled to close at a certain hour of the night.

hoped that a clause so inconvenient to the working classes would not be agreed to.

said, that as the bill at present stood, it contained many objectionable clauses; but, as he understood that these clauses were to be corrected, he did not feel it his duty now to oppose it.

moved the second reading of the Barristers (Ireland) Bill. He stated that what he particularly desired to attain by it was, that the Irish law students should not be compelled, as they were at present to come to London for the purpose of qualifying themselves to be called to the Irish bar. There was, he believed, a time when such a regulation was necessary, but that time had passed. Irish lawyers were considered of equal authority with English lawyers, and the student had such means of obtaining a knowledge of his profession in Dublin, that it was unnecessary for him to come to London.

who disclaimed all personal discourtesy to the hon. Baronet, felt bound to oppose the bill. The benefits derived by Irish students from their attendance in London were incalculable, and so they themselves thought, for he had received from the secretary of their body, Mr. Pigott, the son of the late Attorney-general, a letter expressing, on the part of nearly the whole body, their opposition to the bill. This question was not new. It had been canvassed by the Irish Judges, and decided by them in favour of the present system. Rather than the proposition of the hon. Baronet—by which Irish students were not compelled to come to London, he would compel English students to go to Dublin. Besides there were other clauses in the present bill most objectionable. The first was, that all gentlemen qualified to be called to the English bar should be entitled to a call at the Irish Bar. Now this, was not fair unless they allowed the Irish to practise at the English bar. It was not "justice to Ireland." On the whole, he felt it was not his duty to move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.